Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.--Wizardman 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Usrd1

This TFD also includes Usrd2.-Meant as warning templates, but not even used (check what links here). Warning is on too specific of a subject, and basically says that the Wikiprojects guidelines are the laws of the land. A standardized warning is available at WP:UTM. Also consider moving to the Wikiprojects subpage. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete because the page linked to doesn't even specify what would possibly be wrong with the edits. I'd be confused if this were left on my talk page. Nardman1 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete {{usrd2}}, no opinion on {{usrd1}}. {{usrd2}} claims that edits that don't conform to a WikiProject guideline is automatically vandalism, which it just plain isn't. {{usrd1}} has a useful purpose, but needs some work to clarify what that purpose is. -- NORTH ^talk 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both. Warnings for violating what a Wikiproject says to do are a terrible, terrible, idea. And the first one is worded so incredibly poorly that it could concievably be used against anyone who tries to nominate a road article for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I laughed when I saw {{Usrd1}}. I would suggest BJAODN, but doubt that others would feel the same way. (No idea if this makes me a bad person or not.) I'm sure they were made in good faith, but not complying with a WikiProject is not a reason to revert, as the former implies, and certainly not vandalism, as the latter does. Gracenotes^T § 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we have too many users at the project making non-compliant edits. There are more than 5900 articles that are not at standards, and yet, people make incompliant edits when the project is in a stage where compliant edits are needed badly! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 01:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I would probably have no qualms keeping the first if 1. it were moved or recreated in a subpage of the wikiproject; 2. if it were made into a notice that certain standards exist in order to achieve compliance, rather than having the focus on the user that has received the template. It currently sounds like a warning template. Gracenotes^T § 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Please keep it out of CAT:UW also. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This was created to politely tell users (many of whom are resistant to the WP standards) that they are violating them. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... politely ... ? Gracenotes^T § 02:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- As politely as other warning messages do their job. Better than "Please stop making those dumb edits. Read WP:USRD, you moron." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Indeed. However, this is not a Wikipedia Standard with a capital S; it's the standard of a wikiproject. Reverting edits because they do not comply with obscure standards, rather than improving them, I consider harmful. Furthermore, how is not following said standards vandalism? That's assuming good faith? Gracenotes^T § 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    - This is about users removing infoboxes, making an absolute mess of the article that doesn't even follow WP:MOS, ignoring HTML comments explicitly stating ONLY 5-10 JUNCTIONS, etc. These are users who are flouting the standards. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Yeah, but those (with the possible exception of the junctions) all fall under common sense that don't need a specific USRD message. -- NORTH ^talk 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Edit-conflict seconding Northenglish, use {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-mos2}}, and {{uw-mos3}}. No need to get specific with USRD, and if there is, put it on a project page, not in the template namespace (assuming that the message is civil and encourages boldness). Gracenotes^T § 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete from template space per above. Instead, consider creating a template with a similar purpose as a subpage of the WikiProject for easy substitution into user talk pages that explains in more detail to the user why the convention at WP:USRD should be considered before making further edits that contradict them while assuming good faith - just don't do it in a run-on sentence like this one. –Pomte 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and would prefer that they not be recreated in project space. Contributions made in good faith that do not conform to the MoS are not vandalism, defined as contributions made in bad faith, because they are good faith contributions. These templates and any messages of the like kind of ignore that simple fact. --Iamunknown 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment These have been used; they are substed like any other warning template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Good faith edits are not vandalism (WP:VAND: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia") and users should not be warned for trying to improve an article. If these are being used to notify users "whom are resistant to the WP standards", then perhaps the standards should be reviewed and their views taken into account, rather than telling them to stop because you don't agree. Template 'warnings' should not be used in content disputes. The templates also indicate to me that edits may have been reverted without a descriptive edit summary as to why they have been reverted, providing the user with no information as to which 'standard' they have not conformed to. matt br 09:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Usrd2, Weak Keep Usrd1. Usrd2 does not assume good faith, and if an edit is vandalism, then a template citing WP:Vandalism should be used, rather than one citing a WikiProject's guidelines. I can see a purpose in having Usrd1, however, I think a better and more helpful approach would be to explain why it was reverted to the user that made the reverted edit. --HowardSF-U-T-C- 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Project guidelines are not policy. If this is useful for people move it to userspace, but even then we shouldn't infer that they are vandalizing. These fail to assume good faith. - cohesion 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both, however if someone wants to recreate the first with better wording I wouldn't object. The premise is ok on the first but the execution needs work. The second violates WP:AGF.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
A reluctant delete for the reasons above. As voiced above, there are numerous editors who make incompliant edits; however, I don't mean "trivial" (well, trivial to editors who don't specialize in roads) things like, say, too many junctions in an infobox or one city too many in a list of major cities. What I'm concerned about are primarily major issues such as WP:MOS violations or not following the structure outlined by the WikiProject. Before anyone jumps on me for uttering the last sentence, keep this in mind: the structure exists to improve the articles. If the structure hindered the articles, would anyone use it? No, it would be changed so that it was no longer a hindrance. That said, these can probably be covered by the generic warning templates, which I would probably use out of habit anyway over these templates. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)