Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:50, 25 December 2007

Revision as of 06:50, 2 January 2008

Line 664:

:[[Template:minor]] is the old (pre-uw) version. My understanding is that some people prefer the older versions, though I'm not sure how strong that sentiment still is. There's really no need to merge. I'd personally support a redirect, though I'm biased in that I like the uw system.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

== Uw-delete2 vs [[WP:V]]. ==

Can we change "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia." to "Please do not delete [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]] content from pages on Wikipedia."? [[WP:V]] and all that. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2007-12-01[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]22:20z

: '''Done.'''[[User:Ngchen|Ngchen]] 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not convinced this is a good change. We don't want people deleting any large chunks of content without explanation. If they are deleting the content because it's unsourced and they think it's incorrect, that's fine, but we still want them to explain this in the edit summary. Otherwise it just looks like vandalism. Even unsourced content (assuming it's correct) has value to the project, and we don't want people deleting it.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Then would "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without [[Help:Edit summary|explaining why]]" work better? --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes - that's a definite improvement, in my opinion.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:I've re-tweaked {{tl|uw-delete2}} along the lines suggested by Damian Yerrick. Anyone have concerns with this version?--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

::[[WP:RS]] needs to be in there - this template is being used to give warnings for deleting [[WP:V|unsourced]] fancruft. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2007-12-02[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]19:28z

:::I don't see a problem here. If you want to remove unverifiable fancruft, then say so in the edit summary. --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

::::My preference is to ''not'' add an explicit mention of [[WP:RS]] to the template. While we all know from the official [[WP:VER|verifiability]] policy that "any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed," I fear that this change would have a chilling effect on both the usage of the template and reverts of un-explained deletions. This is largely because less-experienced editors may incorrectly presume that {{tl|uw-delete2}} is ''only'' good for cases where sourced material was removed, and as ''Kubigula'' indicated, unsourced content (I prefer to call it "not-yet sourced") does have value to the project. Leaving WP:RS off the template gives us a lot of flexibility while still effectively getting the point across to the content-deleting editor. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

::::: That wording just doesnt work at all. What if an editor gives a completely invalid reason for removing something? It's just going to make people think 'as long as i give a reason i can remove what a like' --[[User:Neon white|Neon white]] ([[User talk:Neon white|talk]]) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::: If a user has started giving obviously invalid reasons for removing content in the edit summary, you can use a template related to the reasons or, better yet, explain to the user [[WP:DTTR|in your own words]] why the reasons are invalid. --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) And if you must use a template, try {{tls|uw-wrongsummary}}. --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

:We should take the opportunity with this template to warn deleters against following up with bogus edit summaries. Phrasing in that first sentence would be better as "... without providing a meaningful explanation of the reason for the removal in the edit summary." {{tls|uw-wrongsummary}} is useful, but it lacks escalating levels of warning. A progressive 1-2-3-4-im warning system supports effective countervandalism. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

::If "deleters" and other malicious editors do make up false edit summaries, it would probably be better to simply use the generic warnings for vandalism or blanking or whatever they hid under the false edit summary. We don't need a progressive warning system for every single warning we have. --[[User:Hdt83|<font color="336611" ><b><i>Hdt<font color="blue" >83</font></i></b></font>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|^{<font color="brown" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font>}]] 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

== uw-joke[1-2] ==

On {{t1|uw-joke1}} it might be an idea to add a reference to [[uncyclopedia:Main Page|Uncyclopedia]] to these to help distract vandals and give them a place where their edits actually might be perceived as productive. It's not part of the Wikimedia non-profit project, but since it's Wikia, I figure it's close enough since it's Jimbo's brainchild and they're one of our largest supporters

I reason that it might help reduce the [[WP:BEANS]] effect and make the best of the situation, since it gives involves [[Ipsative|a perceived choice]] on the part of the vandal: either his joke instantaneously gets deleted and he gets more cold warnings and a block, or it gets read by a bunch of people, laughed at with applause, and maybe even featured on their main page. :P The latter choice is likely what the vandal was after in the first place anyway (per [[WP:DENY]] and [[WP:BJAODN]]); so, if we give them the option of getting exactly what they wanted, they might be less inclined to persist in their vandalism. Any thoughts? --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small>^{\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/}</small> 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:At the risk of sounding like one of those old-timers who dredges up old conversations, we did have a discussion on this point earlier this year. Joke1 used to include a link to BJOADN, then Uncyclopedia, but there were valid objections to both. The archived discussion (under uw-joke1) is at[[Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 7#All uw- templates are now redirected here]].--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)