Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dave1185 (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 3 October 2011 (commented). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 2 October 4 >

October 3

Template:Facepalm

Template:Facepalm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to our article Facepalm, this is "an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, disgust, shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived idiocy."

This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use in self-deprecation, overwhelmingly it is used as a shorthand put-down (=incivility) implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution self-evidently moronic.

Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete {{jackass}} or Template:Moron. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't be giving them shortcuts to do so. If there are "good uses", it isn't so hard to type it. It is also an idiom, which in a multi-cultural encyclopedia does not aid communicaiton.

The existence of the template simply serves to legitimise dismissive discourses. The fact that people see no harm in this shows how much we've grown to tolerate ingrained incivility. There is simply no excuse for this.Scott Mac 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I said at the DRV: It may seem like this template fails on the civility front, but the concept of facepalming is well known to be a funny reaction to something stupid (we can't deny stupid things do go on, right?) and so long as the use of the facepalm template are done within the context of a pre-established consensual relationship between friends, I don't see what the problem is. Imagine: an admin I know in real life (from our monthly London pub meetups) does something stupid, and so I go to his talk page and leave a facepalm. Just like we do with {{Trout}}. If people use it to bite the newbies then discipline them for doing that, but don't take fun away from established users because it might be abused. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Argument for deletion is illogical. Most often its used as intended during normal discourse between editors as an expression of embarassment at one's own screw ups. If it is used uncivilly, thats a violation of WP:CIVIL. We don't delete material on the grounds someone might use it sarcastically, I'm often tempted to send a "Surreal Barnstar" in moments of wikistress. If its the potential for use in a sarcastic manner, then are you going to delete wikilove as well? Also twice in one day, someone needs a hug. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my earlier comments, the presumption it will be used for uncivil remarks does rather fly in the face of WP:AGF does it not? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the face of it I'd say "yes, kill it", but Wee Curry Monster asserts above it's usually used in good humour. Do we have a rough count of usage and context? If it is being used abusively more than not, that would be a strong argument to take it away IMO - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Facepalm Facepalm Silly nomination, it's mostly harmles, and people offended by this need an exercise in skin-thickening. When you view it in context of usage, its really only a more pointed version of the famout Wikipedia in-house meme, the Troutslap. Btw, I assume you linked to Template:Jackass above believing it'd be a redlink, but you're hitting on the template for Jackass (TV series). :) Tarc (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with snowfall. Any template could be used "to legitimise dismissive discourses", it's just that this one was decided to be an acceptable target. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable, not a job, and self-mocking is part of the enjoyment. When we do something stupid, are we not allowed to facepalm at ourselves because somebody, somewhere, might be offended by it? And as WCM notes, assuming that a template is only good for being uncivil is assuming bad faith on the part of we, the editors. Also, the fact that other presumed templates (of a notably more disruptive nature than a mere facepalm) would be deleted is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20111 sandbox

Template:20111 sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of one of Eu-151's various MADEUP group tables for a tournament which hasn't happened yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shaan Muzigle profile

Template:Shaan Muzigle profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generic name and unlikely to be used much at all anyway even if it had better name. More likely just linkspam by uploader. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Songs performed

Template:Songs performed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generic name and unlikely to be used much at all anyway even if it had better name. More likely just linkspam by uploader. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bucharest metro stations

Template:Bucharest metro stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, only a few transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only a few? That means the template is in use all 45 metro station articles in the Bucharest Metro system. What is your suggestion? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simmons Family

Template:Simmons Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four members, one of which doesn't have an article. And why is Kiss linked in this...? Each of these individuals is going to be easily linked between each other article, so navigating them is not really an issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come to think of it, the template really isn't necessary. The links are closely related anyways, and it's not like the family consists of 20 members or some number like that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contrary to (possibly) popular opinion, they have no relationship between each other (of course, this is not counting the fact that they are biologically and familially related)Curb Chain (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 MLB Playoffs by series

Template:2011 MLB Playoffs by series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, made without any consultation with WP:BASEBALL, is redundant to {{2011 MLB Playoffs navbox}}, and otherwise contains info not appropriate for template space. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Due to redundancy, but I am afraid of the precedent that navboxes shouldn't be created without consultation with relevant WikiProjects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Presents information more suited for articles than a navigation box. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3&oldid=453727472"