< October 14	October 16 >

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template, redundant to ((Chinese)). Previous TfD ended in no concensus; however, all transclusions have since been replaced without complaint, and this template is no longer used in any articles, while the similar and equally redundant ((Koreanname Chinesename)) has also been deleted. — PC78 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and superseded. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 section.

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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. Mike Peel 22:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, see below. Melsaran (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not true. Being bold is encouraged, even when updating policy pages (else we'd protect all of those indefinitely). Not every edit that changes the meaning of the text has to be discussed first, and this template implies that appropriate and justified changes to policy may be reverted because they haven't been discussed beforehand even when nobody actually disagrees with them (which is process wonkery). If you disagree with someone's edit to a policy, then you can revert it and post something on their talk page like "Hi, I reverted your change to Policy X, because it has been discussed before and I don't think there's a consensus for it: ...", you don't need a warning template for that. Melsaran (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We assume the exercise of discretion in the use of the template. The language of templates isn't to be interpreted as policy; this template is not to be used in conjunction of with a reversion of "appropriate and justified changes to policy". The template is useful, however, in responding to a situation in which an inexperienced user makes a good-faith but clearly inappropriate and disruptive edit to a policy page. Rather than violating WP:BITE by initially stating "your edit was clearly inappropriate and disruptive", this template employs a milder tone to ask that the offending user discuss their proposed edit before reinstating it -- which would, of course, demonstrate a clear consensus against an inappropriate policy modification. John254 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case (if it is aimed at newbies who make obviously inappropriate changes to policy that were not necessarily in bad faith), it may be better to word it something like "Welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your views on improving Wikipedia, it is generally recommended that you try to find a consensus on the talk page before making drastic changes to official policy pages (...)". Such a template could have a valid use, much like existing "single-issue user warning" templates. However, saying that "Removing or altering part of policy so that the meaning of the page is changed is inappropriate" is contrary to WP:BOLD and absolutely not consistent with out practices. Thoughts? Melsaran (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it might be advisable to rewrite the template. John254 03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have softened the tone. It will still stand considerable improvement. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16 15 October 2007 (GMT).
      - I have tweaked it some more, I think it is fine now. Nomination withdrawn. Perhaps it could be renamed to ((uw-policy)) and added to the collection of single-issue warnings. Melsaran (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the language of template:comment4, if interpreted as policy, might imply that ordinary WP:NPOV violations are to be treated as vandalism, through immediate reversion, stern warnings to the offending editors, followed by summary blocking if the offending editors persist. This clearly isn't the case, however; as a result, template:comment4 shouldn't be used in any situation that is actually a content dispute. Nonetheless, the template is useful for responding to WP:NPOV violations so severe that they actually are treated as vandalism, such as this edit, where the template conveys a more precise message than general-purpose vandalism warnings. John254 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 section.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why we need these, as we can just use uw-v1 and the others. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary warningtemplatecruft, if a vandal vandalises then the vandal vandalises and the vandal may be awarded a ((uw-vandal)) template, it doesn't matter whether the vandal vandalised with the undo button or manually. Melsaran (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John254 02:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being unusable and not supported by policy. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is unneeded when we have ((uw-v1))-series. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 21:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 section.

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 keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that I hope I never see in an article ;) It's not even accurate - he's crying instead of just frowning. At the very least it should be moved to (()':)). Rocket000 14:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Update: The templates have changed. Please see Stux's comment below. Rocket000 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete! - Absolutely no point at all. Definitely unusable in an article on namespace, and isn't the image link enough for talk pages/user pages? --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)}_'NUCKS:3-2-0 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the template's creator, and this template is meant exclusively for use as a typing aid in talk pages. Including the image I created (((:)) and ((;))) which have been ((Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:%3B%29|used)) rather ((Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:%28:|frequently)) ((: and ): are meant to replace :) and :( which were non-functional nor accessible). Why this one hasn't been used yet is beyond me, however the fact that it is a crying emotion and not frowning may be a big reason. I do agree that it should be moved to (()':)) and a better image found. At the time I had not found what I thought was an appropriate frown, so I made it cry. I will see if a better image is available and will likely make the appropriate change(s) soon. I hope this doesn't mess with the TfD... much ;) Also, I really do think that even though it hasn't been used yet, keeping the template as a useful option (since i'm sure it will eventually get used) would be a good idea, given that the other similar templates have been used. --Stux 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- update: I have modified the template and created a new one as suggested. --Stux 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment for some reason the template was speedily deleted for trite and trivial reasons before the TfD could be evaluated. I am disappointed at the person who claimed this was a test page and patent nonsense but more so upset at the administrator who blindly hit the delete button. If any of you reading this is an administrator, I would like to request that you look into this and consider undeleting the template until the TfD has come full force. I did not even have the chance to put a ((hang on)) template. In the meantime I will try to go through the appropriate bureaucratic channels. Thank you! --Stux 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I nominated it for speedy deletion. Content was not at the time an image, but was in fact a string of text relating to "Spencer Smith", an "American gangsta and professional playa". I'm sorry for the inconvienience this has caused, but I think the response I recieved on my talk page was rude, at best. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this template was obviously not meant to be used in mainspace, so judging its usefulness by that standard is necessarily fruitless. Gracenotes^T § 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was kinda a joke (see the ;) ). I wasn't judging it's usefulness based on what namespace it goes in, that wouldn't make sense. I was basing it's usefulness on it's use, which is none. Rocket000 14:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zomgz frivolous nom! Speedy keep!!!!11!!11!!1! Er, thank you for your clarification there. I personally prefer text emoticons to images, but then again, I also prefer wikitext to WYSIWYG user interfaces (which may cause you to question the normality of my preferences). It seems acceptable to use ":(" around Wikipedia; however, the very similar smiley images remind some people of AIM and internet forums, which verisimilarly is Bad. Very precarious issue here. I think I'll register a strong neutral. Gracenotes^T § 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a worthless template, delete it. There's no need to be messing around with smiley faces when there is an encyclopedia to be worked on. -- John Reaves 04:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template could be useful to people when communicating on talk pages. WacoJacko 09:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... I kinda like it. :) --Kralizec! (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not need a specific template for this purpose, I believe.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 section.

October 15

Template:Chinesename Koreanname

Template:Policyalteration

Undo vandal templates

Template:):