Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trifecta

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

The result of the discussion was  Keep. There's clearly no support for deletion here, and debates about the exact wording of the page should take place at Wikipedia talk:Trifecta rather than MFD. --RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Trifecta
On the basis of it being pretty much incorrect these days. The trifecta is not WP:NPOV, WP:DICK, and WP:IAR. Go ahead and check which three policies are linked the most. It's not those. I tried to mark the thing historical, but now I think it may be so misleading for new editors that it should probably be dustbinned. jps (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The trifecta is still a good (if coarse) guideline for editing wikipedia.  In some ways it's better than more conventional policy which (pardon my language) suffers from an excess of wikilawyering dicks.  I don't know what brought this MfD action on, but it is clearly misguided.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V and WP:RS are far more valuable than WP:DICK and WP:IAR. jps (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. DICK is an assumed prerequisite for V and RS (you and I have both seen enough people being dickishly persistent in trying inflate some weak, misquoted reference into a major scholarly perspective) and IAR is in some cases the best and only tool for cutting through endless streams of crap.  I swear, if everyone on project abided by DICK we'd cut talk-page conflicts down by a factor of 10 and ANI type reports down by a factor of 30.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I see no reason whatsoever to delete this. It's a page that presents in its own words three basic characteristics [that] suggest three guiding principles for editors: be neutral, don't be a jerk, don't allow a rule to be a straitjacket that prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. It has something like 4–500 links that span namespaces, indicative of its being relied on as a effective helpful resource for some five years. It doesn't claim to list the core content policies or mirror the simplified ruleset page or anything else. In my view it's effective, pithy, plus it doesn't overwhelm newer users. I don't think it's obsolete, wrong or misleading to stress the importance of neutrality, citing sources, and sensible and collegial interaction, as this page does. –Whitehorse1 00:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on condition that it's not marked as having any kind of high authority and that the offensive "dick" meme is eliminated from it. There are many ways of expressing the same ideas without using terminology that at least some potential contributors are going to find repulsive (or be misled into thinking that it's the sort of language it's OK to bandy about around here).--Kotniski (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep with dick intact - I'm getting a bit nauseated by some of the minor but extremely vocal anti-dick crusades lately. This particular essay gets the point across quite nicely. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And doesn't need to use the word "dick" to do it, right? I don't know what country you're from - maybe the word doesn't have any offensive connotations there - but certainly in Britain (and as I understand it, even more so in the US) it's off the scale - it's just not an acceptable thing to call someone, and its use in what's supposed to be a serious exposition of this project's principles is going to offend many people. Whatever it is you want to convey by describing certain people or behaviour as "dickish" can be conveyed using other more acceptable, and objective, vocabulary. --Kotniski (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters, but I'm from the land that loves freedom, particularly the part that isn't so goddamned hung up about nicey-nice, politically correct, milquetoast language. Seems I've had to say this in several venues lately, but IMO if someone is truly, positively, unequivocally being a dick, then they deserve to be called a dick.  Yes the essay is coarse; it is meant to be a coarse reminder to behave yourself, here or in any other social space. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So let's do the reminder, but without the coarseness, OK? It's self-defeating to try to persuade people to be civil in a way that is itself uncivil.--Kotniski (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer coarseness; it is a lot more honest than other types that tend to get away with murder around here. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, we are beginning to understand by now that you prefer coarseness, but Wikipedia as a whole doesn't, and even you should see that by sanctioning bad language we are potentially discouraging good, serious-minded editors from joining the project. Hopefully no-one of great value would be deterred from the project by the absence of bad language in its documentation pages, even if they personally don't mind such language.--Kotniski (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of coarse or profane language is not in itself incivil though, and you do not speak for the community as a whole, which has in the past rejected attempts to delete WP:DICK, WP:GIANTDICK, among others. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vulgarity closed as no consensus, though it was eventually just redirected to WP:CIVIL  Tarc (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the community as a whole has better things to be doing than engaging in such discussions. But of course coarse language is uncivil if it's directed at a particular person ("you're acting like a dick"), and it's this type of use that we've seen (in practice) that these essays encourage. Everything you can say using strong language can just as easily be said using normal, civil language - and then no-one can turn things around by accusing you of being the troublemaker.--Kotniski (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be uncivil, but isn't automatically so. And as I always have done, if someone is truly being a dick, then I will call them out for being a dick.  Simple as that.  As there does not appear to be much chance that this will be deleted, unwatching & moving on... Tarc (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment- I'm not sure if Trifecta needs to be accurate. It says "This page is not a policy, guideline, or any other official sort of thing, but it is plain good common sense". The real rules are at Five pillars. NotARealWord (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep intact I don't see anything wrong with this page. It's helpful and accurate, regardless of the language. Also per Tarc.  Them  From  Space  15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.