Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiFun Police/Warning Templates

 __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 delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiFun Police/Warning Templates


Same reason that I nominated all the HW templates. See Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 7. ...Dynamic&#124;cimanyD... (talk&#124;klat) ☺ 02:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete puerile; immature; childish; condescending04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Chain (talk • contribs)
 * Delete This kind of "fun" in just not nice. See my comments at TFD. J IM ptalk·cont 07:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Childish.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 09:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is a good idea, but these particular templates shouldn't ever be used.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - not much fun. -- Klein zach  02:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as contrary to policy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * against the grain keep nowhere in wikipedia policy does it say we have to have one official version of a message for vandals and we are not allowed to deviate from it. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone is free to say something other than the WP:WARN templates, or even to say nothing at all to vandals, but if a user typed out one of these messages onto a vandal's talkpage, they would probably get accused of biting in a hurry. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unpersuaded by all of the above.  I don't find them confusing, condescending or contrary to any policy.  I do see the little humour, and cannot understand why others do not.  Each seems appropriate for the intended level of warning to a vandal.  Perhaps some feel that there is absolutely no level of humour associated with vandalism.  However, a common entry route to becoming a serious Wikipedian begins with vandalism that can be euphamised as "testing".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * see WP:DON'T FEED THE TROLLSCurb Chain (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is using this template can encourage users to vandalize more.Curb Chain (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per SmokeyJoe. I reckon these templates are less bitey than the standard ones. --Surturz (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And more humanistic, more personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And less likely to make a vandal stop vandalizing, which is the main purpose of the warning templates. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this isn't what an encyclopedia is used for.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete these templates as harmful. One template states (File:Eraser wedge.jpg): "Grrr! My eraser continues to wear down as you make those unconstructive changes". Another (with Image:Face-crying.svg) says: "Okay pal, we've all had a laugh, but like your mum said, it's all going to end in tears. Anymore of what you did at Article and we take away the toys." Condescending and puerile, these templates are unlikely to dissuade vandalism. They are highly unlikely to encourage new editors to cease vandalizing. They encourage users to continue vandalizing through goading ("like your mum said, it's all going to end in tears"). Owing to the template's juvenile and biting nature, I doubt that a new user who had received one of these templates will become a regular editor. A new user who is incorrectly accused of vandalism and mistakenly given one of the generic, bland warning templates would feel insulted. If a new user is incorrectly given one of the WikiFun Police warning templates, she would be completely offput. She would wonder whether Wikipedia was a serious encyclopedia project or whether it was a place for games and insults. Would an architect, an English professor, or a history secondary school teacher edit Wikipedia after being mistakenly given one of these templates? I think not. Because these templates are harmful, they should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the nominator's link to the TfD discussion so that it will be durable. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should have done that in the first place. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – These templates are unprofessional, and should not be used over the standard UW templates. — mc10 ( t / c ) 04:56, 14 September 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.