Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

Template:Edit ninjas

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 section.

The result of the discussion was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit ninjas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now, really, "edit ninjas"? This template links to an essay as its main link and is accompanied by that strange image of a painted ninja. Plus, it is only used on a single article. Other templates exist which perform this template's function in a more sensible and mature manner. This is OK for the Wikipedia namespace, but not in encyclopedic articles. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - These are not reasons for deletion. It has not been adopted by other articles because it is new (so of course it doesn't have a lot of use!), but its creation was announced in the proper talk page and the template itself has a talk page to address issues of wording and layout - nominating for deletion before even raising the concerns otherwise seems premature. I searched for other templates that perfom a similar function before creating this template, and I didn't find it, I ask nominator to point at them (or at least to a few). What is so wrong about a sense of humor?: while the issue is certainly serious and warrants deliberate community attention, we are in no way obligated (and in my opinion shouldn't) have to have a serious and mighty tone when addressing recurring behavioral issues that impede the development of a quality article, which is the sole goal of the template. The only people that should be offended by this template are the "edit ninjas" themselves, and that is a Good Thing. I have cretaed a couple of templates and all are well used and recieved - including one used in over 500 articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- To me, the description of 'edit ninjas' sounds like a cross between common vandals and edit warriors - both of which we have templates for. I would be happy with a major rewrite of this template, including a rename, since humour is not supposed to be used in article space - that is for serious articles. I can't think of another name for edit ninjas, but there must be one if you think hard enough. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, it is a combo of vandal and warrior: a ninja is a "warrior specially trained in a variety of unorthodox arts of war". I do not find the description of an editor as an "edit ninja" anymore less serious than that of an "edit warrior": "edit ninja" simply refers to an unorthodox or unusual method of edit warring. The essay is indeed lighthearted and humorous, but addresses serious issues with appropriate seriousness. Other than this, what other elements would you change? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BRD misuse is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and should not really be linked to from article templates. Moreover, this template seems to me to have WP:AGF and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND issues - it accuses editors of the page of being 'meat puppets', and states that controversial changes should be immediately reverted, which is only going to make edit wars more likely, not less. I can't imagine that placing this template on an article would ever be helpful rather than inflaming the situation. Terraxos (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Keep as a talk page template OR userfy... arguments are convincing and a way better template Identified. Since I created the template and have been the only one to use it so far, I think it is fair. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 1000 Diggs... hehehe, me wants now :D Seriously, talk page I dea is excellent and I it is a total mental fart that It didn't occour to me...--Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea, why not make this a talk page template that says something like "This article may be a frequent target for groups of users who persistently make changes in violation of Wikipedia content guidelines and policy such as neutral point of view without adhering to a "BOLD, Revert, Discuss" cycle, sometimes referred to as an "[[Wikipedia:BRD misuse|edit ninja" due to their speed." ViperSnake151 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redundant template (there are plenty of others for edit warring and content disputes) that references an essay instead of policy/guideline, and unnecessarily exposes readers to a Wikipedia in-joke (as evidenced by the 1000+ Diggs). I can hear the entire Internet laughing at this template. Steven Walling (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Whats the problem? BTW it has been re-written entirely... and now it will be used in talk pages. --Cerejota (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it reflects poorly on the project, even if you don't say ninjas you're using a little ninja graphic. Without the ninja component, the spirit of the template promotes assumptions of bad faith and is likely to make frustrating situations worse by turning articles in to a named war zone, which is in direct opposition to our value that articles are not a battleground. There are already other templates to denote conflicts ongoing in articles which are more useful and less inflammatory. Steven Walling (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unprofessional, unencyclopedic, and encourages users to inflame edit wars by reverting changes. *** Crotalus *** 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic for article space. Redundant as other templates can express issues with the article far better. For example if the article is not neutral use the NPOV template, if the article is disputed, use the disputed template. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Peep Show episode

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Peep Show episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template is currently unused (as Sceptre has already pointed out) and will probably stay that way as it's unlikely any of the show's episodes would be notable enough for their own article. Bettia (rawr!) 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - unused and unlikely to be used in the foreseeable future. Terraxos (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphaned, very likely no future use. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:53, 8 January 2009 (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.