Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

Template:Big 8 Thrill Rides

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big 8 Thrill Rides (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This looks like a template that just has the "Big 8 Thrill Rides" at Dreamworld. All of these are covered in Template:Dreamworld so it doesn't look like this template is needed. Astros4477 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (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:Db-hoax

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 Snow keep. There is overwhelming consensus that this widely used template should be kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (non admin close)[reply]

Template:Db-hoax (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Typicly, hoax articles are not subject to speedy deletion, per WP:NOTCSD#2. While blatant hoaxes are subject to G3 deletion (and this template isn't a blatant misrepresentation of policy), I think that the existence of this template is likely to encourage speedy-deletion tagging of non-blatant hoaxes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have originally created the template as a redirect to {{db-vandalism}}. Perhaps restore the redirect? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is for blatant hoaxes only, an example being "John Doe was the first person to create a time machine and walk on Mars". Non-blatant hoaxes should be declined, and whether it "encourages" tagging or not has nothing to do with whether it should be kept or deleted. Removing this template would mean that the only alternative would be AfD and PROD, both which are slow for blatant hoaxes. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Satellizer. Mediran (t • c) 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see these all the time. If an article is wrongly tagged an administrators will hopefully use his/her discretion and send them to AfD instead. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is incredibly useful; in fact, I was running through CAT:SPEEDY when I noticed the template was up for deletion. It's absolutely true that the deleting administrator needs to check that the article is indeed a blatant hoax, but we expect that of administrators on this project. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply, its useful csd category. Hoax is often a better describption of some lump of nonsense than vandalism.TheLongTone (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly useful template. I've frequently declined the use of this template for things that aren't blatant hoaxes; while improper uses happen, they're not hard to deal with. Almost as common is other misuses, such as {{db-a9}} for music articles produced by bluelink musicians or {{db-a7}} on schools, but we don't abolish those templates even though they're frequently misused in those ways. Nyttend (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template documentation clearly states, "This template is used to tag pages for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria, specifically CSD G3", so there is nothing misleading about it; rather, it is the tagging of the template for speedy deletion as a blatant and obvious hoax that is actually misleading if not vandalism. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template has never been tagged for deletion. Do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, I mistook the template preview for a tag. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strictly, the hoax for speedy attention should be so stand up and spit in your face obvious that it doesn't need looking up - for example someone who is claimed to have captained the winning side in the Cup Final of 2030. There is otherwise often a quick check made, and this should be done by the tagger too. Any sort of doubt and it should go to AfD for investigation. I don't think that this is abused over much - I think I delete more things as blatant hoaxes (that were tagged A7) than I decline as not being blatant enough for speedy. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator in the sense that we do differentiate between two different types of hoax articles. However, I have a problem with the name and wording of this template because indeed the term hoax is used in two subtly different ways within the CSD policy. We should not expect people to necessarily understand what we mean when we say "blatant hoax" vs. just "hoax". In my opinion this should be re-worded to read something along the lines of "intentionally misleading information" and reserve the use of the word "hoax" for the WP:NOTCSD section. Nonetheless, the criteria itself (or its spirit) is useful, it is distinct from vandalism, and provides a valid way to remove articles that would otherwise force PRODs or AFDs and keep misleading information in Wikipedia (and indexed by Google) for longer amounts of time. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I cannot envisage any grounds for misinterpreting the instructions, as they are unequivocal in explaining that the template is applicable only in circumstances 'where the deception is so obvious as to constitute vandalism'. Mephistophelian (contact) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is useful for blatant hoaxes. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:29, 3 January 2013 (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.