This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Digwuren (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 8 April 2009 (→Template:Notpropaganda: ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:35, 8 April 2009 by Digwuren (talk | contribs) (→Template:Notpropaganda: ~~~~)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < April 6 | April 8 > |
|---|
April 7
Template:Notpropaganda
- Template:Notpropaganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is an absolutely horrible template. It is somewhat inflammatory, very pointish and will discourage editors from editing articles, and goes with a long line of similar templates such as {{POV Russia}}, {{Insufficient propaganda}}, and just recently {{Let it develop}}, in that they lack good faith. We don't need such divisive templates on Misplaced Pages, and given the last TfD for this, it should have been deleted back then (consensus was clearly in favour of deletion), instead of being allowed to poison article talk pages for so long. It does absolutely nothing that {{controversial}} can not do, except controversial doesn't assume bad faith like this does. Russavia 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ugly template discouraging editing of the article and harassing editors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A humourous template that reminds us all to leave our particular barrows at the door. We all need to lighten up a bit. Don't see how it is divisive, inflammatory or harassing. Could the proponent explain why the template statement "If you feel you are biased by any such propaganda campaign, please refrain from editing this article" would be discouraging or harassing to anyone, other than those who actually have been biased by such a campaign? Seriously guys. Martintg (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --Russavia 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- How exactly would it turn away a new editor if they don't believe they have been biased by a propaganda campaign? Are you suggesting that some people have actually been influenced by such a campaign and so feel harassed and discouraged? Martintg (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Listen, this is exactly why this template should be disposed of. You have replaced a template which is succinct, and can not be seen to be assuming bad faith, or anything else, and have replaced it outright with this monstrosity. Take a look at the other articles it is located on; they are all {{controversial}} in nature, yet this ridiculous template is the only one present on Talk:Walter Duranty, Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, Talk:War on Drugs, Talk:Occupations of Latvia, Talk:Drug, Talk:Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, Talk:Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 and Talk:Leuchter report. I also suggest you look at your own comments from the last discussion at which this rubbish was kept, quote: "while we need to represent all significant POV's, there is a need to remind editors that some POVs are derived from active government sponsored information campaigns rather than some more legitimate published source." Given it's existence on 5 articles which all share a common link, your own opinion in that discussion is summed up by what Vecrumba suggested in that, "I propose ] which is the actual intent of the template." and as Termer stated, it is intended to mock other editors. It is a template which is the ultimate assumption of bad faith, does nothing to create a harmonious editing environment, and will turn away editors from editing articles. If it is supposed to be humourous, I dare say that if we were to ask a random group of people if they find it humourous within an encyclopaedic setting, that most would fail to see the humour at all, and we can do without such "humourous" crap like this on the project. It's really that simple.--Russavia 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You haven't actually answered the question about your original assertion, I'll rephrase it: How exactly would it discourage a new editor? Martintg (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Listen, this is exactly why this template should be disposed of. You have replaced a template which is succinct, and can not be seen to be assuming bad faith, or anything else, and have replaced it outright with this monstrosity. Take a look at the other articles it is located on; they are all {{controversial}} in nature, yet this ridiculous template is the only one present on Talk:Walter Duranty, Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, Talk:War on Drugs, Talk:Occupations of Latvia, Talk:Drug, Talk:Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, Talk:Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 and Talk:Leuchter report. I also suggest you look at your own comments from the last discussion at which this rubbish was kept, quote: "while we need to represent all significant POV's, there is a need to remind editors that some POVs are derived from active government sponsored information campaigns rather than some more legitimate published source." Given it's existence on 5 articles which all share a common link, your own opinion in that discussion is summed up by what Vecrumba suggested in that, "I propose ] which is the actual intent of the template." and as Termer stated, it is intended to mock other editors. It is a template which is the ultimate assumption of bad faith, does nothing to create a harmonious editing environment, and will turn away editors from editing articles. If it is supposed to be humourous, I dare say that if we were to ask a random group of people if they find it humourous within an encyclopaedic setting, that most would fail to see the humour at all, and we can do without such "humourous" crap like this on the project. It's really that simple.--Russavia 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- How exactly would it turn away a new editor if they don't believe they have been biased by a propaganda campaign? Are you suggesting that some people have actually been influenced by such a campaign and so feel harassed and discouraged? Martintg (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --Russavia 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Alex Bakharev and Russavia. Offliner (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. There was once sign on a club door. If you are violent and have intentions of beating someone up, please do not enter. While having smoke outside it was interesting to see different kind of reactions from drunk people coming to the club. Some people laughed at the sign, and entered. They obviously weren't violent. Some people looked at the sign, grumbled and actually left. At one time, one guy actually tore down this sign as it found it offensive to him. This one is bit similar. If you don't feel you are biased by the propaganda, then this template doesn't touch you. If you do feel biased... Well, there are two options, clear your head and think about the wikipedia principles like WP:NPOV... Or start yelling at the template cause it reveals the hurtful truth. It's sad that people keep blaming me of not having a good faith behind it. I think the template serves it's purpose of opening peoples minds and think that propaganda might have actually influenced their views. Some minds ofcourse are not designed to be opened... Generally I feel this template has been useful and I think it should stay. I don't mind if someone edits this template to better wording while keeping the meaning though. Suva Чего? 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want better wording, may I suggest This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.? --Russavia 01:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Too vague, many topics have actually been subject to government propaganda campaigns, this template humorously reminds us of that fact and to examine our own notions. Martintg (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is totally different thing. Controversial doesn't necessarily mean influenced by propaganda. Nor does this template have the same idea behind it. Current template under discussion was made to tell people to consider first the fact that they may be influenced by propaganda and it may cloud their judgement. To make people to keep back a little and listen to other side arguments to retain neutrality. Suva Чего? 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want better wording, may I suggest This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.? --Russavia 01:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, in the name of Ministry of Truth = Keep, of course. Useful talk template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: if you feel you are biased by any such a propaganda campaign, please refrain from deleting this template.--Termer (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question This template was present on Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, but because I don't find the template very humourous at all, I have replaced it with {{controversial}}. But the question, which "historic propaganda campaign" in particular was being targetted with this template on that article? Perhaps someone (Martintg maybe) can clarify this for me? --Russavia 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Template is a reminder to edit based on historical reputably verifiable facts, not, in this case, that Latvian and Russian "opnions" on "history" are "equal" as has often been argued by armies of fact-free POV-pushers who have come and gone. Latvian position is based on historically verifiable facts. Russian position (at the moment) is based on nothing. The Duma has still provided absolutely no basis for its reminder that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. Such contentions can be noted as contentions (which they are), not as fact. The template is informative and essential. I fail to see Russavia's huge interest in Baltic et al. topics changing long-standing items or suggesting deletion except to stir up the hornets' nest again. My perception of course, Russavia is only defending Misplaced Pages based on its rules. PetersV TALK 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. That voting here is along party lines already proves the hornets are awake. PetersV TALK 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And now we get to the WP:POINT of the template. The template is not humourous at all, as I and others have disputed. What the template says that only Latvian POV is valid, and anyone who wishes to insert materials which dispute the Latvian POV, to put it bluntly, can f**k off, because they and their propaganda are not welcome on that article? WOW!! This is absolute evidence that this is nothing but a totally disruptive template and we should have been rid of this blight on WP 2 years ago!! Thanks for clarifying that Vecrumba. --Russavia 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And now we get to the WP:POINT of the template. The template is not humourous at all, as I and others have disputed. What the template says that only Latvian POV is valid, and anyone who wishes to insert materials which dispute the Latvian POV, to put it bluntly, can f**k off, because they and their propaganda are not welcome on that article? WOW!! This is absolute evidence that this is nothing but a totally disruptive template and we should have been rid of this blight on WP 2 years ago!! Thanks for clarifying that Vecrumba. --Russavia 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
CommentI personally can't see any humor in the template itself. The way I got the joke, it's funny that some editors want to delete the template that reminds everybody not to use WP:Propaganda pr. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND on Misplaced Pages. And in case the template's presence can have a potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles is true, it just shows that the template works just fine. Because the only one who could be turned away by this template would be someone who'd want to edit any of those articles according to one or several historic propaganda campaigns. But Misplaced Pages was suppose to be based on WP:RS, WP:NPOV instead? --Termer (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The distinguished gentleman from Fiji makes a good point -- if humour helps us to gently remind our editors why they're here, if it helps the project, then this template should not be deleted. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:CTA Station Needing Image
Has been replaced with {{reqphoto|CTA stations}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: No longer needed anyways as most stations have pictures now. Reub2000 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Road junction types
- Merged to Template:Road types.
- Note: The the new name of the template "Roads and Junctions" is temporary. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Airportpicreq
- Template:Airportpicreq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant with {{reqphoto|airports}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Reqimagecomics
- Template:Reqimagecomics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template adds an article to Category:Misplaced Pages requested images-comics, but that is already done more widely with {{comicsproj|image=yes}} and {{reqphoto|comics}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick
There is no need for this template as all the individual articles reference the other members a lot and can easily be directed to the repective page without the use of a template. It's pretty much useless and I think it's a bit stupid to include Ashley Massaro in a template named Paul London and Brian kendrick. Jay 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It was requested at WP:GTC by reviewers for a different set of articles nominates (which also had 3 articles). iMatthew : Chat 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Languages of Louisiana
This is a borderline navbox (per WP:NAVBOX. It is the sort of thing that would be better suited to a category. This, that and the other 07:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:No dishes
- Template:No dishes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Okay, this userbox made me laugh out loud. But as much as I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but notice that (a) the grammar is a bit off, and (b) it isn't used or linked to. – Quadell 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Relist at MfD because it's a userbox. But if you want an actual opinion then it's a weak delete, because although it's harmless no-one is actually using it and it really belongs in user space. PC78 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Misplaced Pages is not a social club, so isn't it a rather stronger delete? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)