Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >

February 23

[edit]

County-specific state highway navboxes for Maryland

[edit]
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) 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads in Allegany County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Baltimore County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Calvert County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Caroline County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Carroll County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Cecil County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Charles County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Dorchester County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Frederick County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Garrett County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Harford County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Howard County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Kent County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Montgomery County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Prince Georges County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Queen Anne's County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in St. Mary's County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Somerset County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Talbot County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Washington County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Wicomico County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Worcester County, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Baltimore, Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roads in Baltimore area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates should all be deleted per past precedents to deprecate and delete such navboxes. Templates for Texas were all deleted in November 2013, the U.S. state of Georgia in May 2013, Washington state July 2012, and Michigan December 2011. Past nominations have centered around using categories such as Category:Roads in Allegany County, Maryland to group the articles instead of these navboxes.  VC  20:52, 23 February 2014 (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

[edit]
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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no consensus for speedy deletion except for one of the defined criteria for speedy deletion. Each of the specific criteria already has one or more specific templates for tagging pages for deletion under that criterion. This template is either uses when a more specific template would do better, or is used to tag pages for speedy deletion under a non-criterion. I have recently seen it used several items to tag pages as "not notable" which is not, of course, a valid speedy deletion criterion. I would hope that no admin would delete such a tagged page (unless it also did fit one of the valid criteria). But you never know. In any case such a use of the template causes needless apprehension to article creators and editors, and fools editors into thinking that they have validly nominated a page for speedy deletion. This template no longer serves any useful purpose. It should be deleted. DES (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC) DES (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While it's not surprising that it's sometimes used inappropriately, it has plenty of legitimate uses and for situations where there is no existing template that could take its place. Most commonly, this is needed for invoking other existing criteria in situations where an explanation is needed. For example, db-g3 often requires an explanation, where it is vandalism but you can't tell from the page's content alone. Likewise with "housekeeping". Although db-g6 now has a rationale=parameter, this has been used often in the past to provide such explanation and many people would not know to go to db-g6's documentation page to realize they now can add an explanation. I have many times answered questions at the help desk and other help fora where I have advised users specifically to use this template for just such explanatory uses. Finding those examples is not easy because neither our internal search nor Google recognizes the pipe in "db|", and I can't think of any other way to hunt them down. I have, however, found some examples of my own past usage looking at the edit summaries of my deleted contribution (apologies to non-admins who can't view these): [1], [2]; [3] [4]; [5]; [6] [7]; [8]; [9]

    To give an example of what one of these was, for non-admins, I came across the article Elimenopee, which by its text looked like a perfectly legitimate article about a native American tribe and its history. I used {{db|reason}} to explain why it was vandalism/hoax that should be deleted under G3 that they might not realize just looking at the content, including that the title was "l, m, n, o, p with pee spelled like the excretory act".

    Secondarily, I disagree with the notion that there are never legitimate IAR speedy deletion situations (which I have explained in detail in the archives of WT:CSD) which this template is the only way to invoke.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with it, Fuhghettaboutit, but the policy against IAR speedy-deletion is in my view pretty clear. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion says: "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases." and later on that page "If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence". Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Summary of deletion processes says pages may only be deleted summarily via the speedy deletion process if certain criteria are met. ... [mention ofWP:PROD... In all other cases where removal of an entire page is being considered, a "deletion discussion" happens." Later on the same page it says "So-called speedy deletion involves the scrutiny of only a few people before an article is deleted. The allowable criteria for speedy-deletion are deliberately very narrow." Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion Review may be used:...if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;" and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says in its lead section "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below.. None of those pages suggest any consensus for "IAR speedies". Deletion happens ONLY by consensus. The WP:CSD are the only cases for which consensus is pre-established. Any other deletion must be open to discussion, either via PROD or XfD (not counting WP:OFFICE actions). Remember "If in doubt, don't delete" One admin or one tagger and one admin do not make consensus.
I do understand your point about a need to provide explanatioisn in cases whre it is not clear why a speedy criterion applies. If this tempalte were re-worked to require that a valid criterion be specified in addition to the reasaon, that would be sufficient in my opnion. What would you say to that? DES (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They cover only the cases specified in the rules below" I think you have found the rule, along with your "premeditated consensus" legalistic theory, that must be sometimes WP:IAR:red away :) jni (delete)...just not interested 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: No, it's not "clear" at all and I am intimately familiar with all of the language you've quoted having been involved in drafting and tweaking the language of the deletion policy for years. You can't quote the strictures of policy as self-proving that we must be hidebound in its application, in order to prove that the foundational policy that says in sum and substance that no policies on Wikipedia are hidebound in application, should not apply. Meanwhile, application of IAR is not a license to speedy delete willy-nilly but only where policy cannot predict those sue generis cases where "breaking the rule" is the right thing to do because to not do so would not serve Wikipedia and where following the letter of the rule would ignore the spirit of the rule.

Much of the CSD evolved from enacting what was already practice. That is, editors codifying what was being done in practice (by IAR) when pages of a certain category were constantly being deleted (under IAR) but the policy's description had not caught up. (Unfortunately, many admins chose [and still choose] not to invoke IAR explicitly in their deletion summaries, but use a criterion that does not technically apply like G2, and especially poorly, G3 to get rid of the blatant.) I drafted the language of A11 not out of thin air but because admins for years were deleting glaringly obvious NFT and NEO pages under IAR (but the policy didn't describe that). Likewise, for years admins would delete articles patently about people's pets/animals under the spirit but not the letter of A7, until policy caught up. And all this is especially true of speedy deletion for protection of people before BLP was enacted.

I believe the policy today has finally reduced most of the need for IAR by describing the practice from necessity (the horse) that the policy (the cart) is before, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and no policy is above IAR. If used properly, IAR will be used quite rarely, but it will still have its application, and in places you cannot predict. By the way, you might find ‪Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC‬ illuminating.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I actually would have used this in the past few days, if I had known about it, (with a criteria.) —PC-XT+ 02:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A novice user cannot be expected to know about all the speedy deletion criteria. Imagine a user editing on foreign Wikipedia, finding a grossly inappropriate article, deleting it or nominating it for speedy deletion, then checking if it exists on English Wikipedia ... what's he going to do if it does? He'll simply write {{delete|Hoax}} or {{delete|Vandalism}} or {{delete|Copyright violation}}, perhaps with a brief explanation. Or perhaps he's not a fluent English speaker, so he'll explain why the article is inappropriate as well as he can, or just slap {{delete}} on it. (I have done a similar thing a couple of times, though starting on English Wikipedia.) It's up to the administrator to decide whether or not the article qualifies for speedy deletion - remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

    I have also speedily deleted articles without really knowing which criterion applies. One example is Elf or Jinn (see User talk:Nannadeem), a religious essay; the deletion was approved in deletion review, one user specifically mentioning WP:IAR, and after the article's creator clarified his intentions, it turned out to be a duplicate of Jinn. Another is The Elder Scrolls V: Alinor, which wasn't really vandalism on the part of the article's creator; rather, he has fallen for an April Fool joke.

    Hence, keep. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because m:Stewards and the m:SWMT don't have our template system memorized. --Rschen7754 06:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rschen7754. I didn't think the English Wikipedia was monitored by SWMT, but the point still stands at least for stewards. TCN7JM 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regular editors don't have to memorize long rules and their interpretations, and go search for appropriate template, but should be allowed to use free form text to explain to closing admin, why the page should be deleted. It is admin's job to figure out, if the supplied reason matches some of the CSD criteria (or even if the reason is bollocks but the page *is* speediable, then deletion should happen). jni (delete)...just not interested 16:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I sometimes curse (quietly) and tell people who ought to know the criteria not to use it, it does have its uses, as pointed out above. It can also serve to draw attention to something which can then be dealt with correctly. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal I would like to say keep because while I do not speedy for other than the existing reasons, I sometimes write my own reason when I think its a clearer explanation than the prebuilt one. But it's too dangerous for the admins who do not follow the rules. There's no problem for anyone not knowing the rules, because Huggle has them. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone uses Huggle - I don't for a start. Twinkle is my limit in automation (and I reached 12,000 edits without even using Twinkle...). I decline some db tags, and convert others to the relevant criterion. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, we have speedy deletion tags specific to reason but we should still have a chance to have a custom reasons for deletion in an event that users cannot determine which specific deletion tag to use. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 18:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Removing {{delete}}, which is present as a redirect on nearly every WMF wiki, would make it significantly harder for users who are not extremely familiar with the names of the special speedy deletion templates here to tag pages. --MF-W 01:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is useful for when there is no point in having a discussion as the deletion is uncontroversial, but the case doesn't fall neatly in one of the CSD criteria (or simply the user doesn't remember them all).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Mike Rosoft above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's usefulness in circumstances which meet the CSD criteria but require some extra explaining outweigh the negative effects of people incorrectly tagging pages (which can, and does, happen with the other templates anyway). I remember doing this for a hoax article (which doesn't have a rationale argument) where the page at first glance looked convincing but it had several inconsistencies which made it an obvious hoax - from memory it had someone scoring an international cricket century at age 3 or something, but I may be wrong on that. That sort of subtle hoax could easily be missed by an admin without the extra explanation. I'm sure there are plenty of other cases where an article meets the criteria but it's not immediately obvious and so having a free form option makes it easier for everyone. Dpmuk (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (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:User warning-mentalhealth

[edit]
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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User warning-mentalhealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was nominated at MFD originally so I am moving it here. The text below has been copied from the MFD listing. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the result of a discussion at [10] where a user put this template on a page before hatting it with the note "Still current, but seemingly ineffective at stemming others' aggression." The user then committed suicide. This nomination is so that more further discussion should be had on the subject of such templates on the basis of Wikipedia is not therapy. See also Template_talk:User_warning-mentalhealth#Discussion of template at Jimbo's talk. Note that I am unsure of where to place this discussion, although Leaky Cauldron did say it belonged at MFD. If it belongs at TFD please move it. KonveyorBelt 23:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly worried about exposure as I already mentioned it at Jimbo's talk. Would MFD be appropriate policy wise? KonveyorBelt 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may not be very widely used, but I think this is in principle a useful template. I'm happy not to have any serious mental health problems myself (as far as I know!), but for those who do, I can imagine they might want to notify other editors of that fact, and that it may affect their editing. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No way of knowing if this template is being used in good faith. Too easy for trolls to use this template as cover for trolling. --Surturz (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unconvinced by the nom or Surturz that there is likely any problem with the template itself. It seems useful. the prohibition on using it on others seems a sufficient troll barrier. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Less unconvinced by TParis. Leaning delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Solomon7968 14:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should not be fostering an attitude of culpability for the mental, physical, or emotional issues that editors face. Wikipedia is not a mental health clinic, a doctor, or a support group of any sort. That fact doesn't diminish the real danger of poor mental health at all, but Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors lack the medical education and experience to support those users. In addition, we have on-wiki legal concerns that we must enforce despite a user's mental health. If a user is posting copyrighted material, we have a legal obligation to block them. We are not ignoring mental health, we are asserting that these editors need to follow the appropriate procedures to obtain help. Similar to WP:NLT blocks, editors need to disengage and seek help from an appropriate venue and not seek it here from other editors. When we encourage editors to seek help here, by using templates such as this, we are doing those editors a disservice by implying that they will get attention and that help will be available if they use this template, when in reality it is not. Delete.--v/r - TP 02:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Agree with Robofish. First off, I'm one of those people. I do have chronic depression, with recurring thoughts of suicide. And I have used the template before as sort of a "leave me alone" message when I felt particularly low and antisocial. I found it relieved the burden of social expectations just a bit, and didn't mean for it to be a cry for help (and I can say this wouldn't be my first choice for a 'cry for help').
TParis makes a very good point, but this is not an all-or-nothing issue. On my off-days, I will just fix redirects or spelling errors and might put up the template. I don't engage in very involved topics and don't post. I can still do a great number of tasks.
I don't feel the template requires competency or education about the issue(s) the editor placing the template faces. It should be simple and straightforward: it asks for assumption of good faith, gives an explanation to delayed responses, and lets others know the editor's state of mind ("out of it"). Compare this template to {{User stress}}. It's almost exactly the same.
I feel there is a lot of finger-pointing going on about this template, as if not responding to it killed John. This template was John's reaction to the trolls. Not fighting off the trolls killed John. I don't think the template really made that much difference. Why don't we, as a community, take this to the Village pump (policy) and collaborate on ways to thwart attackers, stalkers, etc.? What we really need to do is get trolls off Wiki.
Also, John used the template to get the trolls to pity him enough to leave him alone, but that's not the template's purpose. He used the template in a way it was never intended, as a last resort, because he couldn't think of another way to get peace.
It still serves many valid uses, most of which are unrelated to depression; for example, editors prescribed a new medication and wishing to edit low-key, not knowing how it will affect them yet. I see this template as no different than {{User frustrated}}, {{Bonked}}, or {{User grieving}}.
Nonetheless, if it would help the community more to delete this for reasons I am not aware of (e.g., widespread user-page tagging as a sick joke) so be it. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Meteor sandwich yum I am unsure if you understand the gravity of your comment. If you really experience recurring thoughts of suicide then you should completely cease editing Wikipedia and give real life priority. Solomon7968 09:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my slight digression here while I explain.
It was no exaggeration: I have severe (major) clinical depression. While I appreciate your concern, I choose to edit Wikipedia despite this obstacle. I assure you I am not putting myself into harm's way by editing; nor am I ignoring my mental health by continuing to work with this project—I am followed by mental health professionals and receive routine care (and they believe it helps alleviate my depression by volunteering here).
Note that, were I having a suicidal crisis, I would immediately cease editing and call a suicide hotline, with appropriate follow-up care; perhaps one of the lesser-known features of chronic depression is suicidal ideation without plans of suicide—involuntary thoughts of killing oneself independent of any goal to do so. A very different matter entirely is a "suicide crisis"—an immediate urge to act upon impulses, which requires immediate emergency medical intervention (this was likely what John was facing).
Neither condition is an appropriate reason to place the template on one's user page. The template is not to inform others that the person is in a suicidal crisis; like you said, they require immediate attention. Rather, depression can make a person feel low-energy or drained, confused or "foggy", and reclusive. These are appropriate uses of the template.
If I didn't respond to someone's message, but they checked my contributions and noticed I had been active recently, they might believe I was ignoring them. The template suggests the user is unable to do so at the moment, and aids in this manner. I feel too many people discussing it have inferred a different purpose entirely. But it's not a suicide template. I am against templates suggesting such.
My point was not to draw attention to myself, but to show that some people with depression or other mental illnesses are able to contribute competently and healthily in their better moments, and sometimes contribute in lesser ways despite these issues when they can't. By the way, I am not upset or offended, and am not trying to shout with the underlines & italics, just trying to make a point. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that since Sept. 2011 [11] until 3 days ago this template was advising that the user had limited scope to "participate in conflict" suggests that no one really takes much notice of it. The community at large are not equipped to fully understand and appreciate the issues related to mental health and an over-simplified template is an inappropriate device. A user with genuine issues can just as easily write a short message pertaining to their condition if they believe it would be helpful. Having generic templates scattered around on long forgotten user pages or capable of being maliciously placed as a joke is the wrong approach. Leaky Caldron 10:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TParis Secret account 18:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no strong opinion about this template, but I believe Tparis comment is off the point. First of all how this template is different from that one used at the talk page of one of your arbitrator? Both templates are used to notify others about health issues. Of course wikipedia is not a therapy, but asking for assistance and understanding is not the same as asking for a therapy. Nobody is asking you to be doctors. Just don't be bullies, and if you see bullying by others stop it. 71.198.251.167 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the template Salvio Giuliano is using is a physical concern for which she is not implying that self-harm may result. When it comes to self-harm, a template like the one here is the cry for help that precedes self-harm. Not only are we not qualified to provide help, but the majority of us aren't even able to figure out who users are and where they live. If this template is kept, it needs to include some legitimate resources to find help. Links to actual suicide prevention hotlines, ect.--v/r - TP 20:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree. Where exactly does this template predict self-harm? 71.198.251.167 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MEDICAL. I also think that any and all comments about "John" are extraordinarily ill-advised. Dandandandandandandan (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People may write their own talk page notes if they must. Having the template is misguided and makes it open for abuse. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I will stipulate that WP is not a mental hospital and can be a rather, shall we say, hostile environment at times, I have no problem with a user wanting to voluntarily put a template on his or her talk page indicating that he or she is experiencing mental health issues, and as such, may not always be in a chipper mood, and may excuse an errant gruff reply. I agree with TP regarding the legal concerns, and do not think that the template should prevent a block (i.e. John Smith has the template on his page so we shouldn't block him for his blatant vandalism earlier), however think that it can engender appropriate sympathy/empathy in the event someone is having a bad day. Even if the template is deleted, there is nothing preventing someone from just writing a note at the top of their talk page indicating a health concern; templates are not always used as a "cry for help", rather as an "indication for some behavior". Go Phightins! 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is not asking for a medical advise. That's why it has absolutely nothing to do with WP:MEDICAL. This template does not predict self-harm. This template is used to ask for understanding. Doctors give medicine, but understanding should be given by the community. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using the template.71.198.251.167 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky, I disagree. Whilst of course "editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus", there is the assumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty (AGF). If you think they might be socking, request an SPI - but don't damn people on an assumption. For example, me! I'm also editing as an IP, and it's probably clear that I've edited in the past. However, I've broken no rules at all. Just, I used to edit Wikipedia (a lot), but stopped years ago. I've recently come back, and chosen to not create an account at this time. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm not deceiving anyone at all. IPs should be welcome to !vote; if you suspect they're "undisclosed alternate accounts" then that should be addressed at the appropriate venue, SPI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the delete arguments are entirely unconvincing --Guerillero | My Talk 04:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's odd that after all this stuff about how WP editors are not qualified to give mental health advice, we are being confidently informed that putting up this template is a "cry for help" and people with suicidal thoughts shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Such comments, in my view, are based on a lack of proper understanding of mental illness, which is a much more varied and complex phenomenon than often recognised. For some people with mental health issues and even suicidal thoughts, Wikipedia may be a coping mechanism - they may use it to escape from the stresses of the "real world" and to distract themselves from negative, even suicidal, thoughts. So in some cases discouraging people with suicidal thoughts or other mental health issues from edit Wikipedia could be very harmful. Of course they should be seeking professional help, but seeking professional help and editing Wikipedia are hardly incompatible, and professional help is unlikely to miraculously solve everything overnight - the will probably still need coping mechanisms for them for some time, at least while they are being treated. If people with mental illness find editing Wikipedia helps them, we should certainly not be discouraging them. It is highly presumptuous for people with no knowledge of the particular circumstances of the case to tell someone with mental illness what they should and shouldn't do.
With regard to this template in particular, I fail to see the issue. The issue of disclosure is a complex one in the area of mental health, being highly context-dependent - not only regarding the environment where the disclosure would be made, but also the circumstances of the person and the mental illness they are suffering. I note the suggestion that people should write a personal statement on their user page instead, but people experiencing mental illness may find it difficult to compose such a statement (it is a sensitive issue that is often not easy to talk about) and easier to use a template instead. The main thing it does is make people aware of the issue - two of the three points are about how people may not be on Wikipedia (ironically, what many editors are recommending people in this situation do) or unable to respond to messages. The other point it notes is that it may affect their behaviour, which may be helpful it other editors perceive something odd about their behaviour. It is not a cry for help or a plea for special immunity from being blocked. It is simply an attempt to communicate medical issues that may have some effect on their editing, just like people with physical illness or injury indicate (or indeed people taking Wikibreaks or reducing their editing for other personal reasons, such as bereavements). Neljack (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — If it would help us feel better, we could put a notice/disclaimer in the documentation saying that placing this on a user page is for information only, and will not change others' behavior, or something more appropriate, but it may not actually help much if someone just chooses a similar template, instead. —PC-XT+ 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're that far gone as to be struggling with the act of living you probably shou;dn't be editing Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wording is ambiguous. It thanks for assistance and understanding when, if fact, no assistance is requested. It is an informational template and assistance isn't required in the absence of a specific request. Leaky Caldron 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TParis. Wikipedia is not equipped to cater to the needs of individuals who may need this template; it's a fair argument, then, that perhaps such individuals should not be editing Wikipedia at least until their issues are resolved. That's not to say we should not be considerate of such individuals, only that if one feels this template is necessary it may be best to take some time off from Wikipedia altogether. Admittedly, this template is very well-intentioned, only misguided. LazyBastardGuy 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The wikipedia enterprise is the building of an encyclopedia by editors who are in general anonymous. Editors may choose to describe themselves on their user pages, but the information given there is unverified and essentially irrelevant. Our obligation is to edit and comment in the interest of the articles while treating each other civilly, and nothing on user pages need or should change that. An editor with mental health problems can reveal that if he or she wants to, but having a template seems to imply that such disclosure is recommended, or that it should affect the way other editors behave, which it shouldn't. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (perhaps with a caveat) As Wikipedia bills itself as the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it therefore includes people with 'mental health' issues and disabilities. Its processes must therefore be accessible to people with mh problems. Therefore barring aids to expression of mh issues, intended to help people continue editing despite difficulties, goes against the claimed essence of Wikipedia. If in reality such a template doesn't help or even has negative effects on the templater or other editors or the Wikipedia product, then the goal should be better communication of these human issues not less. Or is Wikipedia really better represented by the hunting tiger at the top of Jimbo Wales' talk page? Sighola2 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TParis. Anyone considering using this should step back from Wikipedia and speak to a qualified professional. Contrary to what some of us may have seen on TV, real-life mental illness can't be fixed with hugs and high-fives. People dealing with this really need to get help from someone qualified to help them. It's irresponsible and even dangerous for us to imply otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note (if I may): I agree the template should not imply it is asking for assistance with fixing mental illness - only flag up a current disability in order to promote productive editing. On the other hand, saying that anyone with an illness should get off Wikipedia is prejudice (pre-judgment) pure and simple - it depends on each individual and the symptoms and abilities and supports at the time. Sighola2 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said 'anyone with an illness should get off Wikipedia', that's a twisting of my words so extreme that it's a borderline personal attack. I said that "Anyone considering using this [template] should step back from Wikipedia and speak to a qualified professional.", which is completely true. This template implies an issue which is both significant and likely to affect or be affected by one's interactions with the community. You may or may not know the backstory, but an editor, whom I will not name or identify, who was being bothered by trolls and used this template assuming it would help in some manner and later took their own life when it didn't. Can I say that everything would have been fine if we didn't have this template? Of course not. But it does represent a failure on Wikipedia's part--a vulnerable user was crying out for help and they get a useless template that likely brought on more abuse than it prevented. This is not a point to be taken lightly--not only is this template unlikely to stop a persistent troll, it will signal that the opponent is weak and even attract more trolling. It isn't just that it doesn't help, it might actually make things worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge I exaggerated your words to make a point; I think you were personally presumptuous with your TV comment (about whoever). I was aware of the case you mention; btw the link at the top here is broken as it's now archived: [12]. I note this template itself is mainly about helping others understand a stepping back from Wikipedia. But it is simply not a medical fact that anyone experiencing symptoms or altered perceptions is unable to edit a wiki. I won't respond further over your say (and feel free to move my comments here). p.s. for what it's worth, Wikipedia used to have a project page for quite a long time about suicidality which I found was full of links advising people to kill themselves if they felt like it; it was deleted some time ago when I remarked upon it. Sighola2 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend hugely on the mental illness involved; no two are really alike. This template could not be used equally in all situations; for some it might suffice, for others it may not. By the way, putting words in another user's mouth to make the point they made more negative is by definition a personal attack; I don't understand how "Anyone considering using this should step back from Wikipedia and speak to a qualified professional" could be construed as "saying that anyone with an illness should get off Wikipedia", and therefore a "prejudice (pre-judgment) pure and simple". Such a comment was completely uncalled for. Perhaps the TV bit was an exaggeration but it did not warrant such a response in any way, no matter how "peronally presumptuous" you thought it was. LazyBastardGuy 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to this third party to clarify that my phrasing was not by definition a personal attack and was without regard to the writer personally, wasn't in response to the TV comment and in fact I had in mind not necessarily just Starblind's words but the various comments above on a similar vein - which I maintain are prejudiced and do in fact suggest anyone with symptoms of mental illness who considers asking for understanding via this template should instead get off Wikipedia to see a mh professional (as if they know they aren't already or something). Sighola2 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; as a corollary I would like to remove the see also link to the personal essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, both because this template is not asking for therapy, and because that essay is almost by its own admission pejoratively mistitled since the definition of therapy includes "2) Healing power or quality". Sighola2 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my talk page as it currently stands. In my view, it's just another discretionary banner regarding the circumstances behind an editor's diminished activity levels. I have nothing to hide — I'm struggling with clinical depression. What little energy I possess these days is invested in resolving my current situation, which means my contributions to Wikipedia have gone down in recent times. If someone were to troll me over that, it says more about their character than my own folly (to be honest, I'd be more amused than anything). Kurtis (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_23&oldid=1142534625"