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 page.
I've encountered this tag at the top of many user pages. I don't think it's fair that users should know what other names they edit under. It's like AOL telling everyone what other screen names you have and it violate the principles of assumin good faith. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
152.163.100.9 (
talk •
contribs) .
Speedy keep - Sockpuppets are only investigated when there are questions of abuse of process like deletion votes, etc. There are plenty of good reasons to keep this tag.
Megapixie04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Why can't we just tag proven usernames? Often users get tagged because one or two users assume a link. It often leads to edit wars between user and the one posting the tag.
Axiomm05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete I have twice been accused of being a "sockpuppet" simply because I made a couple of edits and had forgotton to log-in. On both occasions the accusation came within minutes from somebody with a grudge and it was obviously being used as a way to "get at me". I think the term "sockpuppet" is silly anyway and gives the impression that Wikepedia is nerdy rather than a place for serious, scholarly contributions.
Mallimak08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. On IP's they are not so helpful, but they are very useful for usernames. Abuse itself is no reason for deletion --
Chris 73 |
Talk09:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment, restrict the use of the template to the discussion page and do not post it on the user page itself!
Kff11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per Axiomm and Mallimak. Tagging should be limited to proven "sockpuppets". I also want to point out that most keep votes will come from users who are admins. Users shouldn't have to deal with unwanted tags on their userpages just because one or two users suspects them.
FeedThePigeons12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep, although it'd be great if all accusations could be verified with Checkuser that's just not practical and in the meantime we need a way to warn others of sockpuppeteers' efforts to disrupt articles. We've been fighting off a sockpuppeteer who pretends to be real users as well as with offensive user names, the tag helps us keep track of them all (currently standing at 65, a large proportion of which are banned). (p.s. not an admin, just a mere mortal)--
PaulWicks13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, but encourage people not to
WP:BITE genuine newcomers with such a tag. Note that a newcomer who confidently and repeatedly reverts to the version of someone known to have used sockpuppets in the past, and who follows that person to other pages, and uses similar language is not what I mean by a genuine newcomer. Useful template. Should not be abused.
AnnH♫13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong keep, this is only intended to be used for malicious sockpuppets, not just any alt. accounts, and it's impossible to do without in vandalwhacking. +
Hexagon1(
t)15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong keep, serves a useful purpose, if it gets misused (yes occasionally it does) that's not the templates fault, rather the editors who mis-use it, who should be dealt with as appropriate.
Petros47116:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Mallimak pointed out that we don't need silly teminology. If the template is kept it would be better to just state A might belong to B. I think we also can stop using "speedy" since it's clear a consensus won't be reached for the next few days.
FeedThePigeons19:12, 7 July 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
Keep –There's no way that typing Madison (NJT station)| is faster or easier than njt-sta|Madison. Regardless, it makes things not only easier to read, but also allows for shorthand (as shown in the example). Port Jervis (Metro-North station)| vs. njt-sta|type=mnrr|Port Jervis? I just think it's way more elegant. takes care of the whole "hide the program mechanism from the user" concept very nicely. This also gurauntees consistency - you don't have to think twice about whether the word "station" should be capitalized or not. Personally I found it very easy to use this template on the List of NJT stations and it was a great timesaver for wikifying station articles.
lensovet20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
And how many people know of naming conventions? Apparently not the folks that put together
List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations, for example. regardless, I just think that it makes standardization and naming conventions (i.e how do we call njt stations? metro-north stations? etc.) much much easier.
lensovet21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Wait what? Also, there is absolutely no way that typing River LINE is faster than typing type=river. The whole point of a template is to save time and make the article easier to read and spend more time on content and less on repetitive tasks. Hey, why do we need {{NJT}}? I mean, that template doesn't even do anything other than insert a static link. Maybe that should go too, you can use the "typing trick" instead.
What about the other points, i.e. River LINE shorthand, reasons for having a template/template usage? I really couldn't care less about the other template, it doesn't bother me at all, I just don't want to have double standards put on.
lensovet02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep – I completely disagree. Piping is fine, but the njt-sta template allows this to happen far more cleanly and efficiently. It also can be used in another template and allows for far easier maintenance. Templates qualify as open-source software--and as such it must be readily maintainable, and to be maintainable it must be readable. I saw the changes you made to the NJT rail line template, which once used the njt-sta template. I can't make head nor tail of it anymore! This violates every convention of code readability that I ever heard of--and I've had professional-level instruction in computer coding, and am experienced in C/C++ and Java. --
Temlakos22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would really like to use this template to use with
subst:, but it results in a really ugly #switch statement. Ideally the #switch would get substituted away and just a clean name would be left behind without any template usage. Without that, I'm not sure of any benefit. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t)
02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
How about using the same convention here as in article names, so it can be substed? So this template would just be [[{{{1}}} ({{{type}}} station)|{{{1}}}]]. Others could be weeded out beforehand with a temporary addition of [[{{{type}}}test]] to the template and a what links here on for instance
mnrrtest. I'm willing to do much of the grunt work for this if others agree. --
SPUI (
T -
C)
07:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Even though no "others" agreed....sigh. The whole point is that you can use shorthand in the template, the template has no purpose if we're typing out the "type" of station fully by hand.
lensovet17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Man seriously what the hell. The whole point of a template is so that you save time and don't type links, tables, etc. "normally". Maybe we should do away with {{see also}} as well?
lensovet02:48, 9 July 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
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 page.
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 page.
I've encountered this tag at the top of many user pages. I don't think it's fair that users should know what other names they edit under. It's like AOL telling everyone what other screen names you have and it violate the principles of assumin good faith. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
152.163.100.9 (
talk •
contribs) .
Speedy keep - Sockpuppets are only investigated when there are questions of abuse of process like deletion votes, etc. There are plenty of good reasons to keep this tag.
Megapixie04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Why can't we just tag proven usernames? Often users get tagged because one or two users assume a link. It often leads to edit wars between user and the one posting the tag.
Axiomm05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete I have twice been accused of being a "sockpuppet" simply because I made a couple of edits and had forgotton to log-in. On both occasions the accusation came within minutes from somebody with a grudge and it was obviously being used as a way to "get at me". I think the term "sockpuppet" is silly anyway and gives the impression that Wikepedia is nerdy rather than a place for serious, scholarly contributions.
Mallimak08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. On IP's they are not so helpful, but they are very useful for usernames. Abuse itself is no reason for deletion --
Chris 73 |
Talk09:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment, restrict the use of the template to the discussion page and do not post it on the user page itself!
Kff11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per Axiomm and Mallimak. Tagging should be limited to proven "sockpuppets". I also want to point out that most keep votes will come from users who are admins. Users shouldn't have to deal with unwanted tags on their userpages just because one or two users suspects them.
FeedThePigeons12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep, although it'd be great if all accusations could be verified with Checkuser that's just not practical and in the meantime we need a way to warn others of sockpuppeteers' efforts to disrupt articles. We've been fighting off a sockpuppeteer who pretends to be real users as well as with offensive user names, the tag helps us keep track of them all (currently standing at 65, a large proportion of which are banned). (p.s. not an admin, just a mere mortal)--
PaulWicks13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, but encourage people not to
WP:BITE genuine newcomers with such a tag. Note that a newcomer who confidently and repeatedly reverts to the version of someone known to have used sockpuppets in the past, and who follows that person to other pages, and uses similar language is not what I mean by a genuine newcomer. Useful template. Should not be abused.
AnnH♫13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong keep, this is only intended to be used for malicious sockpuppets, not just any alt. accounts, and it's impossible to do without in vandalwhacking. +
Hexagon1(
t)15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong keep, serves a useful purpose, if it gets misused (yes occasionally it does) that's not the templates fault, rather the editors who mis-use it, who should be dealt with as appropriate.
Petros47116:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Mallimak pointed out that we don't need silly teminology. If the template is kept it would be better to just state A might belong to B. I think we also can stop using "speedy" since it's clear a consensus won't be reached for the next few days.
FeedThePigeons19:12, 7 July 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
Keep –There's no way that typing Madison (NJT station)| is faster or easier than njt-sta|Madison. Regardless, it makes things not only easier to read, but also allows for shorthand (as shown in the example). Port Jervis (Metro-North station)| vs. njt-sta|type=mnrr|Port Jervis? I just think it's way more elegant. takes care of the whole "hide the program mechanism from the user" concept very nicely. This also gurauntees consistency - you don't have to think twice about whether the word "station" should be capitalized or not. Personally I found it very easy to use this template on the List of NJT stations and it was a great timesaver for wikifying station articles.
lensovet20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
And how many people know of naming conventions? Apparently not the folks that put together
List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations, for example. regardless, I just think that it makes standardization and naming conventions (i.e how do we call njt stations? metro-north stations? etc.) much much easier.
lensovet21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Wait what? Also, there is absolutely no way that typing River LINE is faster than typing type=river. The whole point of a template is to save time and make the article easier to read and spend more time on content and less on repetitive tasks. Hey, why do we need {{NJT}}? I mean, that template doesn't even do anything other than insert a static link. Maybe that should go too, you can use the "typing trick" instead.
What about the other points, i.e. River LINE shorthand, reasons for having a template/template usage? I really couldn't care less about the other template, it doesn't bother me at all, I just don't want to have double standards put on.
lensovet02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep – I completely disagree. Piping is fine, but the njt-sta template allows this to happen far more cleanly and efficiently. It also can be used in another template and allows for far easier maintenance. Templates qualify as open-source software--and as such it must be readily maintainable, and to be maintainable it must be readable. I saw the changes you made to the NJT rail line template, which once used the njt-sta template. I can't make head nor tail of it anymore! This violates every convention of code readability that I ever heard of--and I've had professional-level instruction in computer coding, and am experienced in C/C++ and Java. --
Temlakos22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would really like to use this template to use with
subst:, but it results in a really ugly #switch statement. Ideally the #switch would get substituted away and just a clean name would be left behind without any template usage. Without that, I'm not sure of any benefit. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t)
02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
How about using the same convention here as in article names, so it can be substed? So this template would just be [[{{{1}}} ({{{type}}} station)|{{{1}}}]]. Others could be weeded out beforehand with a temporary addition of [[{{{type}}}test]] to the template and a what links here on for instance
mnrrtest. I'm willing to do much of the grunt work for this if others agree. --
SPUI (
T -
C)
07:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Even though no "others" agreed....sigh. The whole point is that you can use shorthand in the template, the template has no purpose if we're typing out the "type" of station fully by hand.
lensovet17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Man seriously what the hell. The whole point of a template is so that you save time and don't type links, tables, etc. "normally". Maybe we should do away with {{see also}} as well?
lensovet02:48, 9 July 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
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 page.