- Template:Vk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Template:Vd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This template is used in delete discussions of most versions of Wikipedia, but it has been deleted in English version. I would like to submit the request to review and I am looking forward to keep this. If this review's result is Keep, I would like to create new templates for speedy keep/delete. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, noting that these templates are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. What is the thing that has changed to bring this up here again? Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - maybe a read of Wikipedia_talk:Method_for_consensus_building#Templates_need_wider_discussion and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#Template:Support_and_Template:Object_and_Template:Oppose, and the various reviews since might be worth a read. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates are the basic templates of Wikimedia wikis, but they have deleted in English Wikipedia. I think English Wikipedia is not undemocratic, but in other languages is democratic. So I hope these templates are KEPT, NOT DELETED!--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be quite happy to see them back. Maybe all the editors that wanted them removed are not active now... I've still used the code sometimes - it not rocket science to just add [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] '''Keep -''' instead. I suspect some PS/Tablets could easy be configured to add that at a special keystroke.Ronhjones (Talk) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The presence and usage of these templates - as amply demonstrated by the nominator's comments above - will mislead new users into thinking that {{vk}} ~~~~ will have any influence whatsoever on an admin's close of a deletion debate. The English Wikipedia is intentionally "undemocratic"; the purpose of a comment is to convince the other participants, not to vote, and shouting KEPT, NOT DELETED! or [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|150px]] or what-have-you never advances that goal. —Cryptic 01:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Typical comments in deletion discussions may be
'''Delete''' Violates policy or '''Keep''' Doesn't violate policy with a clarification on how policy is or isn't violated. In what way would it be any different to replace '''Keep''' and '''Delete''' with {{vk}} or {{vd}}? Templates do not seem to be more misleading about voting rules than the alternative wikicode. There do not seem to be any problems with the use of {{vk}} and {{vd}} on Commons, and both commenting editors and closing admins seem to know c:COM:NOTAVOTE. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worse because the templates put the most emphasis on the least important part of the edits, and have the effect of drowning out everyone who doesn't use them. But it's immaterial anyway; these aren't drv arguments. No reason has been put forward why the dozens of previous deletion discussions were incorrect, only explicit complaints that the lack of a template prevents voting. If you want to demonstrate that consensus has changed and ten years' worth of tfds on this family of templates are wrong, and to impose them on everybody, the way to do that is to start a well-advertised rfc - not a poorly-attended drv during winter holidays started on terrible premises, that impressively manages to violate fully half of the items in WP:DRVPURPOSE. —Cryptic 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Some users are claiming that templates affect voting rules, but I don't see any connection between use of templates and voting rules. Writing a word in bold puts just as much emphasis on voting in my opinion. Therefore, the question on whether we should have templates like this should not be based on voting rules. That said, I think that there are problems with this DRV nomination. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You can refer other languages versions. I think this {{vk}} template, can use in deletion discussions, but it is except for close the deletion discussion. So this is my keep reason.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn speedy delete the deletion disucsion linked to above, and from the 2014 deletion is not related to this template, so it appears that deletion was either in error, or has linked the wrong discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know quite what to say to this. Do you think it's irrelevant because the template was at a different title when it was at tfd? Or that it used a different little checkmark variant? Or that the link is to a curtailed discussion closed via G4, rather than one of the more substantial ones? —Cryptic 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The G4 deletion looks correct in my opinion. The templates had previously been deleted at TfD, and when someone recreated the templates, speedy re-deletion seems appropriate. I guess that the DRV nominator meant to try to overturn the original TfD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion start a discussion at WP:PUMP if you want to pursue the recreation of these further. (For the record, I'm neutral on keeping or deleting these. We use bold !votes here, I think the graphics would be clearer and no more votes than the bolding. But speedy deletion is certainly within the rules and probably even appropriate. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please MOVE this discussion to WP:PUMP because it remains controversial. Also I would like to talk about WP:FLOW in the pump because we are looking forward for the enable date of Flow.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted – long, long-held consensus that voting templates encourage, well, voting rather than discussion aimed at building a consensus. See WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted We have sufficiently difficult problems with people thinking afd is a vote. This will only encourage it. Keep/delete, though the most common views at AfD, are not the only ones, and more nuanced ones should be encouraged, not discouraged.-- and I have observed over the last year or so an increasing tendency to qualify the bare words, often, I am glad to say, by relative new people. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
