Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 26

1278:

surely there is no policy, and, in any case, is irredeemably POV (one may consider, I suppose, a template that exists only to convey that Knowledge (XXG) is not a resource one ought to consult toward the determination of whether he/she ought to kill him/herself, but even such a template would likely be POV, inexpicably elevating postings about suicide above postings about, say, religion; we don't, and oughtn't, to have a template suggesting that those who come to Knowledge (XXG) in order that they might decide which is the one true religion that they ought to follow should search elsewhere). Even as the POV the external link advocates (scilicet, that one oughtn't to kill him/herself) is one with which, in general, most here likely concur, it is nevertheless a POV, and, in any case, we should not have templates directing users that they ought to take a search elsewhere because we haven't information for them; they will likely reach that conclusion without our telling them. Hence,

1315:. But for a different reason. I think it goes beyond the scope of what wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for suicide prevention, and I think the concept is great....but not as a template. It's my opinion that if you come across a user who appear suicidal, then an actual, personal conversation with the user through talk pages is much more appropriate than a template. Secondarily, what makes that help site any better than any other help site? It could set precedent for other such templates that, in effect, could give the appearance of wikipedia "approval" of certain external cites. I really want to vote keep, but I wouldn't feel right doing so. 589: 1277:

Were this a template designed to exist as a userbox, it would likely be appropriate (assuming arguendo one believes userboxes may display points-of-view). In its current iteration, though, the template intimates that it reflects policy (see, e.g., in the employment of the collective "we"), where

1383:

in accordance with well reasoned arguments presented above, especially the one about using person to person communication, not a template, as a way to reach out. Full marks to all involved for having wanted to try this approach out, though.

1602:{{makesuretheyrereal}} comes first! All joking aside, someone should get Jimbo to register WikiWedding NOW. People have been married underwater, in space, in WoW... but never on a wiki... imagine the edit summaries! 738:). Only one of these pages exists. The template is effectively a request for a very large amount of information about a very narrow topic. Unencyclopedic; this belongs on "supersoakerfans.com" or some such site. 1022:, which was created because of these reasons. 4) Three other templates of a similar name were created to allow for optional parameters (version, publisher, and both), which has been taken into consideration with 544:. That infobox needs some work. I don't think the Template:Infobox Country will work because the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer exists. Therefore, there is no current data.— 1448:. The unacceptable POV is simply the advocacy of a particular resource. But lo! WP already has an NPOV 'suicide help' resource: the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of 1485:

I don't think someone having suicidal thoughts is going to be swayed by someone posting a template for them and this template only encourages people to post it instead of talking to them.

49: 44: 1040:), and are pointless except for their use in some userpages, talkpages, and Knowledge (XXG) namespace (this is a simple matter to convert, though). Hence, I'm suggesting their 1340: 1355:; per Joe's "irredeemably POV" and Swatjester's first point. I genuinely appreciate the intentions behind the template's creation, and I guess my comments re suicide in 1452:. While I do agree that personal conversation is preferable, it can't hurt to have some (NPOV) tool like this at our disposal. Let's reach out in a WP way. - 1527:

That's a good idea. Why have I been fooling around with these self-help ideas when we can do proposals, vows, even toasts, all via template! Just think!

1356: 1296: 503: 21: 510:

and removes this infobox from the page, then I would accept a delete. If not, then we need to keep this template so the article doesn't break.--

1359:

have led in some degree to its creation, but I couldn't imagine placing it on a user's page. Discussion is a better alternative. Thanks to

1037: 17: 1295:. I agree that allowing this template could lead to a slippery POV slope, among other problems. I mostly created it as a resource for 1299:

about the possibility of suicide threats being real rather than vandalism. Going to pass on voting. No hard feelings if its deleted.

149: 1512: 1331: 1054: 951: 756:

maybe one day wikipedia will have articles covering all those toys, but until that day, this template is completely useless. --

600: 959: 1410:

per Swatjester. This is an extremely delicate issue, an ugly one size fits all is not a sensitive way of dealing with it.

942: 27: 1516: 1058: 1659: 1217: 1198: 918: 815: 796: 670: 651: 422: 403: 251: 232: 76: 459: 885: 604: 137: 909: 1641: 1603: 1399: 450: 443: 288: 113: 1658: