Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding
Now that it's tagged with "humorous", it doesn't qualify as a hoax anymore, so I'm taking it here. But it's still unnecessary and I think could be confusing to new members. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete it's not humor. It clearly lays out a process:
Warnings, when used, should be given 12-24 hours in advance. Watches should be used 24-48 hours in advance. For example, if consensus on a WP:AfD is to delete and debate ends within 24 hours, it would be proper to post a Deletion Warning on their talk page.
- That is a serious suggestion lacking in humor. In short it's an unnecessarily complex suggestion completely devoid of humor. (Also, G3 didn't apply to begin with.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The process itself is followed in humor, as the warnings have no real force. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - The problem is that you're not just using the page as a humorous essay. You've also tried to use the actual tags (albeit unsuccessfully) on talk pages of AFD'd articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severe_Thundersnow_Warning&diff=prev&oldid=441101414 Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Correction - *on my OWN AFD'd article --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- But you're still using it on articles. What difference does it make if it's on an article you created? You're taking it past the level of humorous essay and making it something that you're actually using. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Answer this. It is stated in policies that unless an article is causing real harm (copyvio, attack page, hoax, non-notable, etc) it should be modified rather than deleted. Is this page causing real, significant harm or danger to wikipedia or its users? Y/N? --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I believe that it, along with your use of the tags you've created for the page could be confusing to editors, especially new ones. There's no need for this article. There's no reason to have it to modify it. It serves no purpose, and I only see it as potentially causing harm. That is why I think it should be deleted. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Answer this. It is stated in policies that unless an article is causing real harm (copyvio, attack page, hoax, non-notable, etc) it should be modified rather than deleted. Is this page causing real, significant harm or danger to wikipedia or its users? Y/N? --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- But you're still using it on articles. What difference does it make if it's on an article you created? You're taking it past the level of humorous essay and making it something that you're actually using. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Correction - *on my OWN AFD'd article --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - The problem is that you're not just using the page as a humorous essay. You've also tried to use the actual tags (albeit unsuccessfully) on talk pages of AFD'd articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severe_Thundersnow_Warning&diff=prev&oldid=441101414 Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - the "Humor" tag was clearly applied to game the system in order to circumvent the speedy tag. The page attempts to establish a non-consensus driven process change to the deletion process - it's obviously not intended as humor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do believe that this page is inappropriate for the wiki, namely because we have individual "warning" systems in place for each of these already (the serious ones, that is.) LiteralKa (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Read the new modifications. They address the serious issues which have been brought up. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- We have systems for these things, such as {{Vandalism information}}, talk page warnings, and deletion tags at the tops of pages. This just isn't necessary. LiteralKa (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those things have real force, no room for adding your own message (except criteria), and can be used in deletion discussions and such. The exact opposite of what occurs with my system in all three parts. In W.A.M.E., There is no real force, only a header is pre-included, and do not count as "warnings" like talk page warnings. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is that humor? LiteralKa (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- {{humor}} was the closest thing I could think of to "This article is not a serious process, is not a policy, and is not intended to appear to be policy, but is rather a unregulated system for information" that would be able to be posted quickly when I was under SD Panic (SD panic is a sort of panic that a user undergoes when his article has the SD tag on it with invalid criteria). --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, under pressure, I was confusing "not supposed to look like a policy (intentionally unofficial)" (which makes it not a hoax) with "humorous" --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- {{humor}} was the closest thing I could think of to "This article is not a serious process, is not a policy, and is not intended to appear to be policy, but is rather a unregulated system for information" that would be able to be posted quickly when I was under SD Panic (SD panic is a sort of panic that a user undergoes when his article has the SD tag on it with invalid criteria). --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is that humor? LiteralKa (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those things have real force, no room for adding your own message (except criteria), and can be used in deletion discussions and such. The exact opposite of what occurs with my system in all three parts. In W.A.M.E., There is no real force, only a header is pre-included, and do not count as "warnings" like talk page warnings. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- We have systems for these things, such as {{Vandalism information}}, talk page warnings, and deletion tags at the tops of pages. This just isn't necessary. LiteralKa (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete While some procedures at Wikipedia are complex, I know of no examples like this which (in direct contradiction of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) appears to set out a "standard" of some kind. Given that this page was created to support (via a link) a new Wikipedia:Troll Warning essay, and given that the purpose of this page is extremely unclear, the sooner it is deleted the better. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was not created to support that essay, rather that essay falls under it's scope. read it again now, changes have been made. It very explicitly identified its purpose. It also makes clear that it is unofficial. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- To LiteralKa, quoted from WP:BURO: A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was not created to support that essay, rather that essay falls under it's scope. read it again now, changes have been made. It very explicitly identified its purpose. It also makes clear that it is unofficial. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)