Template talk:Trout

Too inflammatory?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Having just been through a deletion discussion and DRV about this template, maybe we should have a discussion about whether this template crosses the line in its current format. Yes, it's a humor page but it's also regularly applied (misapplied?) against users who don't know that and who take it rather seriously. The sheer size of the image makes this template come across as deliberately provocative. I propose that this version be redirected to Template:Trout small which still gets the point across but doesn't completely dominate the page and disrupt all conversations.

Yes, I am a stick in the mud, a curmudgeon and a killjoy. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's ugly and obtrusive. Although that's been the tradition, I think it's time for a change. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:00, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
• Question' - Is there some middle ground? I agree that the current version is a bit large. But the small version seems too small as well. - jc37 03:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I created Template:Trout/sandbox to address concerns, sound off on whether it should be used to replace the current template. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:09, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
  • I did it boldly. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:43, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)
    • Just please leave the template as it was and merely substitute the smaller image? - jc37 04:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The line "Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly." was recently added and then removed. Personally, I think it should be added back. That phrase alone did a lot to reduce the emotional impact of the image in my opinion. And while editors should include an explanatory note when adding this template to a page, too often they do not. Or more specifically, their note reinforces the hostile interpretation rather than the "just in fun" interpretation. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reminders that this is a humorous template

I'm not the biggest fan of {{trout}}, but I am a big fan of following consensus and policies and guidelines. The decision has been made by the community that {{trout}} is humorous and should be kept. The line "Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly." was added to soften the impact of the template. GregKaye is taking issue with "just wants to let you know you did something silly", saying in his edit summary "we don't WP:ASSERT." I would like to point out that GregKaye is invoking a subsection of an essay on WP:NPOV, not the policy itself, and WP:NPOV, the actual policy, only applies to articles, not essays or humorous templates, which are allowed to express personal opinions. I'd also like to point out that GregKaye made his change to the template on the same day he himself was trouted, and consensus is that criticisms made of this template right after one has been trouted are suspect.Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmyers1976 To make the issue straight, the epic Monty Python, The Fish Slapping Dance sketch is, in my and many opinions, a work of great genius. It displays the action of a slap with a fish from one person to another and, I guess, the "antagonist" for want of a better word, on the right, deserved the notable slap at the end.

In my view it is just as funny if not funnier if the action is presented as a personal thing. The person is saying I am slapping you with a wet fish because I think you deserve it. This is fair. It is possible to retain and even increase the humour and still ditch the spite. There is nothing to say, unless you can find a reference, that comedy is funnier when an action is made according to an undisputed truth or whether it is performed on a very individual and personal basis.

My last edit read:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously.

Someone just wants to say that you did something silly.

Its still good and if anything even more personal but, I think that this better retains an open door for communication.

This being said I would appreciate a justification perhaps from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for your comments above. Careful with your response , I have a fish behind my back.

GregKaye 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A "justification" for my comments, from the Talk page guidelines? I don't understand what you are looking for, I think my position is clearly stated and cites community consensus. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

To all concerned...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Yours truly, Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You're a riot. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and...

Sizzle! The trout you used to slap another Wikipedian has been gutted, roasted over the coals, and served with tartar sauce. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that, just like the trout in this picture, your trouting of Wikipedians is overdone.

Right back atcha, Kleuske. (Finally, an opportunity to use it!) Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's more like it... Thanks for taking the time... I am truly honoured... Kleuske (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I made that a few months ago. Just made the smaller version today, though. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, how do you think community consensus doesn't give support to the very personal, "Someone just wants to say that you did something silly." but does give support to, "Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly." I really do not understand your objection. GregKaye 11:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to make this clear for you. Your changes, and your edit summaries, were unnecessary and pedantic. You invoked WP:ASSERT twice, which is in turn based on WP:NPOV, but WP:NPOV ONLY applies to articles, NOT templates and especially NOT humorous items like TROUT. Got it now? But you know what, if you are really SO convinced that "Someone just wants to say that you did something silly" is SO MUCH different and SO MUCH better than "Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly", then fine, be my guest, change it, I won't stand in your way, but just know that you have earned this:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Meanwhile, I'm going back to making edits that actually matter. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Same topic as Uw-Disruptive1

Should this page be merged with Uw-Disruptive1 David Dylan (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tuna template

I like this template but must say, I'd like one for tuna as well --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

96.235.238.115 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

on the talk page of the user you wish to communicate with.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)