Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23

Template:Suicide response

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there appears to be some valid interest in rewriting the template. As a result, I am closing this as keep for now, with no prejudice against a future nomination. A wider discussion would also be of some use as the the use of templates in response to threats of suicide. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suicide response (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template came to my attention at this discussion. It's use would go against the suicide essay, and using a templated message is not a substitute for a personalized message. Using a templated message in such a delicate situation as suicide threats has far more potential to do harm than to help resolve the situation. As one of the original instigators of the UW template system, this template goes against the original goals of the user warnings project which was to help with repetitive situations i.e. vandal control etc, suicide threats are far and away from a repetitive situation. Though this template is not currently part of the UW plethora, the fact it's in template space means it certainly would be misused in the same vein and must have a personalized approach and not a template. ^Khukri 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suicide threats, whether serious or not, must always be taken seriously. We should not reply to suicide threats with canned templates. Samboy (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I though it was a good idea when it was created (in response to this ANI thread (as did at least three other admins who responded to its creation there)), and I still do. It is designed to provide useful information, and it does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't want potentially suicidal users to feel "processed" by the "Wikipedia bureaucracy". Suicide is a serious issue, and using an impersonal, bot-like template to deal with it may agitate disturbed users even more. While I agree that the information provided within the template is valuable, it should be provided in a custom-made message addressing the unique issues within every case as much as appropriate, i.e., by a real person. A templated message would be counterproductive in this instance, possibly with ramifications much more serious than the usual "user blocked", "article protected", "page deleted". The purpose of templated messages is to make it quicker for a response to be delivered, and whilst this is all well and good with basic vandalism, responses to suicide threats must be thought out individually for each situation. Intelligentsium 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with a basic premise that a custom-made note is necessarily superior or a conclusion that it "would be counterproductive". Sometimes templated messages are created to help ensure that people don't say the wrong thing and unintentionally exacerbate the situation. This one was created for precisely that reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it was with this premise that we created the original UW templates, to create a standardised approach to warnings so that new editors wouldn't do the wrong thing and could have confidence the message they were giving had some form of concensus. But in my opinion this template is different, it is for a realm that the editor should be well informed and tread delicately. Though WP:SUICIDE is only an essay, I do believe the prominence of take it to ANI to be telling. This would then put it into the realm of those who should know how to approach such a delicate subject, those who know the correct procedures and actions to be taken. Having this template accessible to all, could put the editor who had all the best intentions into issuing a template and creating a greater situation when a more introspective approach by those who are familiar, such as yourself, with the guidelines would be advisable. Regards ^Khukri 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When suicidal threats are taken to ANI, response is non-standard and depends entirely on who is watching ANI at a given moment. The primary argument for deletion I see is that the response is automated and that a personal response is merited. The difference between a template and a personal response is minimal to the recipient; what matters is what the template says. A standard response there is very helpful, as Wikipedians are in no better position to practice psychology than we are to practice medicine. We should routinely and immediately refer individuals who express suicidal ideation to people who are in position to help them. We are not. Several people have mentioned their beliefs that this template is dangerous; it is my opinion that armchair psychology is dangerous. Text is a blunt medium of communication, particularly when dealing with a stranger. A trained responder on a suicidal hotline can pick up nonverbal cues that can help him or her in his approach to the individual. They know better than to provide superficial reassurances or to give advice or fall into any of the other common errors in addressing such individuals. The best approach to such a delicate situation is to recognize our limitations and help these people find real help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say that suicide threats are one area where we should have a standardized response. As mentioned in the original ANI thread (referenced by Moonriddengirl), we, as editors, are not mental-health professionals, and we are not trained to respond to this sort of situation. While it may seem heartless to some, I see this template as a way for an editor to respond easily to a situation which is outside his expertise. Trying to administer an "individually thought out" response to each threat is more likely to cause problems, in my opinion. The best thing for us as encyclopedia editors to do is to divert the person making the threat to an outlet which could actually help them. As currently written, that is exactly what this template does. If there is a more effective method, then the template should be improved, not deleted. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would be fine with a re-write as per Black Falcon below, although I doubt that the Wikimedia legal department will do anything; my experience is that they generally kick these things back to the editors, as Wikimedia would bear no legal liabilty for editors' actions. Having a mental health professional advise us would be a better idea, as suggested by ArnoldReinhold below.--Aervanath (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forcefully strong delete Even if we are not a reliable place to turn for self-help, when an editor uses Wikipedia as an outlet to express suicidal thoughts it is our moral imperative to reach out to him as best as we can. Suicide threats need personalised response, not a fire-and-forget template. Suicide is not an issue for bureaucracy, but human response from real life people. This template is more than heartless, it is dangerous to the well-being of the editors who are on the receiving end. Coming from someone who has been to the edge, this template is a danger to those it is aimed at and the option to use it shouldn't even be on the table. Them From Space 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's dangerous to direct people to suicide hotlines? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea, but not the implementation - A standardised response template serves at least four purposes: (1) it reduces the likelihood that an editor responding to a suicide threat will say the wrong things and exacerbate the situation; (2) it increases the likelihood that an editor will respond to a suicide threat instead of doing nothing or wasting time due to hesitation about the correct course of action; (3) it increases the likelihood that a person contemplating suicide will receive the resource (the external link) contained in the template; and (4) it protects (even if only partially) the editor responding to a suicide threat from excess emotional distress in the event that the attempt to encourage seeking professional help is unsuccessful.
However, I would like to propose two changes: (1) alter the wording of the template to be less of a notice and to focus more on providing resources for the person contemplating suicide instead of describing Wikipedia; and (2) since these types of situations can form the basis of legal issues, I believe that the text of any template of this kind should be determined by the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer(s) rather than by editors. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm with Black Flacon on this one - I think we need the template, but the wording needs to be amended as per BF's suggestion - and I think the input of WMF's lawyer would be a very good idea, so that future use of this can be legally covered. As I agree with there being such a template, but not this particular one, I can neither oppose or support, hence my neutral. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with re-write. Per BF above. Also to note, the likelihood that someone who posts a real suicide threat on WP, is that they do not know the technicality of how templates are posted to user talk pages. Moreover, even if they did, it is not much unlike signs posted at potential suicide spots, such as can be viewed in this article. The possibility that a real threat could be deterred by being linked to real help in my mind, far outweighs the potential harm. bsmithme 03:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite My concern is that without a standardized response, one of our editors might assume the threat is a troll and make a very bad response. It's not hard to imagine. I do think the wording could be better and I suggested alternative working on the template's talk page. Rather than have a lawyer review the language, I would suggest calling one of the services listed and getting someone with real expertise to advise us. --agr (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2009 (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 section.

Template:Infobox CD Information 2

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Garion96 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CD Information 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is incomplete. Mayuresh 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 23 December 2009 (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 section.

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T)

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (Val di Noto) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be redundant to {{World Heritage Sites in Italy}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 23 December 2009 (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 section.

Template:XD5

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XD5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:XD4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This appears to be left over from some experiment? It doesn't appear to be needed anymore? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like a forerunner of WP:PROD. Note Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is marked historical and failed. ... I say that WP:XD needs cleanup, what with left over categories and templates lying about. 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unneeded, now that we have the PROD template. I don't think there's much benefit in marking it (and all the other leftover XD templates) as historical, the main project page should be enough. Or maybe not, I'm not that knowledgeable about historical pages and their subpages. I've only been here about 10 months, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Spongefrog. The project pages very much need to be kept, but most of the templates and categories will be unnecessary. Anyone willing to take a moment to read Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD4 and Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD5 would have an idea of the text the corresponding templates would contain. Also see Template:XD2, Template:XD6 and Template:XD7. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:46, 29 December 2009 (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 section.