RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Template:Usermessage Trolling

Template:Usermessage Trolling | Result: Delete

Template:Usermessage Trolling (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This is an unfunny prank template and I think there is a sizeable amount of people who find it annoying and unwelcome rather than funny. Even if you're not fooled, it's hard to ignore the template and at least have a few seconds of "did I really have it?", which isn't very productive and goes a bit against the purpose of such notifications in the first place. While overall only annoying at worst, I think this kind of stuff should be removed from the wiki, and it should've been deleted a long time ago. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
2. I can't pass the catchpa here at work, so every time I get hit by this it forces me to engage in creative relogging. Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Then check where the link sends you before clicking on it, it's possible on nearly all computers. Christopher (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Not on mobile though in some cases. So, more the reason to delete it. And besides, I don't blame Hipocrite. I don't think he's at fault and I can feel the pain of logging out especially if you have trouble with catchpa. Unless this thing gets a complete color change or even a text change, people that can't hover over the link have no clue if it's real or not unless they exit the page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   I can on mobile, you can still tell the difference through the colour of the links though (CBF's one is more convincing because it's the right colour). Christopher (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   I don't quite understand how the cost-benefit analysis of this template works - we should keep it because it's my fault for not checking every time I get a "new message" indicator that it's actually a new message and not a fuckwit trying to prank me? It's just a prank, bro, right? Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   No one has yet argued that we should keep it. The fact that I don't think you have a good reason for wanting to delete this template doesn't mean I oppose deleting it. Christopher (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Why not goat?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

   It doesn't really matter either way because there are no transclusions of the template, more goat is always needed though. Christopher (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

   I mean, there have been attempts to make it more obvious that it's fake, but if you look at the history, it's just edit warring by Arisboch. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

3. Not because I oppose people doing this (I don't particularly care either way) but because there are no uses of this template. If people care that much about having this rather bad joke on their page they can copy paste it off CBF's userpage. Christopher (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Not fair to hide redirs - [1] Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   There are still no transclusions, which I consider to be an unused template, the relevant special page agrees. Christopher (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• It's quite old so I don't know if it'll still work but Nx made a script to hide these. Christopher (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  Doesn't work for me. Christopher (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)