MediaWiki talk:Edittools

Nuking

Okay Semicolon, you've had your fun, but it's about time we got rid of the Tag for Nuking option on this template. The Nuke template itself serves no productive function on SmashWiki, as (Speedy) Delete tags are always the ones to be used on candidate pages. Having the option for nuking only disuades users from using the correct template, and also brings the template to a length which causes the list of actions to go onto a second line on some monitors/devices. Toast ltimatum 06:02, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

Improvements

Discuss. Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 18:27, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

I find this to be improvement, and it takes out the tag for nuking in the process. Support. Toast ltimatum 18:30, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Support --Havoc48 >:D!!! 20:55, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

I guess it could do. Dots The Cute Asian 20:56, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Support per above The Awesome 16:22, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Support I agree with TU. Smash Master 16:34, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Support. Nuking makes no sense. ShupaRoeh 18:10, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Supporting will make things alot easier! (I never new what that thing at the bottom was!) The Cheese 16:20, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Semi barely comes around here anyway, and he only used the Nuke template thrice. It's time to move on. I support this proposal. --- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 16:24, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Support, on one condition. I'd prefer it if the font was Arial like it is now, instead of that ugly Courier font. Of course, very few others will care. :P Air Conditioner I am the air con. 16:34, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Support Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 02:40, 27 October 2012 (EDT) Conditionally support. Nuking is an important tag that should be available for newcommers to the wiki to use. I see no reason why the stub and cleanup tags should be available but not nuking. Mr. Anontalk 16:37, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

I CACHINNATED MY FACE OFF. Nuking is so redundant, it's unreal. It's basically speedy delete, except it doesn't put the nukeable articles in a category, and it doesn't have an icon on Recent Changes. Nuke's only purpose is to put a smile on Semicolon's face, and these hypothetical new users should learn how to type {{D}}. It is a joke system, and has no place in a serious template. Toast ltimatum 18:24, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Nuking was its own template, not a replacement or substitute for speedy delete; the purpose was to mock stupid posts on talk pages. --- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 18:27, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Nuking is not a substitution for speedy delete. Nuking is only for circumstances when a page needs to be nuked, in which case it should be available for all users. I support Toomai's proposal mainly for aesthetic purposes, but the nuke tag (along with {{D}} and other useful functions) should be in there as well for all users to use. Mr. Anontalk 18:36, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

I'll admit, I had forgotten Nuked was used in such a way, but if anything, the fact that its purpose is to mock bad edits makes it even more undeserving of a place in the Edittools template. These hypothetical new users shouldn't touch it at all. It's funny and all, but leave it to people who know the shortcut only. Toast ltimatum 18:40, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

That's exactly what I was trying to address. Semicolon might be inactive, so we have to allow all users to be able to nuke pages that need to be nuked. If necessary, we can have a guideline regarding this, but I completely disagree that this should be restricted for admins. Mr. Anontalk 18:42, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

There are no articles that need to be nuked, nuking is a simple joke. It's not like pages that need to be deleting, nuking is never essential, because it's just a joke. Toast ltimatum 18:44, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

There are no articles that need to be nuked because nuking is not meant for articles, it is for talk pages. Mr. Anontalk 18:51, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Please stop derailing the discussion. If you want to discuss the nuke template being in the box, then wait until the new box is implemented (which should not be too long). Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 18:55, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Oppose but only for removing the nuked template. Here's the thing. The nuked template is handy whenever you get something that's not worthy of debate but should merely be silenced undemocratically. It has immense power, and is frankly part of the culture and history of this wiki, a part of our history that we should hold on to and encourage practiced users to employ when necessary. If the opportunity arises, I will gladly demonstrate both the utility and the enormous satisfaction one gets when using it. It is also useful when you want to give somebody an example of what not to do, which is useful to the community as a whole, who get a wholesale example of what is not acceptable on this wiki. It does so in an unambiguous and salient way. Therefore, I oppose the removal of the nuked tag in the revised version of the editbox. Thanks you, ladies and gentlemen. Semicolon (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Courier New is ugly as piss, and Arial is no better. Garamond or GTFO—Garamond or I nuke the edit tools. You feel me, G-rida. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

Just in case you're being serious: The font is "monospace" so as to match the aesthetic of the editing field; whatever font your browser picks when given "monospace" is not really my problem. Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 22:41, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

Whatever font it is is ugly, and too small relative to the rest of the page. The edit tools are separated from the edit box, and thus need not be the same font. In fact, it would be better for them to match the summary field as they are closer together, and that is just a better look. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

I can see what you mean but I personally disagree. I will however have a look around other wikis to see how many others use monospace in their edit boxes. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 00:08, 22 October 2012 (EDT)