Template talk:Weasel

message: This template needs a talk link: what's "weasel words" is not always obvious. Problem is referred to above. Now it is marked by :Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements, which implies it will probably be fixed soon. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I'll insert it if nobody objects. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, darn stupid of me! Pardon! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs talk link 

message: Am I the only one wondering why is a browser logo being used in a template? Reinistalk 13:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be reverted back, as I don't think it is appropriate. Danielnez1 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've reverted it, since the change was done by a annon user and there reason for changing it was to match the style of Template:Peacock, which I don't think is a good enough reason. Danielnez1 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it's much better now. Reinistalk 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceweasel 

message: I'm not sure how many times this joke has been posted, but it is at least once. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel

message: The weasel image was re-added a while ago; I'd really prefer this template to be as small and non-intrusive as possible (I'd vote for L1AM's suggestion, below). I'd revert to L1AM's design, but there's a lot of intermediate changes, and I don't want to undo things indiscriminately. Does anybody else think L1AM's suggestion is better than what we have right now? If not, I'll just leave it as is ... Gaurav 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that an egg full of meaning being sucked out to nothing but a shell by a weasel is anti-PETA. Weasel words suck meaning out of facts. I don't see an easy way to illustrate that. Goes. BrewJay (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel image: Stays or goes?

message: "May be compromised by weasel words"? The template, at least, should be straight with the facts. --Munchkinguy 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting point. Could "may" be removed - as the template would carry more weight and have more resonance with users - might receive higher responses. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be ill-advised, as the implementation of the template often comes up in disputes. Consider the neutrality dispute template. The purpose of the templates is to alert readers and editors to potential problems that need fixing, not to label articles. ⟳ausa کui × 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't hav weasel words in the template. That's hypocrisy. BrewJay (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I found it hilarious that the template section for weasel words was itself cited for using weasel words. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template uses weasel words 

message: When looking at Template:Weasel in Safari 3.1.1 (latest version), the Weasel image is a bit too much to the right, obstructing the first 3 characters of each line. Could somebody fix that? Thanks! Paluv (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick fix, maybe somebody can clean it up and make the code correct etc. Paluv (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring back the Weasel!! --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel image obstructs text in safari 

message: I have fully protected the template for now in respect to long-term ongoing dispute about the language that has been carried out primarily, it seems, in the template. As WP:BOLD notes:
Please take this opportunity to establish consensus for language or other changes to this template. When the protection expires, please be sure that changes to the template accurately reflect the consensus established here. Efforts to force through changes without consensus by directly and repeatedly editing the template may constitute edit warring, even if not technically in violation of the "three revert" rule. Please consider following the dispute resolution process if consensus cannot be reached here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After discussing the matter at WP:ANI, I've extended the protection to infinite in accordance with the protection policy. If consensus is reached for a change, please follow the steps listed at the top of the page for having those implemented. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Old habits are hard to break. This is not USENET. BrewJay (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: :There has been no further discussion of these suggestions since September. And it is  not a vote. A new discussion should be started, if necessary. -- NewbyG  ( talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Brewhaha@edmc.net—Don't worry about protecting pages or blocking; those  responsibilities are entrusted to  Wikipedia administrators. Otherwise, Help:Archiving a talk page. HTH -- NewbyG  ( talk) 05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Useless to me. The next time anything like this comes up or I see a page that takes more than eight seconds to load, I'll copy the link to that particular entry in history, post that link as an archive, and delete any conversation that seems to be either very old or resolved. BrewJay (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please feel free to comment here. 

message: As the discussion page is less than 80K, there is no need to archive yet. Any completed threads could go in Archive 1 which still has room, but that would not be required at this time. -- NewbyG  ( talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanking this discussion page again would be against the  Talk page guidelines. -- NewbyG  ( talk) 02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving this page

message: ===Concrete terms===
Yes. "Foggy" can also be called a sensory term. It is used very frequently for things that people don't understand. Everyday prose is a mixture of both concrete and abstract terms only because most writers use a mixture of words that sound good for what they're writing and mean precisely what they're writing. "Foggy" is a concrete term, and I prefer it, because it is clear.
===Notability===
Yes. Whenever a sentence isn't understood, it becomes less significant. Metaphors for facts, like "words that suck the life out of words around them, leaving an empty shell", however, mean more. People remember them because they stuck in their brains as inexact sense, and what those metaphors mean in practice is quite different and hard to understand. If weasel words hav one hallmark, it's that they make sentences weaker. Wikipedia's guideline about weasel words identifies specific and prolific examples. Even those examples make facts weaker and less significant, so I want notability written into the template.
===Neutrality===
No. Taking weasel words out of a statement makes it stronger, so it is not a neutrality issue unless it becomes a series of contrasting facts that different writers offer and try to buttress with guesses about levels of support. Weasel words are not an issue of bias.
===Contains Equivocation===
No. If you can avoid this problem that involves breaking your own rules, then you should. Equivocation, a synonym for weasel words, should be written out of this template. How to remove words that make writing foggy are a tough set of rules to understand, and WP:AWW probably shouldn't go into those rules. If anyone has learned them on their own, I do not want to encourage people to forget those rules by forgetting them in the template. BrewJay (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|BrewJay]] ([[User talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net|talk]]) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 

message: No. If you can avoid this problem that involves breaking your own rules, then you should. Equivocation, a synonym for weasel words, should be written out of this template. How to remove words that make writing foggy are a tough set of rules to understand, and WP:AWW probably shouldn't go into those rules. If anyone has learned them on their own, I do not want to encourage people to forget those rules by forgetting them in the template. BrewJay (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contains Equivocation

message: Should add fr:Modèle:Contenu évasif to the "languages" toolbox. Thanks ! Calimo (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --Jac16888 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to fr equivalent 

message: Minor tweaks to the layout (no wording changes) for legibility and consistency. Code is in the sandbox, just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --CapitalR (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style updates 

message: The template says "This article". I don't know if there is a way to modify what that says (I looked at the source, said 1|article... does 2 mean section?), but can we change it to "Article or Section"? It's used on sections as well as articles.
Vistro (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just write  and it will say "section". Debresser (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article or Section 

message: So someone slaps a "weasel" on an article. Which words/phrase? Where in the article? Based on what geographical lexicon/idiom? If someone thinks that an article has a weasel word/phrase they need to actually identify which word/phrase and where. Also, something that is clear and readily understood in one part of the world may seem to be a weasel in another. Hence there needs to be more reason given as to why the person adding the tag considers a particular part of the article to be a weasel. Any tag without reference to specific words and without specific reasons should be immediately rejected.
J'ai osé (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Aren't there other templates that already say, "Hey, someone needs to come fix this article up"?  Why use a vague weasely template to say that one or more words somewhere in the article may be a little vague instead of just inviting someone to come clean the article up (or tagging specific words or phrases)? Banaticus (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless without specific reference to actual words 

message: "This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
To me, the punctuation in this sentence does not look correct. Shouldn't the comma be a colon or something? 86.136.195.64 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to a colon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

message: The dutch interwiki can be removed. It is a dead link. The template does not exist anymore. itsme (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki dutch