Wikipedia talk:Trifecta

message: Nice idea. I agree that the first two principles are fundamental to how Wikipedia works, but not convinced about the "bedrock" nature of the third. I'm also not at all clear about a couple of the corollaries: how are style conventions (for example) meant to flow from NPOV? — Matt Crypto 01:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt: They don't strongly follow, because we've ignored all rules in drawing corollaries, except of couse for common sense, which is a corollary of WP:DICK, which is one of the rules we aren't ignoring because ignore all rules tells us that we have to ignore that rule too, so there have to be at least some rules we don't ignore. Are you seeing how this works yet? Besides which, the third is only a suggest policy for personal action, rather than being foundational. We must have freedom to act as we see fit, after all. -- Seth Ilys 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick thoughts

message: Seth, I just wanted to say "thank you". This is a very well-put document, and perfectly accurate. Thanks.
James F. (talk) 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Just linked it on my userpage. - David Gerard 14:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Apparently Kosebamse had it over a year ago: . Just stumbled across this again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Everything old is new again

message: Do we have to call it that? While I realize that Wikipedia isn't censored for children, the trifecta could be a bit cleaner. I think the policy would have more power if it was a bit more appropriate in that regard. McKay
:What do you suggest as an alternative? --JWSchmidt 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, well, you could chose a contraposition, like "Be nice" or "Choose the Right", or something a little less mean, "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be mean" It happens to be a corollary of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. You could pull the definition: "Don't be a highly contemptable person" Following links around, we could do something like "Don't be a hinsist" or something like that." We already have a page at "don't be unpleasant." McKay 06:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you McKay. The idea is good, but the language to convey it (dick) is immature. Improves community while subtly detrimental to community at the same time in my opinion. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with rewording it to "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be mean". (though, according to m:Don't be a dick, dick was originally itself a euphemism for "fuckhead". so at least we've improved past that, and also have precedent for rewording) --Quiddity 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not usualy one for censorship and am certaily not afraid of strong language but seeing the word dick used offended me a little in the way that it insults the spirit of the poject DJW2tone 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself suggests a good rewording "Be Civil".  The phrase "Don't be a Dick" is offensive (to some), and you're trying to ask someone to not be offensive.  Personally, I just think that the use of crude language is unprofessional in this context, and could be avoided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.53 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm concerned any rewording would do. I was recently a target of such personal attack, in which someone poked the WP:DICK at me. While in theory such remark could perhaps be defendable (I didn't call him a fuckhead, I merely noted he might have violated WP:DICK), the difference is close to none. Any commonly-acceptable non-offensive term would do. //Halibutt 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who don't understand, Halibutt refers to this edit of mine. I will post a refutation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Ghirlandajo, I wasn't referring to that edit of yours. Sorry to disappoint you. And yes, I'm still in for any change in the wording that would prevent people from poking offensive vocabulary at others. //Halibutt 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Don't be a dick 

message: I created this userbox. Feel free to use it. -- Michalis Famelis 23:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The userbox looks great! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And a userbox to go with it 

message: I'm asking for feedback on some merge-related suggestions, please come give input at Wikipedia talk:Simplified Ruleset#Merge suggestions?. Thanks :) -Quiddity 22:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: My <U>god</U>, you're all overanalyzing this. I invented it, so I think I'll Be bold and move this to Wikipedia:Trifecta just so all of you will end one of the most pointless arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. If you still want to fight over it, though, <B>don't</B>... just drop it into my userspace instead of the Wikipedia namespace.
-- Seth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethant (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better... :) Thanks for the rational move there Seth.  23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good grief! 

message: I love the Trifecta, but I've made it even simpler. My motto is: "keep it simple, civil, and neutral." To me, this has the potential of highlighting WP:BURO/WP:BOLD/WP:CREEP (KISS principle) and WP:CIVIL rather than WP:IAR and WP:DICK, which is my personal preference. The order is not important, that is it could be more in keeping with the Trifecta as "keep it neutral, civil, and simple". I just like the way it rolls of the tongue, and KISS is dear to my heart. "Stay" could be used in place of "keep it", or "Wikipedia" could be used in place of "it". The "Mind NPOV - don't be a dick - ignore all rules" user template is great, but it's kinda jarring, especially to newcomers. I think my motto is simpler, friendlier and easier to understand. heqs ·:. 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even simpler 

message: For heavens sake. Summarising and generalising I've just had someone cite Trifecta to me, as justification that it's OK to call people Dicks. While it remains in the Project space, this page must be labelled as an essay. --Dweller 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use the tag at the top of Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset? Template:Policy Summary? Carcharoth 09:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !?!? That'd make it worse. WP:DICK is neither a guideline, nor a policy. Thank goodness. --Dweller 09:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I now see that there are two MfD discussions in progress over these issues. Personally, I never cite WP:DICK or WP:CIVIL (other than cases like this), as it is much more productive to actually be civil and demonstrate by example how you want others to behave. A general finger wagging never really helped anyone. Maybe we need a tag that says that this page summarizes policies, guidelines and essays? Carcharoth 10:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that Trifecta itself is an essay. It's the opinion of a group of editors that this summarises what Wikipedia is all about. I virulently disagree and so, from the looks of the WP:DICK MfD, do many others. That's fine if it's an essay. Not fine if it's dressed up to look like anything other than an opinion piece. --Dweller 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Do you agree that "encyclopedia created by a community using a wiki" encapsulates the three key characteristics of Wikipedia, and that many of the guidelines and policies are a consequence of this? I think that is the key point, rather than argue over which policies, guideline or essays should be said to flow from these principles. There are other key principles of course, namely the "free content" one, which is a Foundation issue. Five pillars adds "consensus" to those four. Is it the absence of the "free content" bit that causes virulent disagreement? Carcharoth 11:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you rustle up a tag that says that this is a prototype of the five pillars? That might feel like marking it historical, but might also avoid the calls for it to be marked as an essay. Carcharoth 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gritted my teeth, and modified the tag that someone put up. Did I mention I hate tags? They are very misleading. --Kim Bruning 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cyde put up an  tag, and I tried to modify it to reflect what I understood the page to be.  I wouldn't mind if it came down altogether, personally.  The page didn't have a tag in the first place, and probably doesn't need one.  --Phirazo 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good grief 

message: It might be interesting to gather a list of guidelines and essays (mostly essays) that are based on common sayings or parables. Off the top of my head, I can come up with WP:BEANS, WP:KETTLE, WP:SPADE, WP:DUCK, WP:CUCUMBER, WP:CURIOUS, WP:KISS. Then you have the many essays that use analogies to make their points: WP:DICK, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TEA, WP:BIKESHED, WP:WEASEL, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:COATRACK, WP:DIG, WP:OSTRICH, WP:INSPECTOR, WP:GARDEN, WP:GRAPE, WP:CHICKENS, WP:MASTODONS, WP:HOLE, WP:DUST, WP:LIGHT, WP:MOBY, WP:SPIDER, and finally, but by no means least, WP:WORMS. Wow. I didn't know we had so many essays. That was only the first of three pages! Carcharoth 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I wonder if an "essay" version of Wikipedia:List of shortcuts might fly? :-) Carcharoth 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a whim, I started :Category:Shortcuts that are English words, and populated it with the above through Weasel.  Feel free to finish it, or decide that it is a horrible idea, whatever.  Dragons flight 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've expanded it. It probably is frivolous, but there is a logical conclusion to this. Kind of the reverse of WP:WOTTA. Carcharoth 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random sayings and analogies

message: Thanks, guys, I've added the float-right Trifecta template to my page. I think these should also have a link to Wikipedia:Trifecta, which has some useful next-level advice. Philcha (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trifecta templates

message: Hey I have created the attached version of Wikipe-tan where the image is instead converted to an image map. 
I have been trying to come up with a way to make this useful and realized why not propose that it be put on the WP:TRI page. 
If no one is opposed I would like to replace the current Wikipe-tan with a version of this template that I will move to templatespace first that will allow for the direction of the float to be determined through a parameter. -Sykko-(talk to me) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipe-Tan Trifecta Image Map 

message: I decided to expand upon the trifecta concept but I still kept it simple with 8 rules. The trifecta rules were integrated as rules 3, 4 and 5. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia]] 

message: Please? Her time has passed, and it's always been a little creepy. --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes please! No moar tans! benzband (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we remove Wiki-tan from this? 

message: At the time of this writing,  links to m:Don't be a jerk with the pictured text “Be friendly.” What’s the feeling on moe these days? I removed the template (since updated) from this page per comments from three years ago, but I have no preference either way. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipe-tan says