Template talk:Facepalm

This template was considered for deletion on 2011 October 3. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Speedy deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

– Simple misunderstanding of the expression "Facepalm". Dreadstar ☥ 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the speedy as a G10 when a user has been using the template with uncivility at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of poorly performing college football coaches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what you're talking about, and your stunt just broke every single usage of this across the project. Thankfully, saner heads have undone this. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit harsh as a response. I undid it. I think he was wrong. I don't think sanity has anything to do with it. Simple misunderstanding that would probably be much better handled with a calm response. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onorem. Based on the discussion at the link above, the editor was using the template as a personal attack. When I noted that I was uncomfortable with the use, the editor became uncivil. So I followed procedure at WP:TFD. I don't mind being wrong as I'm wrong a lot, and Wikipedia has mechanisms for times when I am wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I think you're wrong again. I don't think it was used as a personal attack. It's simply supposed to be a humorous way to say that you're very frustrated about something. If he'd said, "Cy Young also holds the record for career losses, but I'd seriously be extremely frustrated with someone attempting to add him to a List of poorly performing baseball pitchers article," would you consider that to be a personal attack? It's a communication issue, but not an attack...at least from my perspective. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I don't think that Onorem is wrong, it was me who was wrong to speedy-G10. I'm simply saying I did so in good faith. Wikipedia works, move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

looks like an ear to me

Sorry, but if we have to keep it, and it seems we do, can we not have an Wiki artist do something with this? It looks like an ear to me. Really it does. Mugginsx (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of the image. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

liable to be regarded as a civility violation

This is an acceptable clarification IMO, it was the redefinition of what a facepalm actually is that was unpalatable. A redefinition that I course Facepalm at. ;) Tarc (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh!

Facepalm

Seriously, its use is intended as a Homer Simpson like Doh! at ones own stupidity. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, it isn't, and it isn't how I use it, not many others. Feel free to make Template:Doh! a blue link, maybe with a picture of a donut, though. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. There is the meaning of the meme, over which we can argue, but (and here Tarc is right) we can't redefign it. There is the intention of the creator (for which we take the creator's word). And thirdly there is the OUGHT of how Wikipedians should or should not use it. I think we should drop the word "intention" here, since that's really irrelevant. Nor should we attempt to defign what the expression means, since that's the business of the article Facepalm, but we should restrict ourselves to advising on what Wikipedians see as acceptable and unacceptable use of the template (as expressed in the AFDs). My take from the AFDs was that, as nominator, I was complaining that this template effectively said "what you just said seems moronic to me" (which is uncivil), however a lot of people claimed that the template could equally mean "Oh, I'm a fool, my bad". Now, whatever the intrinsic meaning or intention of the template, it seems right to warn users that the first of these uses is regarded as inappropriate by many. Thus "this template should only be used to self-deprecate, and not to mock others" seems good advice.--Scott Mac 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I call shenanigans on your response here. I just skimmed the TfD and found precisely 3 people...Wee Curry Monster, Flinders Petrie and The Bushranger...who made any mentino of self-usage, so I find your claim re: "a lot of people" to be...kinda not exactly truthful. Many found it to be simply a sharper form of the tried and true Wikipedia Trouting. A minority of the keeps found your nomination to be completely absurd or a waste of time. The majority of the keeps fell into the camp that believes the template-absuer should be sanctioned if it is misused, and not to blame the template itself

If that is how we want to leave it, with a "abusing this template can be considered uncivil" warning, I am fine with that. But please do not redefine it to line up with how you wanted the TfD to go, as that point of view was soundly beaten into the snowy tundra. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking past me. I explicitly rejected any attempt to redefign it whatsoever. Playing newspeak isn't an option. Using the template to imply someone's comment is foolish, moronic, or to otherwise put them down is exactly the type of "abuse" of we are refering to - i.e. using it in an uncivil manner. What else?--Scott Mac 01:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing this any more for now, but the current version doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. Just say'n.--Scott Mac 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking past you, I am refuting a specific point that you claimed, i.e. "...however a lot of people claimed that the template could equally mean "Oh, I'm a fool, my bad""

There is a disconnect between "a lot of people" and "3". Tarc (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced "had ought" with a simple "can be". Usage is simple if we just follow another tried-and-true wiki-aphorism; don't be a dick. Follow that, and one's usage will be proper. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link

Can we change the link to direct users to Template:Facepalm instead of to Facepalm? I think the documentation page explains what an editor is likely to mean by it much better than the article does. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. →Σ τ c. 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm (3rd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link

The transclusions link to the template itself. Wouldn't it be better to link to the article Facepalm? --Lambiam 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. Oh, I see that used to be the situation, but was changed some time ago. I think the article describes the meaning quite adequately; furthermore, the template preview on mouseover is less suitable. --Lambiam 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the concerns a significant minority of editors have expressed at TfD and in various other forums, linking directly to the usage note is more appropriate than linking to a stub article on facepalming-in-general. Compare with {{trout}}, which links to Wikipedia:Trout, which explains the usage on-wiki. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil usage

In context, I have never seen this template used in any manner other than to state without words "You are an idiot." And this is usually not pursued as a breach of civility. So really, I think this section is no longer applicable to the template. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]