Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30 edit

Template:Pile of Crap edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was what do you think? Speedy delete. ~~ N (t/c) 09:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful or helpful template. -- Longhair 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I would be too tempted to use it. Mak (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, created by the North Carolina vandal (it's his typical style, can't prove it without a checkuser though). Will I get in trouble if I say it made me laugh? Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Unverifiable-external-links edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created for use in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict articles. Should be deleted as it is repetitive with our general content disclaimers. This template could literally be placed in every article because Wikipedia never endorses or reviews the content of sites which are linked in the external links section. The presence of this template in some articles could also imply that external links in articles which lack this template have been verified. From the general disclaimer: "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Potentially useful in many articles. Wikipedia readers can't be expected to know about general content disclaimers. Wikipedia is about informing. We should therefore take any reasonable precaution to avoid disinforming. Also, external websites may have content that's libelous. A specific disclaimer could protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. --Denis Diderot 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general disclaimer certainly covers any legal issues. This template seems much less about informing, and much more about carrying pov-conflicts into the external link sections of articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The general disclaimer certainly covers any legal issues.". I really don't want to get into a long discussion of legal issues here, so I'll just give a short answer. No it doesn't. The idea, as I understand it, is to use this template specifically for external links that have a strong POV or contain "unverified original research" (quote from WP:EL). The purpose would thus be to avoid pov-conflicts.--Denis Diderot 07:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to sue us because we linked them to a biased site. If they did, they would lose, so much so that we could probably get them to cover our legal costs. Our general disclaimer protects us from providing biased content even within our own articles—the external link itself is part of the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is a direct invitation to POV conflicts over the tag itself. Instead of merely arguments over POV, now this tag would lead to arguments over the POV of alleged POV. What a can of worms. 2005 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to all other POV tags. Do you argue those should be deleted too? --Barberio 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags are in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy which has been established by consensus. NPOV tags are temporary, this is not. This template may be useful in situations where there are ongoing disputes over external links (although such links should be moved to the talk page for the duration of such disputes instead) but its permanent use alongside links which meet the guidelines of WP:EL is an attempt to circumvent current policy. You should propose changes to WP:EL instead rather than unilaterally creating such an unsightly disclaimer. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This template was created as part of the mediation process - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but is not solely of use for those pages. It should be used for any external links section which links to questionable sites. This template in no way dilutes the existing policies WP:EL, and in my view it should be placed on all articles that link to potentialy misleading sites. --Barberio 09:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Totally inappropriate, preumptuous and frankly bizarre. It's an invitation for anyone who doesn't know anything about a topic, or who wants to troll, to slap an unthinking tag on almost any external links. External links should either be included or not, and it certainly is NOT a good idea to make it seem that any external links without this tag are verified! 2005 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adressing each of your points,

Use of the tag inapropriatly is not a bad mark against the tag it's self. Trolls can and have used the other POV tags inapropriatly, but this is not reason to remove the POV tags.

I think we have to recognise that Wikipedia does have a problem in not discriminating between verified and unverified external links. There is a global disclaimer that external links have not been verified by Wikipedia, but the vast majority of readers will not have read this, and inline notification is important for the sites where not only has Wikipedia not verified them but no one else has either. An ideal article would not link to these sites at all, but ideal articles do not need any of the other POV warning tags either. As evidenced in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, there can be major disputes over the removal of these links. A specific warning in cases where the sites may be particularly misleading, or the external links list contains many unverified links, is warented.

That other articles include unverified external links is, to me, an argument for using the tag on those articles. Even without presence of the tag on Wikipedia, the general reader would assume that these sites have specific merit due to being selected as part of the article. So since the default reaction of the reader is to assume merit, we need to make effort to either ensure a high quality of external link, or explicitly mark those links which are unverified.

And an aditional general responce. As part of the mediation process, compromise was reached to allow inclusion of links to 'dubious' sites, so long as the link section was clearly marked. If this template is deleted, then this compromise position can not stand since it would be a special exception for a single article. Unless the WP:EL standards are applied more strictly this tag has it's place. I would like to ask those who vote Delete to recomend an alternative to this template, engage into the mediation case that this arose from, or discuss any changes they belive should be made to the external link style guide. --Barberio 11:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should state the obvious here, that links in one particular contentious article can and should be dealt with regarding that article. Atemplate is not needed. It is fundementally foolish policy to make a tag that anyone could use because of a conflict over one article. And to state the super obvious, a conflict over an article about a WAR should not lead to the creation of a tag that could be put on a needlepoint article. 2005 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Is your position that it's a bad template because it was created during a conflict? I'm not sure that's a valid position. Consider the template on it's merits independant of the mediation case please. For instance, is there any reason this template could not be used on a site about extreem sports that linked to a very popular extreem sports blog, and consensus supported keeping the link but warning the reader. --Barberio 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No such template is called for anywhere in the Wiki policy for external links, WP:EL, and could in fact be argued to be necessary for any and every external link. Furthermore, it infantalizes Wiki readers. I believe that it is unnecessary and inappropriate. Finally, I must disagree with the characterization above that this template was invented to label "dubious" sites, or that it was a necessary part of the compromise mediation of this case -- the sites in question contain online publications and news service photographs from the frontlines of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, every single one satisfying the exceptions to the policy clearly laid out in WP:EL and therefore appropriate for inclusion without any such template. This is discussed explicitly in the mediation case The fact that the presence of this template is now being argued to label these links as "dubious" is strong evidence of the POV slant this template gives to external links. AdamKesher 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Seems a violation of the policy on disclaimers (which has moved somewhere other than where any rational person could find it, now.) If "required" by the mediation, than the mediation has failed. Otherwise, a specific warning on individual external links may make some sense, but a general template saying the external link section has such links is worse than useless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask if you belive that the other disclaimer templates, such as the POV warnings, should also be deleted? --Barberio 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't muddy the water. The discussion is about this inappropriate template, not every other Wiki policy or template. Furthermore, you say "I think we have to recognise that Wikipedia does have a problem in not discriminating between verified and unverified external links." I think we have to recognize that you are making an invalid assumption that few will agree with or even understand what you are thinking. As you say "There is a global disclaimer that external links have not been verified by Wikipedia..." That's it. We do not "verify" every link. We don't try to "verify" every link. Very bad, presumptuous template that accomplishes nothing positive and an awful lot negative. 2005 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be saying "this section may have bad links" without asking for cleanup. That's more like the general disclaimer templates that have mostly been deleted on sight, than the POV templates, which ask for the article to be fixed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template has had language added that makes it clear that these links should be replaced. I hope this clears up any disptute you had that it was 'just' a disclaimer and not also a recomendation to fix the problem. --Barberio 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The curhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30&action=edit&section=2#rent wording is even worse. Deleting this bad template will clear up any dispute. 2005 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a direct contradiction of your original rationale for this template, as a disclaimer:

If there is no current warning of the reader on links to external sites that are unverifiable, then there should be. To that aim I just created this, …

Which is it? Are you attempting to warn readers of links that are clearly acceptable under WP:EL, or encourage editors to delete these same links? Either way, the template is not compliant with WP:EL and should be deleted. AdamKesher 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps next we can have a template like, "Caution: the next word is spelled incorrectly." However, I'll continue to hope that people who see an inappropriate link will simply delete it rather than asking someone else to do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced in the above comments, and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict, it's not always as simple as deleting the incorect links. This is the same as the other POV tags. And for your information, we have a template, Template:Copyedit, for sections that contain spelling mistakes. Do you suggest we should delete that template as well? --Barberio 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see both sides here, but the objections, IMO, don't warrant deletion. Yes, it could apply to all links, but this template means the links below are more POV and biased than usual, and have been included only because of there extreme usefulness. Arguments of POV pushing with the tag are silly, because there would already be an argument over the POV of the links anyway. At worst, you wouldn't be creating an argument, only moving its subject. As for infantalising readers, well, after only being here a year, and despite my best faith in humanity, frankly, people are idiots. There will be someone who will open the link and claim wikipedia is biased, or that the link got them an F on their school report, or read it as fact. Hell, most people have trouble detecting the bias in FOX news. --Iorek85 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is as useful as a "spoiler warning" is. Proper usage should be defined, probably in Talk page. (SEWilco 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Update: Some user removed the {tfd} tag on the template claiming that this lengthy discussion didn't exist; I readded it. The creator also appears to have added some usage guidelilnes on the template page. Having read these guidelines, I think that the argument for its deletion is even stronger, and that users who voted keep thinking it was meant for other purposes should review their votes and see if they still agree. It currently states this template is to be used with EL that do meet the inclusion criteria of WP:EL but in essence, do not follow Wikipedia's NPOV policies ("claim point of view as fact"; "errors and omissions"). Very few sites on the internet would be in accordance with this template if the workds "point of view" are interpreted with the same latitude as they are on Wikipedia. This gives us the option of adding this ugly template to about 1,000,000 articles (which imho would require a proposed policy change to WP:EL rather than a tfd vote) or adding it selectively to a few articles where editors are angry over the inclusion of links which do meet our EL guildelines. As I've stated previously, this option is undesirable, because it implies that Wikipedia does certify the content of sites that it links to as being npov, which is something which is entirely outside of our capacity. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with savidan here. One need only read the mediated dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict to see that Barberio has not cited or explained a single conflict with these links and Wikipedia policy WP:EL. One can only conclude that his opposition to these links has nothing to do with any violation of Wki policy, but the content of the WP:EL-compliant links themselves. AdamKesher 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. All other websites have their own PoV. Whilst I agree with User:Iorek85 that most people are idiots (and I'd include myself in that statement) and whilst I agree that bias is often difficult to notice (Fox News being a prime case in point), I don't think it's the place of an encyclopædia to nanny users and remind them, at every juncture, that the rest of the Internet isn't as NPOV as Wikipedia. Whilst articles with links that are likely to be as polarised as those regarding the Near East may well merit a short sentence to that effect, it is the nature of external links that they'll have a different slant on things that the originating site; disclaiming that in such a prominent fashion just looks unprofessional, to my opinion. — OwenBlacker 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:CHL Arena Guide edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was try again, no votes RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is little-used and redundant to Template:OHL Arenas, Template:QMJHL Arenas and Template:WHL Arenas. BoojiBoy 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Seeintro edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template automatically incorrectly capitalizes the initial letter of a word in the middle of the pagename. Then you have to create a redirect page to the title with the incorrectly capitalized letter, thereby encouraging disregard of Wikipedia's capitalization conventions. Habitual adherence to those conventions by thousands of users helps avoid lots of confusion and extra work. Example: At the top of the article titled general relativity, this tempmlate creates this text: For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see introduction to General relativity. The initial G is incorrectly capitalized; the actual name of the article is (as it ought to be) introduction to general relativity, with a correctly lower-case initial g. Michael Hardy 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Michael was absolutely correct about the flaw in this template, but the correct response was to fix it, not to delete it. The template is now fixed: the first letter in the linked article name is capitalized, and subsequent letters are not.--Srleffler 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Firstly, redirect pages do not have to adhere to naming conventions. In fact, they delibarately have incorrect names to guide the user unaware of Wikipedia naming conventions, which are not all that well-known outside of our community. Secondly, this is a question of how the template is coded, not a deletion criteria. Feel free to go ahead and modify the template so that it points to the correct name. Loom91 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've created an alternate version at {{Seeintrolc}} which doesn't capitalize the initial letter. If the template is deleted, please hist-merge it to Template:Seeintrolc for GFDL reasons. --ais523 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I merged your changes into {{seeintro}}. Please delete your alternate version by adding the {{db-author}} tag.--Srleffler 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Loom91. Neil916 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Opentask edit

This template, placed on thousands of user pages, heavily litters "what links here" of articles listed in it. I was heavily annoyed when I tried to check which pages discuss National emblem of Belarus. I suggest to replace it by a Wikipedia open tasks and put links to this page on user's pages instead. `'mikka (t) 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No valid reason for deleting this. The fact that so many users have an easily accessible list of open tasks is a good thing; we do want those articles to get fixed, after all. Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem you describe is a relatively minor one that could be resolved by linking each entry to a generic "Wikify1" article, "Wikify2" article, etc., each of which would redirect to the appropriate article. Don't delete the template just because of a technical glitch. Neil916 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Create a Bugzilla suggestion to sort "What links here" results, as having User pages grouped together would make it easier for you to ignore such in your Belarus check. (SEWilco 15:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User Doctor Who Cushing Doctor edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as this TfD.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This might be speedy material since no user pages link here, so it is unused. It is only linked to Templates for deletion.- LA @ 06:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:4x4 type square edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was subst and d'lete RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in the article namespace. No apparent purpose that wouldn't be better-served by non-templated tables or more specific templates. Neon Merlin 05:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an excersise in bad Wiki formatting. Fredil Yupigo 19:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Michael 07:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or talkify Have you seen what its single use is for? This template seems to work pretty well in Talk:Most-perfect magic square, but as it seems to be useful specifically only on that talkpage, perhaps it should become a talk subpage of that article. There's a problem with negative numbers which maybe should be sorted. Against the nom, the template itself is pretty specific; it appears to be used only for the display of 4x4 magic squares, which is why talkification should be considered. At least subst if this will be deleted. --ais523 10:02, 3 August 2006 (U T C)
Subst or make talk subpage per ais523. Septentrionalis 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.