Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 11 November 13 >

November 12

edit

Template:Sheldonmania

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 section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sheldonmania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

test template, not employed in any useful fashion nor likely to be. gadfium 21:01, 12 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:North Luzon Expressway

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Luzon Expressway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete for same reasons as Template:South Luzon Expressway: Mostly a collection of links of towns thru which the road runs. That's template overkill, a good example that not everything needs a navbox. The other topics in the template are already discussed in the main article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:57, 12 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:Access icon

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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Access icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Images should not be used as a substitute for text. The alt text for this image is perfectly adequate in conveying its meaning by itself; the image is superfluous, and at its default size is indistinct anyway. Roughly ~5000 transclusions, nearly all via infoboxes (almost all clones of {{infobox station}}). Just replace with its default text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:Corrupt (organization)

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus is that this is already covered by {{advert}} and {{COI}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corrupt (organization) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and badly named template. Firstly, I don't think we really need this: we already have existing templates like {{Advert}} that do a similar job. Secondly, even if we do, the name is highly inappropriate. It alleges that an individual or organisation is 'corrupt', which is a direct violation of NPOV. If kept, this template must be renamed. Robofish (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name is certainly inappropriate. I reckon between {{COI}} and {{advert}} we already account for this, and that we don't need a tag which is a union of the two: this isn't nearly as serious a problem as one might suppose from the drama that is raised about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to {{COI}} and {{advert}}. We don't need another template which is, IMO, worded too strongly. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we do need to keep this. Now if there are problems with the name or the contents, or both, then we can hash these issues out. The basic thrust of the message message is along the lines of "This company's PR people have worked over this article. You might want to be aware of this". There are various ways to state this and this can be discussed by reasonable people. It serves quite a very different function from any other template, I would say. Let's look at this together.
    • For one thing, the template is intended to address a specific ethical and (perhaps) legal problem for the Wikipedia, See here for a lengthy discussion. Here are the United States Federal Trade Commission guidelines addressing the issue, and there are some European laws and regulations that are even stronger, I believe. The basic point is, to present information provided by a commercial entity as if it was editorial material is highly unethical and possibly illegal. That is why ads in magazines that might be taken for news pieces have the word "advertisement" at the top and so forth. The FTC requires this. Again, don't know for a fact if we're breaking the law by not alerting readers to the situation, but it's certainly very sketchy not to. Why be sketchy, to no benefit?
    • {{Advert}} does not cover this, not at all. WP:ADVERT is for clearly promotional material. But only amateurs do that. We are talking about people playing a much deeper and more subtle game. Things like manipulating the financial info on their company to make it look stronger than it is, stuff like that.
    • A couple comments re {{COI}}:
      • {{Corrupt (organization)}} addresses a distinctive subset of the broad issue of COI. A lot of COI is people working on their own bios, but not for commercial advantage, and a lot of other COI is also not really for direct financial advantage -- you know: I work for this company, or live in that city, or my boyfriend is in that band, or I hate that political party, and want to see them presented well (or poorly). Money changing hands on a contract to a skilled PR operative to apply professional spin is a whole nother thing, and a different enough thing that we ought to notify the reader, I think. If someone sends you a message "Just found out that that story about Congressman Joe embezzling from the orphanage is so totally bogus", wouldn't you like to know if they're being paid by Congressman Joe's campaign to send that message (as opposed to just liking Congressman Joe)? Wouldn't that make a difference to how you process the info? It would to me, and might to some readers, and I don't see how its helpful to deprive them of facts.
      • {{COI}} can be -- and is -- gotten around with a little tandem maneuver: editor #1, a corporate reputation-management agent, hands off copy to another editor who makes the actual edit. That editor doesn't have a COI (his reasons for publishing the material may vary and are complicated, I have discussed this elsewhere) so the article is, technically, not eligible for a {{COI}} tag. This tag includes "influenced by" to handle that. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be arguing that because we throw the term "COI" around at the drop of a hat that we shouldn't be using it in, well, the most blatant case of all. A better solution would be to try to curb the use of COI to mean "this article has been edited by someone who once glanced sideways at the subject in passing on the street". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know if we throw the term "COI" around at the drop of a hat. Maybe we do. But it doesn't much apply to what I'm saying. I'm saying that {{coi}} says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", and (whether this is used too much or not) "close connection" could cover family relationships and a lot more, and we need a template for the specific subset "paid agency". Herostratus (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read over the exchange between Chris and Herostratus, and I'm unpersuaded that this template is necessary. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:NCCS worship team1

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCCS worship team1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for article on New Covenant Christian School. for which it is inappropriate and over-detailed content which belongs only on their web p. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 12 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:NCCS yearbook staff table1

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCCS yearbook staff table1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for article on New Covenant Christian School. for which it is inappropriate and over-detailed content which belongs only on their web p. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:NCCS staff table1

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCCS staff table1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for article on New Covenant Christian School. for which it is inappropriate and over-detailed content which belongs only on their web p. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:LotR navbox

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LotR navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

My feeling is that this template highly duplicates content already found in the articles themselves, particularly in the infoboxes, as well as Template:The Lord of the Rings (which includes more information). Izno (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Though I wouldn't mind seeing it integrated into the infoboxes in question. - jc37 02:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anaemic and superfluous. This doesn't add value to articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to the larger infobox. Robofish (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's been a number of years(!) since I created this (6 years and four months), but my recollection is that at the time it was intended to be a navigation box (as the title indicates) to be placed in the articles as a kind of sidebar to help navigate quickly between the three articles in question without having to scroll around too much. It doesn't really serve that purpose any more (likely it never did). So no objection to deletion. A lesson that if you don't maintain templates and keep them useful, they eventually become redundant or fall into disuse. At least this template never got bloated like some of the footer templates... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2012 (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 section.

Template:Infobox BART station

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox BART station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. The user has replaced the regular infobox with this new one in some places. 69.158.95.113 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC))- Keep it.[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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_12&oldid=1087818165"