Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 December 31)
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31

edit

Template:Culture of China

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overly large, has too many unrelated areas, and the inclusion appears to be arbitrary. (The creator's edit summaries also suggest that the template was created to provoke.) --Nlu (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs for the latter, thanks. Shouldn't this template have first been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject China? Badagnani (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit (which is undiffable) was with the edit summary of "Noo", and the second edit was with the edit summary of "what the f." Again, provocative. --Nlu (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the argument for deletion is that there is no reasoable way to fix it. DGG (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is information relevant to the broad topic "Culture of China" on every page I navigated to using the template. Eg: baijiu and guanxi (which are two I'm familiar with). I like the broad overview aspect of the template, and I'm not sure why size is an issue, since the template takes up exactly one line when "hidden". --Shannonr (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A template that contains every single article related Chinese culture (which is what this threatens to become) can be designed in such a way that it can be "hidden." It will also be completely useless, since to use it you'll have to unhide it. --Nlu (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it was one of the many articles this thing was hastily added to, baijiu is not even on the template. Nor does this or any of the other keep votes address the arguments for deletion, which is not that the articles listed are unrelated to Chinese culture (or that its size is the only reason to delete it) but that such a list is both blatantly redundant to existing templates/categories and that such a broad overview does not provide for easy navigation between articles, the purpose of such templates. shoeofdeath (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is, frankly, a strawman summary. Fortunately, everyone can see the reasons given above "Overly large, has too many unrelated areas, and the inclusion appears to be arbitrary." I disagree with "overly large" (for reasons already given). I disagree that the areas are "unreleated" (for reasons I also already mentioned) and I disagree that inclusion is "arbitrary" although wouldn't argue for a moment that it was perfect. Redundancy is also a feature of many great templates, not a bug. If you are summarising arguments for and against, please try to do so in good faith. Thanks. --Shannonr (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2008 (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:Pokeinfoboxexplained

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 debate was move to Template:Pokémon species/doc (by User:RockMFR) and delete redirect (by User:BD2412). Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned; not sure if it duplicates the function of Template:Pokémon species, but it appears to be a primer explaining how to use the latter. Unnecessary. — BD2412 T 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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:IPsock

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 debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPsock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template seems to encourage violation of the Meta privacy policy and the Meta checkuser policy. Editors have a right to edit while not logged in, and there are valid reasons for doing so (for example, to divorce real-life identities from such controversial areas as WP:P*.) If a user is being disruptive with their IP address, this should be established via checkuser and the underlying IP blocked without disclosing it, per the above-mentioned Checkuser policy.

An example of a problematic usage of this template can be seen at this IP userpage, which apparently belongs to the IP address of a user (User:Jinxmchue) who is not banned or blocked. An administrator (User:FeloniousMonk) placed the template on the page, and the user apparently did not wish it there (as seen by their reversions of the template placement).

I'm afraid I can't see any legitimate usages of this template that don't run afoul of the Privacy and Checkuser policies.. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really don't like any of these templates for privacy reasons. If we would have the good sense to exclude user pages from search engines, it wouldn't matter, but as it is, we seem to be taking the position that if you are blocked/banned, we reserve the right to ruin your life by making the #1 google hit for your name/IP a page telling of your misdeeds. That said, this template should only be used if an IP is currently being used for block evasion, not as a permanent reminder. --B (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: grudge filing Editing from an IP to evade a block is sock puppetry, identifying such accounts is warranted and necessary in order to minimize further disruption and has been a longstanding Wikipedia convention, see: Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging. Privacy concerns voiced here a straw man, the editor given as an example identified these as his IPs prior to the template placement, and his IPs were tagged because he used one to evade a block of his main account: BlockedEditingReblocked for evading 1st block Sadyly the motive for this TFD filing appears to have more to do with personal ax grinding and settling scores with factions; both parties above have palpable personal grudges against me and are currently working to undue the ban of the editor offered as an example while trying to ban parties related to me. Personal issues should not deprive the community of a necessary, uniform and simple means of identifying sock puppeteers who log out to evade bans and blocks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the ban of the editor offered as an example? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs I provided show his 2 blocks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ban? I thought there was a difference between a block and a ban. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. You also need to read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking and Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging. I don't think you are up to speed enough on these policies and guidelines enough to be TFD'ing longstanding templates like this and making the accusations at WP:AN/I you've made. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links you provide above justify violation of the Meta policies. I'm an admin on another project, and I've been a victim of sockpuppet idiocy before; trust me, I'm up to speed on the privacy policies involved. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Filll (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per FM. JinxMcHue is blocked, he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off. This really is a grudge match. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've had comments from Filll, Orangemarlin, and FeloniousMonk, we also need comments from Jim62sch, Guettarda, and JzG to complete the set. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here's one: please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off." Uh... Not. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. This template is only used where the IP information is already in the open. In the case that prompted this TfD, the main account actually lists the IPs on his user page, so it's not clear to me how this would violate his privacy. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Guy. "Complete the set"? What are you insinuating, VO? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per JzG. Bad faith nomination, based on the "complete the set" comment. JPG-GR (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep this important template. Doczilla (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This is a useful template in many settings. However, I'm sensitive to the nominator (and User:B's) points: I do think that we need to be careful how it's used and restrict it to clear cases of abusive sockpuppetry, rather than situations where an editor slips up and makes an edit while not logged in. But in this case I think the potential utility of this tag somewhat outweighs its potential for abuse. My read of the privacy policy suggests that using the template to track and hinder disruptive users is acceptable; however, if the major reason for deletion is a concern about violation of the meta privacy/checkuser policies, then it might be better to take this up with the Ombudsperson or Foundation rather than through TfD. MastCell Talk 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a very good point (and are probably correct) that TfD is probably the wrong avenue for this. My current "crusade" is that I am strongly opposed to user pages being indexed by search engines. When handling problem images, I frequently come across spam or outright attack pages in user space. By the time libel is deleted, it has already been picked up by mirrors and search engines. This is a related, but similar issue. At least in this case, we're not talking about innocent third parties. But even so, it's an issue - just because someone makes a mistake here doesn't mean we need to affix their name to a vandal tag for life. If we could find a way to exclude this template from google and mirrors, that would completely satisfy my concerns. That may or may not be a real possibility - but I definitely think it should be pursued. --B (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reword - Using this to identify abusive sockpuppetry is a strong legitimate use. Registered users editing anon has a number of legitimate uses so as long as the IP is not being used to edit abusively, applying this template is a violation of the privacy policy. We should therefore reword the template to state that the IP has been used to edit abusively and in contravention of WP:SOCK. We could even add a small-print notice to the template saying it is not to be used in situations that are not abusive. —dgiestc 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proper purpose of this template is to note the evasion of a block or ban by an editor so sanctioned. The template or its documentation should probably be changed to reflect this. Sandstein (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template has a proper use but a warning to avoid misuse should be added. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (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:Unaccredited

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 debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unaccredited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a disclaimer template for tagging unaccredited schools and diploma mills that warns users, "its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.". Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles says that we do not use disclaimers. It is not Wikipedia's job to warn you that if you get a degree from a diploma mill that you deserve what you get. Also, when this template is applied to a particular school, it's drawing a conclusion about that school that (1) may be untrue and (2) constitutes original research. — B (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2 - blatant misrepresentation of established policy (No disclaimers in articles)Happy‑melon 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Happy‑melon 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2, which is sufficient. (But see also WP:NOR). Ra2007 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a disclaimer template in the usual sense. Its current usages show that it is being used as a content template. However, it still seems like a horrible idea. Some of the usages are not sourced or are confusing. It also seems to run into problems with original research. In most cases, a Wikipedian is the one making the connection between "unaccredited" to "illegal, not acceptable". --- RockMFR 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the use of "unaccredited" is always sourced in such an article--and it most cases is taken from the web page of the institution concerned--it is rarely OR> the question of whether it is applicable is an editing question in each individual case. DGG (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but you're missing the point. Assume "XYZ university is unaccredited" is a source statement. "In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency" is the text of the source given on this template. The application of these two facts "it may be illegal to use a degree from XYZ university" constitutes original research. In addition to being OR, it may be completely false unless it is known for a fact that it has not been "approved by the state licensing agency". Further, if the article lists people who hold degrees from the school in question, then, by inference, we are potentially accusing them of committing a crime, when in reality, we have no earthly idea whether or not the school has been "approved by the state licensing agency" or whether or not it is legal to use a degree from it. But regardless of all of that, we don't do disclaimers. It's not Wikipedia's job to warn you that this article describes something dangerous, that the breast article contains breasts, or that your diploma mill degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. --B (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtually all such inclusions are cited to a source, usually the Oregon state education department, who explicitly list many unaccredited schools and explicitly state where use of degrees is not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Rock properly notes, it is not clear what precise role the template means to serve (it categorizes those pages on which it is transcluded, it should also be noted, in Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning, conflating further its roles as an explanatory/encyclopedic content template and a disclaimer to readers), but even if the template does not serve a purely disclamatory purpose, such that it might be edited to avoid the concerns B raises and such that it might then confer only that information which, as DGG well notes, we might undertake editorially to include in any article that uses the term "unaccredited institution" (probably a simple definition thereof, in which, under certain circumstances/in relevant cases, we might say raise the issue of legality, etc.), we would nevertheless delete it, since headnote templates, of course, are not properly used to communicate content in this fashion. Joe 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's perfectly fine to say that a school is unaccredited, perhaps with a link on "unaccredited" to Educational accreditation, but not using a boilerplate disclaimer. –Pomte 07:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate, I don't think this is OR at all, I just think it's plain unnecessary. It's as silly as saying, "This is a high school in X. It has students in Grades 9 through 12. When students graduate, they receive X High School Diploma." ...when the latter sentences are directly implied in the context of the high school being in location X. Anyone wanting to know what "unaccredited" means would click on the link to find out; the word "unaccredited" alone should ring alarm bells by itself without its definition. If this template is kept, it should not be transcluded. At Concordia College and University, for example, the template doesn't flow with the prose at all, and should be rewritten directly in it. –Pomte 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, and check all articles that have used it for possible tendentious OR editing problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is absolutely not a disclaimer, that is a misrepresentation, and it is not OR either since the consensus wording came from a number of sources. It even includes a link to [1], which says this:

Unaccredited institutions are not reviewed against a set of standards to determine the quality of their education and training. This does not necessarily mean that an unaccredited institution is of poor quality, but earning a degree from an unaccredited institution may create problems for students. Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. With this in mind, it is recommended that students check with other institutions regarding the transfer of credit policy to determine if that institution would accept the degree and/or credits earned from any institution they plan to enroll in.
Remember:
In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency.

So, precisely as the template says, use unaccredited degrees may not be recognised by employers or other institutions, and use may be illegal in some jurisdictions. Where's the OR here? That is, after all, the US Department of Education saying precisely what we say in this template. The template is designed to be substituted not transcluded and is a consensus form of words to be used in articles about unaccredited schools, a perennial source of conflict on Wikipedia with advocates wanting to remove all references to the fact that unaccredited degrees is illegal in some jurisdictions and contexts. Removing the template will simply increase the amount of work in tagging such articles. Removing the template will not prevent people from noting in articles on unaccredited schools, that they are unaccredited, and that degrees are worthless in many contexts. Nort should it, since that is one of the most important facts about such schools. I'm just wondering if B was ever intending to inform me, as creator, that he had nominated this for deletion? I sincerely hope this is not a retaliatory nomination following my failure to agree with him in an ANI thread or something. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it based on this thread. I had no earthly idea you created it (didn't look at the history until just now) nor does it matter. You can't possibly think I looked into your contributions and sought out a template that you created a year and a half ago as retalliation for something at ANI. And in any event, in the thread where we disagreed, I even said I had no problem with blocking the user - only that it didn't make logical sense to block his IP, but leave him unblocked. In fact, if you or anyone else wants to indefblock him and consider him to be under an old-style community ban, that action will have my complete support. My sole concern was about the logic of blocking an IP range while the underlying account is not blocked and free to edit. I have no dispute with you. The problem with this template is that it makes a statement about a school THAT MIGHT BE FALSE. We need a cite that the school in question has NOT been approved by the state licensing agency otherwise it's just guilt by association. Look, I don't like these diploma mills "schools" any more than you do and it's an embarrassment to real Christians and real Christian schools where you can get a good Bible-based education and have a degree that will actually let you get a job. But regardless of our opinions about these places, we shouldn't be creating coat racks out of them. If there is a citation from a reliable source that school XYZ is not licensed by the state board or that use of a degree from there is illegal, by all means, put it in the article. But this is just a coat rack. --B (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud, of all the astroturfed diploma mills on Wikipedia you had to pick the very worst offender! The canonical example, which actually led to the coiining of a new term, Gastroturfing, due to alumnus Jason Gastrich's obsessive boosting of the place. I just remembered: I've even discussed this template with Jimbo, he diod not express a problem with it. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have been deleted. Regrettably, it was kept at AFD. You could have lent your voice to the AFD and that might have been enough to push it over the edge and get rid of one piece of Gastricruft. But the article's existence has nothing to do with this template being a coatrack. --B (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to highlight some of Guy's words, "The template is designed to be substituted not transcluded and is a consensus form of words to be used in articles about unaccredited schools, a perennial source of conflict on Wikipedia with advocates wanting to remove all references to the fact that unaccredited degrees is illegal in some jurisdictions and contexts. Removing the template will simply increase the amount of work in tagging such articles." I have personally experienced exactly what Guy is referring to here. The template provides some information that belongs in every unaccredited institution article. As an example, take Bob Jones University, it was unaccredited for many years. It provided academically rigorous programs. Yet they recently became accredited, I suspect in large part because the utility of their degrees was hurt by lack of accreditation. This is the type information that belongs in all unaccredited institution articles. TallMagic (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Bob Jones was unaccredited, was it illegal to use a degree from there? If not, that's a good reason not to have this template as it would be making a false statement. This template is taking a statement that is probably true about diploma mills and applying it to all unaccredited schools. --B (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were legal restrictions on Bob Jones degrees. I believe that legal restrictions are more common for unaccredited degree use rather than outright being illegal to use ever. I guess it is kind of a gray fuzzy line though. If it is illegal to apply for a government job is the degree illegal to use or restricted, for example? This is an area of law that is rapidly changing over the last few years as more and more states make new laws. Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees? There is a trend to try and cut off diploma mill revenue by reducing demand rather than concentrating on just the diploma mills themselves. The state that seems to specify most blatantly that unaccredited degrees are illegal to use is Texas[2]. Other states specify that life experience degrees are illegal like Nevada[3]. Other states specify that unaccredited doctorate degrees are illegal, etc, etc. So the best answer to your question regarding BJU, should probably best stated something like this "unaccredited degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions". :-) TallMagic (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JzG's argument above is convincing - a template with some boilerplate used to help say "this institution is unaccredited" with NPOV is a good thing. It should be labelled as such, though - I initially had the same concerns as those who would delete this article. It should also be converted to use the ref format properly instead of using an external link, and one should be sure that the reference provided is from a reliable source... but it's not so bad that it should be deleted. Nihiltres{t.l} 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New position: delete. I note numerous issues with this template: firstly, the ref format requires that the template be substituted, or the numbering will not display correctly (this is a well-known bug with the references CSS class). I still do not fully accept that this template is not a disclaimer, as its wording appears to be precisely that. I have refrained from editing the wording itself, but would be happier if someone did so to present a more neutral tone. I am also unsure as to the intended location of this template subst in the article text - in order not to be a disclaimer, it must be integrated into the prose, and a template seems to me to be a very awkward and inconvenient way of doing this. Once the template has been substituted there is nothing to stop editors from playing with the prose, which nullifies the argument used above that this is an approved wording. Substitution also places a category link in the middle of the article text, which is frowned upon. All in all, a template seems a very poor way of presenting this (admittedly important and useful information) in an appropriate manner, unless it is used as a disclaimer, at which point it immediately becomes elegible for WP:CSD#T2. Happy‑melon 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template fails to faithfully represent the full and somewhat more tempered position statement of its reference source (imo because editors wish to ramp up the melodrama factor). Also the template language probably violates WP:SYNTH in the majority of articles where it has been added--and just "rubber stamping" it to every unaccredited institution is a gross oversimplification that the responsible "watchdog" agencies in the states I looked at have been quite careful not to do themselves. I've seen how editors turn good editing practice upside-down and pretend (WP:SYNTH be damned) that because there exists this template, editors who remove its language from an article are violating a firm rule of some kind. Editors are not editing in a NPOV manner when they serve up excuses to ignore solid policy, like WP:SYNTH, and defend doing so by pretending editors have some higher duty to warn the public of this, that or another.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is that I want to ramp up the drama? Thank you so much. My opinion is that Wikipedia would be much better off with a lot fewer editors obsessively boosting diploma mills like Louisiana Baptist "University", but I acknowledge your assumption of collective bad faith on the part of those of us who worked out the wording. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues: As the very same reference used for the template points out, "unaccredited" is not a synonym for "diploma mill". Reactionary content based on unsourced supposition presents just as much of a NPOV problem as the content based on boosterism. Here's the original US Dept of Ed position, with the more tempered sections that were left out of the template language in red, and the parts used in template in blue:
  • "Unaccredited institutions are not reviewed against a set of standards to determine the quality of their education and training. This does not necessarily mean that an unaccredited institution is of poor quality, but earning a degree from an unaccredited institution may create problems for students. Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. With this in mind, it is recommended that students check with other institutions regarding the transfer of credit policy to determine if that institution would accept the degree and/or credits earned from any institution they plan to enroll in.Remember: In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency."
WP would be better off, in my opinion, sticking to sourced content rather than the rubber-stamp, boiler plate, nondisclaimer disclaimers and untemplate template tagging. It's silly-imagine the equivalent situation if editors added such babyproof disclaimers in Colt Python, Kriek, or Fireplace, each of which are "illegal to use in some jurisdictions". Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Textbook example of WP:SYNTH. The template takes two separate claims and synthesizes them into a novel statement that is not made by either source. If you want to include a statement that degrees from a specific school may be illegal to use, then you have to find a reliable source that specifically says it about that particular school. You can't synthesize two general statements to infer this. *** Crotalus *** 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, false. The cited reference, US department of education, says what we say only in a few more words. Credits may not be transferable, employers may not accept, use is illegal in some states. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you are leaving out the important words "unless approved by the state licensing agency". If you have a reliable source stating that a particular school has not been "approved by the state licensing agency", then you don't need this template - you can cite it with the actual source and write something that describes the particular situation. --B (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point. The cited reference says that the use of unaccredited degrees may be illegal in some states. Other cited references in some cases might say that College X is unaccredited. But you are combining these two facts into the novel synthesis that the use of a degree from College X may be illegal in some states. That's a textbook violation of WP:SYNTH. You would need a source specifically stating that use of degrees from College X is illegal in states Y, Z, etc. *** Crotalus *** 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a description of the potential dangers regarding use of unaccredited institution degrees. John Bear estimated that there are 1000 unaccredited institutions currently operating with some being added and others being dropped every week. It is a very reasonable statement. For those very few (exactly 14) unaccredited institutions that are approved in Oregon, for example, the template information can easily be modified for those institions. But even for those potential 14 Wikipedia articles, this information in similar form is still applicable and should be in the article. TallMagic (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information included in the template is not a disclaimer. This is reasonable encyclopdia type information that should be included in every article covering an unaccredited secondary education institution. Saying that the information is original research doesn't make sense either, IMHO. There is no original research. It is a straight forward statement of fact based on reliable sources. I think that the template is useful and valuable. TallMagic (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a disclaimer about Wikipedia. It is a statement of fact about the subjects. Doczilla (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diploma mills have long been trying to use Wikipedia to promote their wares, frequently vandalising articles by removing info about their unaccredited status, or burying such concerns under BS about how great and recognized their programs are. The template will make such manipulation more difficult to conceal. BD2412 T 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Accreditation or nonaccreditation can be a touchy issue. The template gives us a consistent way of handling this sensitive point. The wording of the template could perhaps be questioned, but that's not at all an argument for deletion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is good material in this content template (especially in TallMagic's recent proposed revision) that I think belongs in many articles about unaccredited institutions. The language is needed because of the diploma mills that try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves (and that try to promulgate lies and misrepresentations about their lack of accreditation and the implications of that lack of accreditation) and because it is difficult for individual contributors to effectively document the issues related to lack of accreditation. However, I would prefer that it not be part of a template, for several reasons (not necessarily in order of importance): (1) I have observed that contributors who edit articles often don't understand what this template does. One result is that the article sequence is illogical or the same information gets duplicated in other parts of the article. A more serious problematic result is that the template gets used in articles where the information it includes is not relevant. (2) In stubby articles, the template gives undue emphasis to the school's unaccredited status. Many articles about unaccredited institutions are very short. The proposed new version would make this situation worse, as it is longer than many articles about unaccredited schools. (3) Some of the information in the current and/or proposed template (particularly, but not limited to, information about the legality of life experience degrees) is not applicable to all unaccredited schools. For example, degrees from unaccredited schools with religious exemptions often are not restricted to the same extent as others, and discussion about the illegality of life-experience degrees is not relevant for the many unaccredited schools that do not offer life experience degrees.
In summary, keep these words on a user page somewhere for potential use as boilerplate in articles about individual unaccredited institutions, but don't continue inserting these words in the form of a template.
--Orlady (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This template reflects an attempt to address a perenially contentious issue: how to clearly, accurately, and fairly explain a school's lack of recognized accreditation. Nearly every unaccredited school has somone editing Wikipedia on their behalf, arguing that "they are accredited, by such-and-such agency located at P.O. Box 4092 in Las Vegas." I'm not entirely comfortable with the language about degrees being usable - while true and accurately sourced, it sounds a bit disclaimery as written - and I don't think it should take the place of an individualized, sourced description of the institution's accreditation. But if this template is deleted, then there ought to be a concerted effort to figure out an alternate way of handling unaccredited schools. MastCell Talk 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like MastCell's comment and suggestion. If someone comes up with an alternate way to "bless"/"establish" some kind of general text describing the potential lack of utility for an unaccredited degree then I wouldn't have a problem with deleting the template. The issue I see is that as a frequent editor of unaccredited school articles is that there needs to be some way to short circuit the unaccredited school defenders arguing against any negative information going into the article of their beloved alma mater (or sometimes the owner of the school). In other words, the value in the template I see is in making it easier when dealing with people that are trying to keep that information out of the article. PPerhaps something like WP:UNI targeted specifically to unaccredited schools might do the trick? TallMagic (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem. The one article where I've experience with this is a total mess. The problem would be largely resolved there if the self-published and original research were cleaned up, and the puffery "cake-walk" of alumni removed. The university has garnered almost no significant mention in published sources, and if it weren't for all the self-publish content added, there wouldn't be much rah-rah there to worry about. But because there are also editors equally eager to preserving all the poorly sourced attacks on the university, the article has bloated with more poorly done filler than an old lumpy mattress. The article is an embarrassment, but the boilerplate text doesn't help it. It just adds more junk to the mess. And contentiousness has increased because so much WP:IAR content added to "balance" the "other side"--it's like an arms race. There's an easier way to rein in the excesses, achieve balance, and turn the pages into "articles" instead of "billboards"--just trim the self-claims, and there's little left.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (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:Wookieepedia box

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 debate was Speedy keep as a temporary measure - we're still sorting out the Memory Alpha template on DRV, and a clear precedent from that would be useful in this. The template has now been orphaned, and I think we can leave it be for five or six days while we sort out the precedent then renominate it from there. But right now this seems an unhelpful expansion of the discussion, and the template is not doing any harm sitting around unused. Note that I have no issue whatsoever with this template being renominated once the Memory Alpha DRV closes, regardless of which way that DRV closes - but given that there is a discussion in progress on this exact issue, starting another one seems likely to cause confusion rather than generate a meaningful consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wookieepedia box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This box is barely used (mostly in a few Star Wars novels, and Jedi). The plain text link, {{Sww}}, is much, much more widely used (290 pages in mainspace, vs. 10 for the box). Per the precedent of the similar {{Memory Alpha}} template, this should go too. Regardless of the opinions of using the boxes, consensus on the ground clearly favors a plain text link. Phirazo 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I'm currently listing Template:Memory Alpha on WP:DRV. I'm also annoyed at the nom's tactic of trying to pick off these templates when efforts to use them again are being explored. There are even alternative versions in discussion that some people felt more comfortable with. Taking this to deletion is unnecessary, and is disrupting the natural evolution of the template. It should also be noted that the nom (User:Phirazo) likes to remove these templates from articles before nominating the template. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 31 December 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&oldid=1146665613"