Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< September 24 September 26 >

September 25

edit

Template:Mills corp

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 redirect after removing/replacing transclusions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mills corp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Massive template overlap. Almost all of the Mills portfolio was sold to Simon Property Group, creating a very high level of overlap with the {{Simon Property Group}} template. Also, aren't "former X" templates generally deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • So orphan it and redirect it. What harm will its continued existence have? The chances of someone using it wrongly after it's been redirected are tiny, while deleting it will mangle page histories. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 27 September 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:The Receiving End of Sirens

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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Receiving End of Sirens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. No need for a navigation template, can be solved with normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 15:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Navbox has 6 links, and all articles do not link to one another without the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 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:The Damned Things

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) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Damned Things (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a navigation template with just one album. Can be solved with normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 15:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Navbox has 8 links, and all articles do not link to one another without the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 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 How I Met Your Mother season 8 episode list

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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox How I Met Your Mother season 8 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template that only contains two words is not really a template. Kürbis (✔) 10:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is the point of this? More episodes are added once a page for them has been made. --Babar Suhail (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the question is if such template is even needed. Isn't it possible to just express this with own words? This is not a navigation box, so don't see any good reason for keeping it. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one episode of season 8 has aired so far, as more of them are aired, the list will become fuller. Canuck89 (talk to me) 20:32, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Why nobody is closing this? Didn't I say "Withdraw"? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people voted to delete it, so we can't simply close it as withdrawn. When you withdraw a nomination that's already gotten "delete" votes, your withdrawal basically means that you've been converted to a "keep" vote. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 28 September 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:WikiProject GibraltarpediA

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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject GibraltarpediA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is advertising a domain name not registered by the WMF but by a for-profit third party consultancy [1]. The issue has been brought up at WP:AN and Jimbo Wales' talk page and insofar nobody has explained why Wikipedia should allow this free advertisement. The pages tagged with this template are subset of those that "belong" to WP:WikiProject Gibraltar. It has been proposed on AN that this template be replaced with that of the "standard" WikiProject Gibraltar. I see no reason to keep this template. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image used, removing the reference to the .org redirect Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although I don't know why you waited until the template was up for deletion to do this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at e.g. Talk:Tariq ibn Ziyad: what is the point of having yet another project covering this? It's not as if it has a different apporach (historical, biographical, topical, ...), it's just another geographical project. What's the added value? (and what is Talk:Cylindrophyllum comptonii doing in this project?) Fram (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you get it? It covers the whole of Africa! Tijfo098 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unaware of the existing wiki project until it was brought up on WP:AN, but it seems obvious that this template is redundant. If there are concerns about the geographic area covered, that should be impetus to expand the existing wiki project or create new wiki projects in the standard model. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the template is redundant, I have no objection to it other than its use on talk pages. If it is replaced on article talk pages with the existing Wikiproject Gibraltar, I see no need to delete this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree that the logo is commercially promotional. It simply represents a project involving lots of keen new Wikipedians. Let's not demotivate them. --Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge with WP:Gibraltar tag. Gib is right though that Gibraltarpedia covers a wider area than WP:Gibraltar. Must we continue to face such resentment of anything related to it because of paid editing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no paid editing. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated. Nobody is being paid anything to write articles. Also, as the founder of WikiProject Gibraltar, I do not consider it appropriate to merge this with the WP Gibraltar tag; they are different projects with different though complementary scopes. Prioryman (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it isn't. It's a prize for success, not a work for hire. Nobody is required to participate or compete or to accept the prizes, and there is no editorial influence by the prize-givers. I participated in the British Museum's similar challenge, which offered £100 prizes for featured articles, and nobody involved in that considered that they were undertaking "paid editing". Nor did anyone question or criticise it. Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'WikiProject GibraltarpediA' just in itself shows it is promotional for 'GibraltarpediA'/gibraltarpedia.com. If this is a project that is covering more than Gibraltar, then call it 'WikiProject Greater Gibraltar', or 'WikiProject Gibraltar, North Marocco and South Spain' or whatever covers the load, but all references to Gibraltarpedia.com are just promotional. Delete (and also delete/clear/whatever all other material regarding this WikiProject that relates to gibraltarpedia.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is based, like so many other attacks on Gibraltarpedia, on a mixture of innuendo, misunderstanding and assumed bad faith. Gibraltarpedia is a legitimate WikiProject, involving numerous editors. Like many other WikiProjects, it has its own template banner. Gibraltarpedia.org (not .com, please note, Dick) is merely a redirect to the much more long-winded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA - it's not advertising anything except the WikiProject, and there's certainly nothing in policy that would suggest that WikiProjects can't advertise themselves. Also, I would point out that there's been a Template:WikiProject MonmouthpediA on dozens of articles for ages and nobody's complained about that. Finally, let's make one thing clear. I started WikiProject Gibraltar back in 2007. I see absolutely no conflict between that and Gibraltarpedia - the two are complementary. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prioryman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Andy Mabbett has a COI with this topic area and should not be involved with it. Prioryman, for some reason, asked him to come here and participate in this discussion. I recommend that an observing admin topic ban Andy from this area since his COI is causing disruption and he refuses to behave in an ethical manner. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should not have a template dedicated to promoting a commercial enterprise. As noted above, there exists other templates and wikiprojects covering this topic in a more appropriate manner that are in accordance with WP's rules. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Gibraltarpedia is not a commercial enterprise, and it is not appropriate to use this discussion as a proxy for arguing for the deletion of Gibraltarpedia as a whole, as you seem to be doing. There is nothing in policy and no precedent in Wikipedia's history, as far as I'm aware, for arguing that members of a WikiProject are not allowed to create a template for their work. Prioryman (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is redundant and is being used for a project to promote tourism to Gibraltar for which people are being paid as consultants, similar to related contest I linked to above which is awarding free air travel in compensation to any editor who meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The project's work is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gibraltar and the surrounding region. Whatever the Gibraltar Tourist Board's hopes might be, I can tell you that the people actually writing the articles are certainly not seeking to promote tourism. Most of the new articles contributed so far have absolutely no scope for monetarisation (an issue I intend to address more fully, btw). Prioryman (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that this template distinguishes the project GibraltarpediA in all languages ​​where the challenge was launched. For instance, I'm using it in Spanish, Catalan and Galician. - Al Lemos (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, I really think that all these attacks on Gibraltarpedia should stop. I, for one, starting doing Gibraltar articles early this summer, before the "challenge" even started, just to help Wikipedia as a whole. And when I signed up for the project, it was without knowing about any incentives. Similarly, when I found out about the first phase of Monmouthpedia this spring, I signed up to help out, even though the competition was almost over. More seasoned Wikipedians should be encouraging good content on Wikipedia, not dissuading volunteers. Anne (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid Wikiprojects should have templates to tag articles within their scope, so the existance of this template should be uncontroversial, and is entirely within policy. Concerns with the Wikiproject should be followed up at a high level, and a strategy of 'picking off' elements of the project as this appears to be is really awful. Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's bringing in new editors, WHY do you want to stop them? This template doesn't have anything bad on it. --Arnaugir (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Prioryman adequately explains, the existence of an external domain name which attracts attention to this WikiProject does not mean that it isn't a WikiProject. It isn't at all clear why we need both Gibraltarpedia and WikiProject Gibraltar, but that's something that needs additional discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despicable attack on a project that every country or region should have to help us complete coverage on many yet missing articles. Agathoclea (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Apart from the fact that the region already had plenty of projects covering it of course. Any reason why this duplication is needed or beneficial? Fram (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Thumperward rightly says, the questiom of the need for Gibraltarpedia is a higher-level issue than the existence of this template. This isn't the place to argue that Gibraltarpedia shouldn't exist. It does exist; the question at hand is whether, uniquely among WikiProjects in the entire history of Wikipedia, it should be denied a template to identify itself. Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ARS doesn't have a template to identify itself either. But I agree, not only the template should go, the two projects should merge as well. Fram (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want the WP to go than MFD that. I find it despicaple to AFD articles made by project members or trying to get elements of the project deleted on flimsy grounds instead. - Oh wait - policies would never allow you to delete the project, so all you can do is hurt it as much as you can. Typical. Agathoclea (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I have noticed that a number of people feel that this project is above policies, and that if an article is nominated all members have to come and vote keep. Supporting the articles based on completely misread sources, despite this being pointed out days ago, is par for the course. There is still nothin the Flat Bastion Road article that separates it from any other city road in any other place. "Flimsy grounds" indeed. As for this project, already having a project that covers the main part of this project, and plenty projects that cover the outlying extra places (projects for Marocco and Spain) is of course a "flimsy ground" as well. Oh, and please tell, what policies would never allow the project to be deleted? Politics perhaps, but policies? Fram (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, this is the future of Wikipedia. Have a look at Stephanie Adams. Article indef protected by ArbCom after a group of editors were paid to improve it (probably by the subject.) Its AfD was heading for a landslide keep as well when it was officially "vacated" by an Arb. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a new contributor and really not impressed with the proposal to delete Gibraltarpedia. A lot of people have been encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia by this project and this is by far not the way to motivate them. I thought we are all here to share our knowledge with the rest of the Internet users and I do not see a reason for such attacks - we are aiming to merely have one common pool of information regarding Gibraltar and its surroundings, and as far as I as a contributor am aware, there is no commercial aim. BulgarianLlanita (talk to me) 09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go advertise somewhere else. Jtrainor (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course It seems the only thing being advertised here is a project page on Wikipedia, and as has been pointed out it's standard practice for projects improving Wikipedia to have their own templates. A worrying proportion of the delete arguments are objections to the project itself rather than the template. As such, they are terrible reasons to delete the template if there is no consensus to delete the project. Wikiproject Gibraltar and the Gibraltarpedia page/template are clearly different things: the former is internal to English Wikipedia while the latter is just one aspect of a collaborative project that is working across languages and even other Wikimedia projects. I hope that, in the long term, participants in the latter will join the former, but that doesn't mean they are the same project. A lot of the deletion arguments (not necessarily the original nomination) have the appearance of a political stunt rather than a routine template deletion, and one of the effects of this stunt is some quite shameful newbie-biting. Is the delete campaign having positive effects that justify the damage to Wikipedia? I sympathise with Agathoclea's frustration: if there are no grounds in policy for deletion (and it seems there clearly aren't), then change the policy, introduce new policies, or do something other than complaining here. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 1 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_25&oldid=1151015302"