Template talk:Badbio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wikitree
- If you are attemping to make an entry for genealogical purposes, you may find WikiTree.org a useful site.
On 13 Dec 2005, user:Splash removed the line above with the comment rm wikitree: their licence isn't GFDL, so we can't 'transwiki' to them. I understand his logic but perhaps have a different vision for how this template will eventually be used. I see this as an advisory message to new users who do not yet understand our policies and standards. I believe that we are attempting to politely refer them to resources and options that might be more closely aligned with their goals.
I didn't read the template to specifically advocate m:transwikiing the text. As Splash says, that would violate GFDL. If, however, the original author took his/her own work and resubmitted it there, that creates no problems with GFDL. Is there better wording that might still provide useful advice to new users but might better shield us from GFDL violations? Rossami (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- For those wondering, Wikitree uses a cc-by-nc-sa licence which is not compatible with GFDL simply because it is not the GFDL (quite apart from the non-commercial part). However, Rossami, you are exactly right, and I considered this before I removed that line. My concern was some newbie stumbling upon this template somehow and thinking, "oh, ok, so I'll copy that to there, and nominate this for deletion here since they say they don't really think it suitable — everybody wins". Certainly, if the cross-poster is the copyright owner there are no problems at all, but there are if they are not. My other reason for removing it is that TfD fairly often deletes templates that insert links to "non-sister" sites since they effectively provide free advertising to them. This is especially true of a licence-incompatible wiki. However, I do not feel strongly enough about the issue to remove it again.
- We could add a simple note to the end of the Wikitree bullet to the effect of "...but please do not simply copy material to Wikitree unless you are the original author; their license terms are different to Wikipedia's". Would that do? -Splashtalk 23:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (PS. The creation of an account at Wikime reveals they are GFDL.)
[edit] Why does this template exist?
Why does this template exist? If an article is vanity, delete it. If it isn't, don't clutter Wikipedia articles with insulting and inappropriate templates. It's so unprofessional it makes my teeth itch. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Getting rid of the template was my first thought. We have enough ways of labelling things as it is. For why it exists, I suppose you'd have to ask User:128.62.104.215. -Splashtalk 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've forgotten where this template was first proposed but if I remember the proposal correctly, the intent was to use this as an intermediate and temporary step - one that might be perceived as less insulting or intimidating than our current process and templates. I had the strong impression that this was proposed by someone who had an article of this type deleted. I'm not sure that the template is actually in use anywhere yet but thought it was a useful experiment.
- By the way, the template was also proposed for use on the userpage of the person creating the inappropriate article. This would, perhaps, be a way to politely direct them to an organization or wikiproject which appreciates these kinds of contributions. On a userpage, it would not clutter up Wikipedia with much of anything. Again, it seemed like a worthwhile experiment. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- One reason is for articles for notable people who have added vanity to their article. The article shouldn't be deleted because they are notable, but the article is vanity nontheless -- Astrokey44|talk 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, this template is a good way to prevent future reposting of vanity bios. If a bio just gets deleted there's very little incentive for the user not to just come back and repost it. However if you direct them to a different site where that info is welcome then the need to keep trying to get their info posted on Wikipedia is gone. As/if these other sites gain popularity, there's a good chance they would absorb some of the vanity traffic we get here. In the long run you're decreasing vanity traffic and giving users a better alternative. What I've been doing is using the {{badbio}} template together with the {{afd}} template. That way the the notice is more polite, gives an alternative, and is only temporary, as it will eventually be deleted via the {{afd}} page. I agree there might be a better way to go about this maybe by merging the two templates, but I think the offering of alternatives is an important way to decrease work and superfluous articles in the long run. --Wotwu 06:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Add "Please also see Wikipedia:Autobiography" before the bullets? -- Jeandré, 2006-01-14t17:59z
[edit] TfD debate
This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linkspam indeed!
I have reverted the template to a version which references WikiMe and Wikitree (I did get a supporter for this in the TfD debate). To delete these as "linkspam" seems ridiculous. I strongly support these links under the "don't bite the newbies" policy. It is far more friendly to give people positive suggestions than just say "go away". -- RHaworth 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- WikiMe is closing down (the domain is for sale on eBay). Is there any objection to replacing that link with wikiasite:social since that's a social networking wiki that encourages users to add their own profiles? Angela. 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I had been thinking of adding MySpace to the social networking line but if Angela wants social, that is OK by me. Having just added EditThis, I cannot really object can I! -- RHaworth 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
