Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 7

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 Martinp23 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Olympic medals in men's water polo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Inappropriate use of template namespace. This is a results table that was transcluded onto a single article page (History of water polo). I have already moved the contents of this template into the main article (and cleaned it up in the process). Andrwsc 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (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 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 Delete Martinp23 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Olympic medals in women's water polo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Inappropriate use of template namespace. This is a results table that was transcluded onto a single article page (History of water polo). I have already moved the contents of this template into the main article (and cleaned it up in the process). Andrwsc 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (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 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 Delete Martinp23 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Water Polo at the FINA World Aquatics Championships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Inappropriate use of template namespace. This is a results table that was transcluded onto a single article page (History of water polo). I have already moved the contents of this template into the main article (and cleaned it up in the process). Andrwsc 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (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 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 Delete Martinp23 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:FINA Water Polo World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Inappropriate use of template namespace. This is a results table that was transcluded onto a single article page (History of water polo). I have already moved the contents of this template into the main article (and cleaned it up in the process). Andrwsc 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (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 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 Delete Martinp23 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:FINA Water Polo World League Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Inappropriate use of template namespace. This is a results table that was transcluded onto only two article pages (History of water polo and FINA Water Polo World League). I have already moved the contents of this template into the main articles (and cleaned them up in the process). Andrwsc 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (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 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 Delete Martinp23 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox roller coaster multiple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused. Was designed for use with articles such as Batman: The Ride but now that article uses Template:Infobox roller coaster simplified. Lastly, this is among the last of the templates using deprecated Wikipedia:hiddenStructure syntax. Kavadi carrier 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per the Nom and the fact that it is unused and a bit too retro

†he Bread 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ugly colors or poor appearance aren't a reason to delete, however; you can change the colors with one quick edit. Neil916 (Talk) 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unused and unnecessary. -- Satori Son 05:26, 14 November 2006 (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 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 delete. Duplicates the general disclaimer, where WP states we're not liable about our "legality of content". --humblefool® 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Legally frivolous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

First nomination resulted in no consensus.

Delete per WP:NDT. Appears to solely be used in articles relating to tax protestors. My objection is not that the sites are necessarily correct, but that such a template is inappropriate for Wikipedia. First, it's repetitive with Wikipedia's legal disclaimer and general disclaimer, which specifically does not vouch for the content "linked from these web pages." The placement of this template within an external links section requires a judgement of the accuracy of externally linked content, which Wikipedia is ill-suited to provide. It's placement in some articles, implies that external links in other articles without templates are to some degree reviewed by, vouched for, or checked by Wikipedia. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. No such implication at all. The template is carefully worded not to be a disclaimer (see the previous TFD under a different name), and it helps separate the links propounding fringe opinions from the rest, in a situation where the distincion is of value in keeping editors from coming in and reinserting the same frivolous claims over and over again. It is perfectly consistent with NPOV (and indeed in support of not giving undue weight) to label sources that support small minority opinions as such. The practical alternatives are to exclude those sources altogether, which just results in editors adding back the "excluded, real truth", or to have several hundred sources, thereby showing the actual weight of opinion. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Determining undue weight is an entirely separate question. The de facto consensus across Wikipedia for incorporating links from various points of view is to use dividers like: ; Pro-life sites, etc. I would be fine with sorting external links from tax protestor sites. However, the use of such a template does give the impression of a disclaimer which is one-sided, and frankly unprecedented in other types of articles. This template gets Wikipedia into the unsustainable and undesirable position of reviewing the content for external sites vis-a-vis court precedent. Wikipedia is not a law review. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your comment about "one-sided" is like saying that it is one-sided to label a moon-is-green-cheese link as a small minority opinion. Check the article on frivolous litigation. We are not discussing arguments that are merely wrong, we are discussing arguments that are "absolutely, positively incompetent."

This is very different from the pro-life/pro-choice situation. That is a political argument, and there are competent jurists who think that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. On the other hand, imagine a lawyer's arguing that women are property according to the Law of God, and and that all laws and provisions of the Constitution that contradict that view are invalid. We're talking about arguments that absurd.

Nevertheless, the arguments keep coming back, rediscovered by poor souls who want to believe that they can get out of paying taxes through uttering some magical legal phrases. We include the links, not because they represent a reasonable legal position, but because they are culturally significant. Fortunately, tax law is nearly the only area where people have a stong monetary motive to believe nonsense, and where the nonsense is well enough constructed to fool otherwise intelligent people. If people thought believing in a geocentric world was the key to riches, I predict the physics articles would soon have a {{fringe-theory}} template. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that the advocates of the Time Cube and Young Earth creationism (can there be any incentive more powerful than eternal damnation?) are more absurd than tax protestors could possibly be, and yet the editors of those articles have made due organizing the links in the manner I have described above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia editors are in the business of assessing Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and Original Research every moment of the day. This process may well involve a "judgement of the accuracy of externally linked content" from time to time. I would argue that the task of evaluating primary and secondary sources -- whether physically linked to a particular article -- is inherent in the process. For example, "no Original Research" does not mean "no evaluation or interpretation at all" -- otherwise, Wikipedia would necessarily be nothing but copying and pasting verbiage from primary and secondary sources, without changing so much as a comma. Additionally, Wikipedia editors are under no burden to determine for themselves the legal status (as frivolous or not frivolous) of any particular position, as the primary and secondary sources explicitly and clearly do this for us (hint: the courts and the secondary sources actually use the word "frivolous" -- right in the texts). Identifying primary and secondary sources that show a particular argument about taxes to be frivolous is not inherently different -- or more difficult -- than determining that the great weight of authority among scientists is that the moon is made of moon dust, and not green cheese (if such is the case). The implication from the correct statement that "Wikipedia is not a law review" would seem to be that Wikipedia editors are not in a position to easily determine whether primary and secondary sources have ruled a particular argument to be totally frivolous from a legal standpoint, and I would argue the opposite. Wikipedia is full of articles in highly technical areas such as law, and I would argue that Wikipedia editors have been doing a pretty good job. The same rules apply here as elsewhere -- look at your primary and secondary sources, and apply the rules of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: I would respectfully and specifically disagree with the position that the placement of the template in some articles "implies that external links in other articles without templates are to some degree reviewed by, vouched for, or checked by Wikipedia." I know of no basis -- certainly no legal basis -- for inferring that Wikipedia would be implying any such thing. And here's the wording of the template again: "Some of the sites linked to in this section advocate legal positions that have been repeatedly declared frivolous by the courts, as discussed in the article text" (bolding added). Again, this is a statement of fact that is verifiable by referring to the actual text of the primary and secondary sources cited in the text of each given article where the template is found. It's not the Wikipedia editors who are evaluating the tax protester claim and labeling it "frivolous" -- it's the primary or secondary source cited in the article that is specifically (and, in the case of court decisions, authoritatively and conclusively) using the legal term "frivolous" to describe the standing of the position under the U.S. legal system. "Frivolous" is not a "Wikipedia editor's" term, it's a legal term. For example, see 26 U.S.C. § 6702. Yours, Famspear 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I aboslutely agree that Wikipedia editors should be constantly apply our own policies, but only within Wikipedia's article space, and not where they don't apply. It's not that it makes us legally responsible for other links we mark, it's the impression given by such eye-grabbing templates. By the same token, there is no legal basis for us having to tell our readers that the arguments of external sites are frivolous. The rationale for not implying such is to protect idiotic readers which swamps what (I suspect) the original motivation for such a template was. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no problem with this template, any more than a template alerting users that a linked website may contain nudity or offensive content. bd2412 T 18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A template alerting users that a linked website may contain nudity or offensive content would be a serious violation of WP:NDT, and should be speedily deleted. You were saying?... Xtifr _tälk 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above voting for keep. --Bob 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect blank, inherently POV rubbish. Addresses a problem which is not ours. —freak(talk) 21:41, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm in full agreement with the nominator on this one. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Yeah i'm with the other keeps here †he Bread 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, needless disclaimer. If a source is not useful, do not use it. >Radiant< 09:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The most convenient way to verify the existence of tax protester arguments is to cite sources that make the arguments. Gazpacho 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Frivolity of the positions can and should be established via prose in the article explaining the relavent law, not disclaimer templates. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It feels like wikipedia pushing a position. There are enough disclaimers on wikipedia already. Morgan Leigh 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete duplicates disclaimers. Kavadi carrier 08:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it is especially important for Irwin Schiff's site, which represents itself as a "middle ground" despite repeating familiar pseudolegal nonsense. There is no POV issue in saying that a site makes legal claims that courts have explicitly rejected in the strongest terms. Gazpacho 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they have been rejected. I see no reason why this can't be dealt with in the text (if it can't then these links probably aren't germane). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; I don’t think it’s a good idea to have disclaimer banners like these proliferate. There’s probably a better way to do this. -Moorlock 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per BD2412 and Gazpacho. ⇒Bayerischermann ^- 01:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no disclaimer templates. If people want to ignore what the article has to say and fall for a scam, we don't need a template to warn them off of it. What's next, a warning template for every link to a scientology site? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm sorry, but this is obviously a blatant violation of WP:NDT. If it was supposed to be "carefully worded" to avoid being a disclaimer template, the attempt failed! And if you can't figure out how to explain that something is legally frivolous in the body of an article without the use of flashy, vague, generic boxes, maybe you shouldn't be attempting to edit such articles. Xtifr _tälk 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Well, no one is saying that Wikipedia editors "can't figure out how to explain that something is legally frivolous in the body of an article" without the use of the template. And I agree that "[f]rivolity of the positions can and should be established via prose in the article explaining the relavent [sic] law, not disclaimer templates." Indeed, the various Wikipedia articles on tax protester topics specifically and repeatedly identify the arguments and the relevant court rulings, with full citations. Instead, the template is referring to the materials in non-Wikipedia web sites to which links are being provided. The template itself states: "Some of the sites linked to in this section advocate legal positions that have been repeatedly declared frivolous by the courts, as discussed in the article text" (bolding added). The purpose of the template is arguably not to provide a "disclaimer" about material in Wikipedia (as I think the term is being used in the Wikipedia pages on the definitions of disclaimers) but instead to provide helpful information about the non-Wikipedia web sites. Although my position is "keep" as noted above, I must note that my fellow editors with the "delete" arguments have some reasonably good arguments as well. I'm thinking that if the template is objectionable, maybe it would have to be objectionable on the basis that Wikipedia just shouldn't be providing this additional helpful information about the non-Wikipedia web sites. Is that the basic objection? Any thoughts? Yours, Famspear 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Although this template is not disclaiming article content, most of the issues of the no disclaimers guideline still apply. Namely: (1) redundancy, (2) slippery slope, (4) implications for external links which lack disclaimers. For example, in all of the articles related to Sedevacantism, imagine: "Some of the sites linked to in this section advocate theological positions that have been repeatedly declared heresy by the Pope, as discussed in the article text." Or, in articles related to Taiwan, "Some of the sites linked to in this section advocate geopolitical positions that have been repeatedly declared treason by the People's Republic of China, as discussed in the article text."

In short, if its not a disclaimer, why are we disclaiming it. The intended effect of such eye grabbing templates is to set off bells and whistles in the head of the reader. God forbid there be any viewpoint other than that of the federal courts. 50% of amicus briefs end up getting ruled against by the courts. Should we have a similar disclaimer when linking to them? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The theology of the RCC is what the Pope says it is. That's a matter of definition. If a theologian claimed Papal support for a position that was repudiated in writing by the Pope, and enough people believed him to make a link to his website appropriate, avoiding undue weight would require that we make it as clear as we could that this was not the Pope's position.

The law of the United States is what the Supreme Court says it is. That is also a matter of definition. Tax protester positions are notable, but they objectively misrepresent the state of the law to a vast degree. Normally, we wouldn't even link to such sites, but the notability militates for inclusion. So, to avoid undue weight, we need to be as clear as we can that the sites contain active misinformation. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make in those examples which is missed in your response is that such a template positions Wikipedia as writing from the standpoint of a certain actor (even if that is the reasonably dominant one) rather than from a neutral point of view. I hope it's not lost on you that Wikipedia is not written from the Pope's point of view, nor necessarily from the point of view of the U.S. federal courts. It's not an issue of undue weight; that's something that has to be determined in the article text. The premise that an idea being rejected by a court requires a disclaimer implies that every website externally linked from Wikipedia only contains arguments that the Supreme Court has agreed with unless otherwise noted. Also, tax protestors don't claim that their view does prevail in the courts, they claim that it should, which can hardly be characterized as misinformation, its just an opinion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing fact and opinion. Statements of the form, "The Supreme Court ruled X," are not opinions: they are either verifiable fact or provable falsehood. It would be an opinion to say, "The law should be changed," but that is not what these websites are doing. They are falsely claiming that courts have made rulings that the courts have never made and falsely claiming that issues are unresolved that have been ruled on over and over again. Do you not see the distinction? Robert A.West (Talk) 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is too far removed from the question of whether the template violates WP:NDT to warrant an in depth reponse. If sites are straight up lying, presenting falsified quotes, etc. don't link to them. However, such a straw-person argument is irrelevant. It's more than possible to be a tax protestor without commiting academic fraud. Your examples also illustrate how this is a area ill-suited for templates because the complexities of the issue are much deeper than "frivolous" and best addressed in the article text alone. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I think editor Savidan makes some interesting points. However, the question "if it's not a disclaimer, why are we disclaiming it" -- sets off what I think is part of our disagreement. I don't see how the template is "disclaiming" anything. It's not saying that Wikipedia espouses a particular position, it's not saying that Wikipedia does not espouse a particular position -- it's not even saying that Wikipedia is not saying whether it's espousing or not espousing a particular position. "To disclaim" means "to give up or renounce any claim to or connection with"; "to refuse to acknowledge or admit"; to "deny"; to "repudiate" (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2d College Ed. 1978). The template is doing none of those things. The template is simply pointing out that some of the arguments on non-Wikipedia web sites have been ruled frivolous by courts of law. And Wikipedia readers are free to have any "viewpoint" that conflicts with that of the federal courts -- no Federal court has said otherwise. This is not about "freedom of viewpoint" -- this is about providing useful, verified information to readers. And, basically, about 50% of all legal briefs (not just amicus briefs) in all courts are losers -- on the legal merits of the case. This is not about legal arguments merely having no legal merit. This is about arguments that are so far out that they are legally frivolous. The vast majority of arguments presented in court that have no legal merit are nowhere close to being legally frivolous. I do agree with editor Savidan, however, that the "intended effect of such eye grabbing templates is to set off bells and whistles in the head of the reader." Yours, Famspear 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed in your post. However, "simply pointing out" is something that occurs in the article text. Using an eye-grabbing template to point something out is what the WP:NDT policy is trying to prevent. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Famspear for explaining why some people think this is not a disclaimer template. I have to admit that I was very puzzled by that claim at first, and now I think I understand it. But, like Savidan, I still disagree. Wikipedia contains links to pages that may get you killed if you follow the advice contained therein, and we don't create big, flashy templates to warn about that! Xtifr _tälk 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Savidan, Xtifr, and other editors: For what it's worth, I know Savidan and Xtifr and the other editors with "delete" positions are making some good arguments for their views, although I'm sticking to my "keep" position. At the expense of appearing to nitpick, by the way, I would like to comment on Savidan's statement that "tax protestors don't claim that their view does prevail in the courts, they claim that it should, which can hardly be characterized as misinformation" -- actually, many of the tax protester arguments actually do consist of innumerable false claims that the courts -- particularly the U.S. Supreme Court -- have ruled a certain way in a certain case where the Court ruled almost diametrically the opposite (such as in the Merchants' Loan case). The protesters often repeat quotations that are not part of the court's ruling, quotes from a taxpayer's losing appellate brief falsely attributed to the Court itself (as in Lucas v. Earl) and in some cases they insert blatantly fake quotes -- like the fake quote I caught someone trying to push on one case recently (which as I seem to recall may have been on a talk page, thankfully not in a main article). This is part of what makes tax protesters so dangerous -- tax law is pretty complex, and most people are not equipped to determine specifically why tax protester rhetoric is so meritless. In sum, I just wanted to clarify that the tax protesters have indeed been posting mountains of misinformation in Wikipedia since I began editing about a year ago, and it's very hard to believe that there is not a lot of malice behind much of it. Ironically, I admit this point does not necessarily weaken Savidan's overall argument that much. I think the use of template on balance provides more benefit than harm to Wikipedia and its users, but I grant that the arguments for "delete" are pretty good as well. Yours, Famspear 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, this template doesn't even address the issue of whether sites are fraudulently quoting, etc. so I agree it doesn't weaken the argument to delete at all. The types of fraud you mention are probably grounds for not including an external link, whereas making a minority interpretation based on past precedents and doctrines is probably not. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're arguing about the content in the articles, which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether this template violates WP:NDT. Go ahead and explain about legal frivolity in the articles you mention; that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the existence of this template. You don't need a template to explain this stuff! You need, and should use, facts, citations and details, not some generic, fancy box that's devoid of any details. Xtifr _tälk 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NDT. -- Renesis (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete , WP:NDT. I see, it's a warning, not a disclaimer. Also per Wikipedia:External links. If an external link is so whacked-out that you think it needs some kind of warning on it that it's so inaccurate that he reader should beware of its inaccuracy beforehand, it sounds like that external link shouldn't be there in the first place. From the policy on external links, under "Links normally to be avoided": A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Neil916 (Talk) 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Where this template is used (and it isn't very many places) the subject of the section is the existence of factually incorrect statements. By Neil's argument, we'd have to delete Flat Earth Society. Septentrionalis 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that it's not liked from many places is a good argument for deletion! (The deletion will cause minimal disruption, and it suggests that many people understand WP:NDT and therefore avoid this template.) And no, the Flat Earth Society article has no bearing on the question of whether this template violates the No-Disclaimer-Templates policy! However, a template suggesting that the Flat Earth Society's position is "Physically frivolous" (or whatever) would be speedily deleted for basically the same reason that this template should be. Xtifr _tälk 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming, again and again and again, that it's a disclaimer. But on what grounds do you make that claim? Bi 08:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the grounds that I'm a native speaker of English and am familiar with the meaning of the verb "to disclaim", which is what this template attempts to do with the whatever follows it. Xtifr _tälk 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Specious circular reasoning: it's a disclaimer because it clearly is. Bi 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a preposterous (and mildly offensive) claim. Saying that something meets the clear dictionary definition of a particular class is not circular reasoning! At worst, it's a judgement call (although I think your judgement would have to be, um, rather odd, shall we say, to argue that this is anything but a disclaimer template, since it's a template containing a disclaimer). Would you like me to quote a dictionary? How about Webster's: "a public disavowal, as of pretensions, claims, opinions, and the like." This template serves the sole purpose of disavowing the claims and opinions that are presented. QED, it's a disclaimer template! Xtifr _tälk 09:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just moving from saying it's a disclaimer to saying it's a disavowal -- but at least we're going somewhere I guess. No, the template doesn't just dispute the claims of the tax protesters; it actually also makes its own claim -- that the tax protesters' claims have, indeed, been judged to be "legally frivolous". This is a very specific claim, not just a disavowal.

(Think about this. What if it turns out the tax protestors' claims aren't "legally frivolous", for whatever reason? Suppose the US Congress passes a law repudiating the 16th Amendment, rendering the courts' previous rulings moot -- and now the tax protestors suddenly have a point. If the template were indeed a disclaimer, then this "disclaimer" will itself have to be disclaimed!) Bi 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• If that happens, these articles will have to drastically rewritten whether the template is there or not (although it will still be true, incidentally). Keeping the template ensures that this will all be done. Septentrionalis 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You just switched from "disavowal" to "dispute" for no apparent reason. I didn't say that the template disputes the claims, I said it disavows (or disclaims) the claims. So saying that it doesn't dispute the claims is completely irrelevant. And the template DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TAX PROTESTERS! Stop arguing about tax protesters! That has nothing to do with the template! I don't give two hoots about whether you lock all the tax protester up in a barrel and drop them in the bottom of the sea. Any argument that involves tax protesters is completely off-topic! Wikipedia does not give legal opinions, and this template consists of a legal opinion; one that's only true in certain jurisdictions (i.e. the US). It is, quite simply, a blatant violation of WP:NDT. This is not even an obscure category of disclaimer that could, perhaps, be argued over—this is a specific category of disclaimer explicitly forbidden by WP:NDT! It adds nothing that cannot be found in the disclaimers already present at the bottom of each and every page.

• Keep, but without the bold face, and make it smaller. I wonder if much of the opposition to the template comes from its use of big bold letters, which I do also find to be quite jarring. Anyway, in my opinion, there are templates out there which are even more useless, such as {{featured}} -- because, frankly, how does this template help anyone with anything? Bi 08:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now there's an idea. If you also lose the box and the image and just leave nothing but the plain text...oh, and subst it instead of including it. Then you might have something. Something that people can edit into context-appropriate text, which is what's needed instead of a generic disclaimer template. Xtifr _tälk 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The things you mention would obviously make the template better, but they would not address any of the fundamental objections to it. Not a single delete vote has named the size or the bold as the reason this needs to be deleted. {{featured}} serves an entirely different purpose, and isn't even a reader facing template, so I won't speak more about it here. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: At the risk of appearing to drift off-subject -- and that's easy to do, because it's hard to separate the discussion about the template from the analysis of tax protester arguments, I should point out, without attacking the overall argument made by editor Bi, that the example given would not be the best example, for the following reason. First, Congress passing a law "repudiating the Sixteenth Amendment" would have no legal effect. Under the U.S. legal system, Congressional acts in and of themselves have no effect on Constitutional provisions, which can be changed only through the amendment ratification process and court interpretations. Second, even the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment would not remove the power to impose income taxes, which is granted not by the Amendment but rather by the original text, in Article I section 8. Indeed, that highlights one of the fallacies in many tax protester arguments, as they focus on the Sixteenth Amendment under the mistaken idea that the Congress did not have the power to tax incomes before the Amendment. The legal technicalities are covered in various Wikipedia articles, so I want bother my fellow editors any more on this point. Suffice to say, Bi's example could simply be modified by saying: what if the constitution were simply amended to expressly take away the power to tax incomes at all. I apologize for the hair-splitting.

On a more direct note, I notice that the Wikipedia page on "what is a disclaimer" is itself a bit ambiguous. The article on Disclaimer first states that a disclaimer "is a statement which generally states that the entity authoring the disclaimer is not responsible for something in some manner." In the next sentence, the article confuses the matter by adding: "Disclaimers also alert the reader to risks involved." Now, for purposes of Wikipedia, the term "disclaimer" can (like lots of other words in English) have two essentially conflicting or partially conflicting meanings, and I think that's what we have here -- and it might be contributing to the discussion in a negative way.

The first sentence, the first definition, is the more denotative, strict definition of "disclaimer" -- a statement that the entity is not responsible for something, or is not taking a stand or position at all on something either pro or con.

By contrast, a statement alerting the reader (e.g., "some of these arguments have been ruled frivolous by the courts," or whatever) is really a different animal, because you're pointing out a fact (such as "the courts have ruled these arguments frivolous"). While you're still not saying "oh by the way, we here at Wikipedia believe the courts are correct about that", it's still not a disclaimer in the same sense used in the first sentence.

If you were going to go all the way, you would say "the courts have ruled these arguments frivolous and, by the way, 99% of all Wikipedia editors have thought about this and concluded the courts are right." That would clearly not be a disclaimer at all. That would be going beyond merely pointing out a fact or warning the reader, whatever, AND would be actually taking a "Wikipedia stand" on the issue. Obviously, this example would never fly in Wikipedia.

The template in question, if it is a "disclaimer," is a disclaimer only in the sense of a statement at least indirectly "alert[ing] the reader to risks involved." The template is not a disclaimer in the first sense -- the statement does not expressly say that "Wikipedia does not take a position pro or con." And it's not at the other end of the spectrum either (it's not a statement by Wikipedia that "Wikipedia editors believe the courts are correct"). Yours, Famspear 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: In my view the template is NOT disavowing anything, and it's not rendering a legal opinion either. Disavowing would be expressly saying "we here at Wikipedia cannot take responsibility for what might happen to you if you follow the advice on these web sites." The template doesn't say that. Just because some reader infers that from reading the template does not make the template a disavowing statement. And pointing out that the courts have ruled the arguments "frivolous" is not rendering a legal opinion, any more than pointing out that fact in the body of the text of the article would be rendering a legal opinion -- otherwise EVERYTHING is rendering a legal opinion. It is not rendering a legal opinion to merely report the FACT that such and such an argument was ruled "frivolous" in such and such a case. I'm talking about where the court literally used the word "frivolous" (because when you read the articles and you see where Wikipedia says, this argument was ruled "frivolous" in Smith v. Jones or whatever, we are literally saying that the court used the word "frivolous"). From the Wikipedia standpoints of "no original research" "verifiability," and "neutral point of view" saying the courts have ruled these arguments frivolous is not exactly going out on a limb. Yours, Famspear 16:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Famspear, saying that it doesn't matter what "some reader infers" undercuts the entire rationale for such a template. If we aren't being paternalistic toward the reader, we can let them figure out for themselves that they will go to jail if they don't pay their taxes. If we do make certain assumptions about the reader to necessitate such a template, then (as demostrated verbosely above) such templates do more harm than good. If all that you say above is true, and the intent of the template is really as narrow as you say it is, then its intended results can be accomplished much better in the article text with cited and detailed accounts of the actual legal situation rather than pompous, one-size-fits-all, vague, yet visibile, templates. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Famspear, it's not hard to separate the discussion of this template from «X» (where «X» is some context where the template is being used). I do it by simply ignoring anything anyone says about X as irrelevant and off-topic to this discussion. I haven't looked at the articles where this is used; I don't care about the articles where this is used. The guideline says "No Disclaimer Templates", not "No Disclaimers", and if you subst this in at those articles before the template is deleted, I'll be happy to let the content debate wander off to those articles. You say this isn't a disclaimer because it's a "FACT" that some court somewhere in the world has ruled something. Well, what if it becomes a "FACT" that the dictator of Nofunistan declares that Rock and Roll is "legally frivolous"? Should we then add this template to the article about Rock and Roll? Allowing violations of WP:NDT because "it's a fact" is a hellaciously evil precedent! It's a FACT that the Catholic church has condemned birth control and extra-marital sex—do we make a template to warn people about that? I mean, gosh, their immortal souls might be in danger! It's a FACT that many people find Coprophilia offensive, and it can probably be documented and cited. But do we make a template declaring that? NO! If we allow exceptions to NDT based on "it's a fact", then we might as well just throw out NDT, because there isn't a single disclaimer that can't be weasel-worded to make "it's a fact" fit. That is my whole, sole, and complete objection to this template. Xtifr _tälk 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlike a note that a link might be considered NSFW (where following the link could land the reader in trouble), that it's a PDF, DOC, or RTF file (which might need external software to view), or stating that it's a large file (which could take some time and cost money to download), that disclaimer is not useful; nothing ill would come from simply following the link and reading its contents. It also bundles together all the external links, stating some of them might have incorrect information, but failing to specify which ones, thus clouding all the following links with FUD. The box itself is large and distracting. And finally, about the links themselves: if they are important to the article as examples of incorrect legal thinking, use a section heading to say so; if not, simply lose the links. --cesarb 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, to all who are trying to make arguments based on dictionary definitions: as the one who originally wrote Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, what matters to that guideline is not what the word "disclaimer" means, but whether it duplicates Wikipedia's own disclaimers ("Disclaimer templates are templates that duplicate the information at one of the five disclaimer pages.") --cesarb 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, if that's the case then the template doesn't violate the guideline—because it does not duplicate any part of the 5 disclaimers. The template does not claim or disclaim responsibility on the part of Wikipedia. It simply warns that some of the linked sites contain legal advice that has been specifically and repeatedly declared unusable in U.S. courts. None of the standard disclaimers warn that linked sites may contain fraudulent information. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The template does not violate WP:NDT (as per my discussion above). — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pinkbox

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

--Ling.Nut 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Also, user has left WikiPedia.--Ling.Nut 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unused. Kavadi carrier 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rubbish. --Bob 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointlessly uselessly unused †he Bread 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The comments above say it all. Neil916 (Talk) 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: About as useful as a dead fish. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 17:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)}
• Noo-o-o-o-o! I was just about to add it to a few dozen articles! It's so, so, so encyclopedic!  :) Delete per gaaaaah! Xtifr _tälk 13:54, 13 November 2006 (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.