Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< May 17	May 19 >

1 May 18

[edit] May 18

[edit] Zodiac Userboxes

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 speedy userfy, per the userbox migration. That was the neutral compromise we came up with for the userbox wars a while ago, and it's been working well, so let's stick with it. No need for more debate here. —METS501 (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These templates are a clear violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. I can see that userboxes in general have a use in trying to gain contributers for specific articles (although not frequently used for that), but knowing someone's Zodiac is very Myspace-esque. Knowing one's Zodiac doesn't make them an expert on a subject. I'm a Leo, but that doesn't mean I can contribute to Leo (astrology) or Astrology. In my opinion, these userboxes really cross the line of "[user pages] may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" since userboxes are only used for user pages. Please note that if these are deleted, Category:Astrological user templates and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Zodiac serve no purpose. — Pious 7 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Shure, but to some poeple that stuff is a bid deall. Therefor we should keap them. Anubiz 03:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because they're a big deal, doesn't mean that they should be kept. For some, vandalism is a big deal - should vandals be allowed to vandalize? — Pious 7 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Touché, but this is not fencing. The boxes should be kept because if we don't delete them on the grounds that you described then we should be discussing deleting all the user boxes. Anubiz 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    - But some userboxes have a use, theoretically. This set looks like a clear policy violation (WP:NOT) as they don't have a clear use besides personalized userpages. A lot of the life section of Template:WP:UBS might also be in fault, though. — Pious 7 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      - they do have a use, for example I like knowing the signs of people I like. With the zodiac signs I don't have to bother to ask them. They just have a right there in the user box that this user is a Virgo. Or whatever. Anubiz 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        But that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOT#MYSPACE, my primary argument against this userbox set. My question is this - do the userboxes in question have any non-Myspace-esque use? — Pious 7 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not repeating you're slef. Tell me which are you. Anubiz 15:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is relatively neutral information. If however, they are going to be deleted, I suggest removing all of the user boxes and starting over with a planned system in place for all user templates. There is nothing wrong with personalizing a user space, but it has certainly been taken to trivial levels on wikipedia. I don't have a problem with that myself, indeed I rather like it. But is that the point of the user spaces? --Daydreamer302000 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with personalizing a user space, as long as they "present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Remember, NOT#MYSPACE is part of an official policy. I'm surprised it's ignored as much as it is, especially with some userboxes (which go on userpages). — Pious 7 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete These userboxes have already been userfied and should have already been replaced and deleted from template space. Jay32183 03:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- What makes them any better on userspace? As far as I can tell, NOT#MYSPACE covers userspace. — Pious 7 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yes, knowing your Zodiac sign doesn't make one an expert, but neither does owning a cat make one a veterinarian. If we're to delete Zodiac signs, then why not the cat owner UBX or any others? I'm aware I'm invoking the slippery slope type of argument, and I'm comfortable with that. Clockster 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- But if you own a cat, you're most likely interested in cats and could therefore theoretically be asked to help work on cat due to your userbox. Knowing one's zodiac doesn't mean you can help with astrology at all. — Pious 7 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment whether these templates should be kept or not probably depends on whether they're used for extraneous, trivial bits or information, or are a core part of someone's belief. No way to divine intentions from mere transclusion, however... Gracenotes^T § 04:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, this dichotomy more specifically refers to whether WP:NOT#MYSPACE should be applied or not. As for sincerely held beliefs, I don't believe these are too divisive, so userfy (suggested by Iamunkown below) sounds like a good option. Gracenotes^T § 05:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- A core part of someone's belief, if completely irrelevent to Wikipedia coverage, still violates Wikipedia policy in WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Why should it be ignored just because of liking userboxes?— Pious 7 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  - WP:ILIKEIT, community version: if the community likes it, keep it. I'm not exactly familiar with the "userbox scene", but taking a look over most pages, some are just as useful as this one. This may indicate that the rules are interpreted by the community to allow such userboxen. People may feel as though putting a userbox, or two or twenty, on their user page is another step towards becoming a Wikipedian. If that harmless (but irritating) interpretation is to change, TFD is not the route, and I doubt that there is one. Gracenotes^T § 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because other things exist doesn't make it convincing. Similarly, if a lot of people like it, why don't they try to change policy (WP:NOT) to make userboxes an officially legal exception? Why should the community ignore existing rules? I have nothing against userboxes, I have a set on my userpage. I have something against completely useless and unencyclopedic userboxes that now clutter Wikipedia, however. — Pious 7 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not userfy? I agree that they are pretty pointless, but for some reason folks seem to like to have userboxen. They, however, do not promote collaboration on the encyclopedia, so keeping them in the template namespace is pretty pointless. --Iamunknown 04:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, the userification has already happened. The userfied Aries box is on my page, and there was a bot replacement for it in the edit history. Jay32183 06:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete if they're already userfied (userfy if not). Definitely not useful/important enough for template-space, but no worse than many other userboxes in user-space. Xtifr _tälk 08:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why does them being no worse than many other userboxes mean they can be kept? If there are others that violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE, shouldn't they too be nominated for deletion? Rules are rules, and I think it's a fallacy to keep something against the rules simply because others exist. — Pious 7 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Because A) we're not discussing the userfied boxes here (see WP:MFD if you want them deleted), B) strong consensus says that minor decorations like userboxes are genreally acceptable and don't fall under WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and C) I honestly don't care. Go bug the folks at MFD if you feel so strongly, and I'll happily ignore that debate. Xtifr _tälk 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - harmless userbox - legal in template space per WP:UM. As for the not-myspace argument, that could be said about literally any userbox - as much for {{User male}} or any other. The Evil Spartan 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why we should ignore policy. WP:UM overrides WP:NOT? As for the argument that it could be used on other userboxes, doesn't that mean that perhaps those other userboxes it could be used on are in violation too? Your example, {{User male}} looks like a clear violation. We must not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. — Pious 7 14:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  - It's not overriding policy. The fact is, the community has decided that userboxes can exist in the template space. And while my argument may sound like WP:ALLORNOTHING, I believe I still have a point - that this userbox is no worse than the others which the community has allowed in similar circumstances. In fact, I am trying to abide by previous consensus. The Evil Spartan 14:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should." I'm sure that can be applied to userboxes as well. — Pious 7 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      - No it's not. My argument is "we've been through this before, and consensus was to keep such templates". Honestly, if you want to revisit the issue and propose deleting all userboxes from the template space, take it to the village pump, or put up a mass deletion. But only taking on some is like only deleting template:test2, but leaving all the other test templates around. The Evil Spartan 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        But my problem is not with all userboxes, only clear violation of policy (WP:NOT#MYSPACE). The Zodiac userboxes serve no encyclopedic uses and so far I haven't seen why these shouldn't be deleted... — Pious 7 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Ah, ok, you got me. Delete - because already userfied. The Evil Spartan 15:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Keep - According the nominator's claim, we should go mad listing many userboxes for deletion. But, we are not in a state of war of policies. It's absolutely fine to write someting about yourself. Who Cares[Most importantly]! Vikrant Phadkay 14:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- So we should not enforce policy of Wikipedia on userboxes? I know that it's impossible to enforce the many user pages, but the userboxes are a lot more limited in number and thus enforcable. Why should we ignore policy other than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? — Pious 7 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete in favor of the userspace ones since there's obviously some controvery about having these in template space - for evidence, please see above. The userspace ones are fine, though. Gavia immer (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm convinced that userfy is a good compromise for userboxes like these now, deletion might be a bit harsh. However, I also think that userfication should be for all unencyclopedic userboxes per WP:UM. — Pious 7 15:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Sometimes I think people really need to find something more constructive to do on Wikipedia. Honestly, they're just starsign userboxes, not gang colours or certification of expertise in zodiac knowledge. Besides, I quite like my Pisces userbox. Gamer Junkie 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument. If they're userfied, they're still there - just not in the templatespace. — Pious 7 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using "I like it" as a reason for keeping it, I was simply stating that I do like it. Perhaps you missed the sentence above that section, which is the part of my point that matters. So once again, without the part about me liking the userboxes, they are harmless and hardly state that somebody has any credible knowledge in zodiac-related information and fact. Gamer Junkie 22:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my other sentence. If they're userfied, they're still there. See WP:UM, they're unencyclopedic and should be in userspace where they can still be used. It's mere categorization - in templatespace, they should at least aid in the encyclopedic function of Wikipedia. — Pious 7 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep with modification - I am not sure if I am qualified to post an opinion, as I am not an admin, but I trust if I have posted in error, it will be reconciled. Among other things, I am a pisces, and I am an amateur astrologer, and have begun to participate in editing astrology pages. Does that qualify one to have an astrological userbox? If so, perhaps the userbox can be altered slightly to read 'I am a pisces, and I contribute to astrology pages'? Or 'I support astrology pages?' I don't know if this is feasible or desired, and I certainly am no expert on WP policy, I just like to try and build compromise. I hope my suggestion has been helpful. Eleos^Prime 04:01, 20 May 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.

[edit] Air and Kanon templates not in use

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These templates are not in use anymore, and I do not see them going to be used anytime in the future as {{Key}} covers the material already and is in use. — 十八 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete redundant/deprecated/unused in mainspace. –Pomte 13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various flag templates

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These were all recently created to render flag icons associated with their respective regions. The problem is that they all use an invented three letter abbreviation. There are a set of similar templates (documented at Wikipedia:Inline templates linking countries) that use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes (for example, {{FRA}} for France), and these are widely used. However, creating additional templates in this style, using some non-standard code, is very confusing. Furthermore, they are completely redundant. All the aforementioned flag templates are "shortcuts" built on top of the generic {{flag}} template. For example, {{FRA}} is equivalent to {{flag|France}}. Therefore, for all 11 16 templates I've nominated here, the equivalent result is already available with the 'flag' template, without any confusion from a non-standard "country code". For example, {{flag|Cornwall}} should be used instead of {{COR}}. As of this nomination, these 11 16 templates were only used in 0, 1 or 2 main-namespace articles, and I've already replaced them with the clearer 'flag' equivalent, so they can be safely deleted. -- Andrwsc 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Added four more templates to this nomination, same rationale. -- Andrwsc 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Added yet another. -- Andrwsc 00:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Furthermore, get rid of the ones corresponding to the ISO codes too. Unlike {{flag|France}}, seeing {{FRA}} in an article gives no indication that it will output a France. -- KelleyCook 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The effect of typing {{FRA}} in an article can be seen easily and intuitively by any editor. The template you just used, {{tl2}}, gives no indication as to what it outputs either. Still, shortcuts are quite useful. –Pomte 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, KelleyCook. I have seen several articles that used the "shortcut" templates but then had to use inline comments to explain the obscure ones. I would ask those editors what's the point in coding {{DZA}}  when {{flag|Algeria}} has the same output but with self-documenting markup? Anyway, I fear your suggestion would have a WP:SNOW chance of succeeding... The shortcut templates are used in thousands of transclusions and are liked by a relatively sizable number of editors. At least lets contain the set of shortcut templates to a managable number. Andrwsc 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Andrwsc. Punkmorten 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as only official names should be used. –Pomte 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Deprod-afd

The result of the debate was Keep. -Amarkov moo! 00:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the purpose of this template is for (verbosely) explaining to someone that you have removed their {{prod}} tag from an article and replaced it by an {{afd}} tag. That does not seem very useful; I don't see why the same person would remove one deletion tag and add another more than once in a blue moon. I mean, if you see an article with a deletion tag you either agree that the article should be deleted for the given reasons, or you don't. Of course, one might say that this template is harmless, some people find it useful, but then others might interpret the fact that it exists, in template space, to mean that they are expected to send all but disputed (yet half-way seriously intended) {{prod}} nominations to AFD. That would undermine the whole purpose of the prod system. Delete or userfy. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I don't really understand the reason for deletion here: it sounds like the nom is saying that this isn't useful but is then saying it is useful. Many, many times I have changed a prod tag to an AfD tag and started a full nomination because I thought more input should be sought, or there was a procedural point. Sometimes {{deprod-reprod}} might apply, but often there's more to it than that, and since I would invariably explain myself at the AfD, this template sums things up nicely. As for this "undermining the prod system," the Prod system continues to work just fine despite an entire project devoted to double-checking Proposed deletions (namely, Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling), which this template was created to support. Mango juice^talk 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Prod is only for uncontested deletions. if upon review an item listed for prod appears suitable for deletion, but is obviously going to be contested, then tee better course in my opinion is to send to to afd then and there, rather than just removing the prod tag. I use it, as well as Mangojuice. DGG 07:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I like this one better than {{deprod-contro}} anyway, because it doesn't pass the relisting buck back to the original editor. Serpent's Choice 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- All of you, why would you stop a simple process and start more complex one if you don't care about the outcome? — CharlotteWebb 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Because I am an administrator. Keep since I do this type of thing from time to time. Punkmorten 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Because I want the correct outcome. You can want that without being sure what it is. Mangojuice^talk 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    - As an administrator you would have the ability to delete the page if it has been prod-tagged for five days, or delete it sooner if the page is particularly bad, or remove the tag (even after five days) if you believe the page should be kept, or restore the page if you wished to contest the deletion after it has already been deleted. None of these situations involve using AFD. If you have no opinion, then the best course would be no action at all, rather than making a procedural listing because you assume "some people (who have not yet arrived) might feel strongly both ways". — CharlotteWebb 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete - over template-ification. WP:TEMPLAR. Just say it with words. The Evil Spartan 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
comment As an administrator I certainly would be ale to delete it first,and the restore it and take it to AfD, as Charlotte suggests. But why on earth would I want to do such an absurd thing, when I can take it directly to AfD? When I see prod or speedys that I think should on balance be deleted, but where it is not obvious or uncontroversial, I do not substitute my own judgment for that of the community, but send it to AfD for discussion. My job is not to rule on keep vs delete when its questionable, but to get rid of the junk and the obvious. And any non-admin who sees something debatable on prod can also send it to AfD, & I've done this all along before I've been an admin. I have been saying it in word, and am glad to have the template,because it looks less idiosyncratic. Additionally, the template will suggest what I & others think a good way of doing things to eds. dealing with the same situation.DGG 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I never suggested taking anything to AFD, that was your idea! Of course, as you say if you restore a page and then AFD it, people will laugh because that makes no sense, just like removing a prod tag and then AFD-ing it makes just as little sense. See above where I said "none of these situations involve using AFD", then tell me why I'm not making sense to anybody. — CharlotteWebb 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
keep. Now that I know about this I will,porbably use it from time to time. On finding a prod that i think is dubious abd want more eyes on, I will nominate it for AfD, somtimes making a nomination but not expressign eithr a keep or a delete opnion. I will also do this is someone complains to me about a prod who doesn't understand how to simply remove the prod tag. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So you would act on the user's behalf by... forwarding their article to AFD? Sounds like a good way to collect "gee, thanks" barnstars. If the prod rationale is dubious, surely an AFD debate — a nomination without a cause — would be equally, if not moreso. — CharlotteWebb 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would only forward to afd if I thought that ther was reson to do so, if I am convinced that a prod is improper I would of course simply remove it. DES ^(talk) 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates previously used for List of small groups and Abelian groups

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These are no longer used. Previously this was used to duplicate the tables for the groups of order 16 and 12. This duplication was not needed. On Monday I substituted the templates into one place and deleted them from the other, and nobody seems to object. --192.75.48.150 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Spain Close UP 2

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To big and out of default format. Replaced by Template:Spain topics. No more necessary — Guilherme ^(t/c) 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --T_{Talk to me} 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Brazilian Olympic Committee Image

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer used (all images deleted), any new images uploaded from this source are subject to speedy deletion unless they have a proper fair use claim, in wich case they should not be using this template anyway. — Sherool (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a source (indicating that the image is from the Brazilian Olympic Committee), a non-free image tag and a non-free use rationale will suffice. --Iamunknown 19:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UAD

The result of the debate was Already TfD'd and deleted on an earlier day... pay attention people! RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information (lists football coaches and not ADs) and appears to be an identical copy of Template:AggiesCoach. Corpx 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - template is incorrect. -Texink 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Texink. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Joe I 05:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Redirect5

The result of the debate was deletion, pending untransclusion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is completely redundant with the three option version of {{Redirect}}. A simple bot substitution would work — KelleyCook 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. –Pomte 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:COI and Template:COI2

The result of the debate was No consensus. The arguments for deletion aren't trivial, and it doesn't seem like they were really addressed well. However, most people clearly did not agree with those arguments, whether or not they were ever countered. There seems to be consensus for at least rewording the templates, but a TfD outcome of "reword" is meaningless. Thus, the result is no consensus. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These are clean-up templates loosely associated with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, as the Conflict of interest guideline states, CoI isn't in of its self a problem with an article, but a potential cause of problems. These templates do little to identify the specific problems with the article itself rather than the user. Articles tagged with one of these templates would be served better to be tagged with a suitable specific template identifying the suspected problems with the article. ie, one of Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup As such these templates have little utility to help clean up articles, and are redundant to the suitable cleanup template.

There is already a specific template that identifies Wikipedia users connected to or covered by an article Template:Notable Wikipedian. --Barberio 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_templates_proposed_for_deletion, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Comment from Nominator, a lot of the Keep comments have been that the template is used primarily as a tool to identify pages for attention at noticeboard to sort articles into Category:Articles which may be biased for attention, with only a secondary use of warning users that there may be potential for problems with the article. This is not, however, a proper function of templates, and goes against Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. One of the templates may remain as subst short hand for typing in [[Category:Articles which may be biased]], but we don't need two. I'd also say the templates goes against WP:BITE, as it directs 'blame' towards a user, and seems highly likely to cause offence and start a personal dispute. --Barberio 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I like that this templates exists to flag problems that are hard to deal with, though I think it should be used sparingly, because adding it is an act of aggression. I recently contemplated using it on a page where a person professionally involved in a topic had taken control of the article, and where the article was found to have significant distortion in it that was hard to clean up because it required specialist knowledge. I didn't use it in the end, but I was glad that it existed so I could tag the article as a warning to readers if the situation deteriorated further. I'd like to see a warning adding to the template page that it should be used as a last resort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. As a WP:COIN patroller, these templates are extremely useful to me because they save time. They alert the reader that an article may be tainted by COI. If you think the template says the wrong thing, we can discuss changes. SlimVirgin, if you spend a little time at WP:COIN you will see many cases of blatant COI where these templates should be used. We need these tools to defend against aggressive marketers seeking to bend Wikipedia to their own purposes. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - very useful in maintaining articles. In fact COI is a problem - it just the policy just says COI doesn't necessarily qualify for deletion. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Template:Notable Wikipedian isn't terribly helpful in that it doesn't indicate there are problems per WP:COI with their editing the article. Not sure I buy either the idea that adding it is an act of aggression; that could be said of any template that flags a breach of a policy or guideline trackable to an identifiable user.

And the problem is with the user. Tag for cleanup, neutrality, whatever, and all you get is other editors wasting effort while the one with the COI continues, typically, to spam elsewhere. It's more efficient to stop the editor creating the problem.

It's a nice theoretical thought that people might be able to write neutrally about themselves: reality is that few can. If it's a false alarm, little harm is done: reasonable editors accept the reason for WP:COI guidelines. But as said above, following WP:COI/N for a while will show that very few in breach of WP:COI do this out of innocence (in the case of those who create new articles they've already run through the clear red lights on the article creation page about advertising and COI). Certainly the wording could be changed. Which bit of "Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend" didn't you understand? would be quite good. Tearlach 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a user should be handled with that user, and the established ways of handling disputes and inappropriate behaviour, not by putting templates on articles. --Barberio 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If it's worthwhile having a COI Noticeboard then it's worth having these templates. It's true that some other tags may be easier to understand, and when easier-to-understand problems exist in an article, it may be best to use those other tags first. One place where a COI tag is useful is the current Gordon Bell article. This is not a bad article, and the changes he made weren't very serious, but we are troubled that he seems to be editing away without noticing the COI guidelines. EdJohnston 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is no reason to place a template on an article. In this case, the user making the edits should be informed, but if the article itself is not problematic it should not be tagged. There are other ways to track COI concerns, and other ways to identify problems with an article. These templates are redundant to those methods. --Barberio 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

if the article itself is not problematic it should not be tagged.

People editing with a conflict of interest is virtually always problematic. Again, read WP:COI/N for a while. Tearlach 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I, too, monitor COI on that noticeboard. There are instances when each template can be very useful. The second is a benefit because there are situations in which notability as addressed by the first is not an issue. They are both needed. — Athaenara ✉ 19:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Very strong keep, propose WP:SNOW this discussion. Wikipedia is in serious need of more volunteers and tools to manage the growing problem of sophisticated WP:COI attacks. It's a waste of time to propose dismantling one of the few useful things we already have. Strongly suggest the nominator ask the people who maintain the relevant noticeboard before making this sort of nomination in the future. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, tracking COI concerns does not require an ugly template tag on the article page. Can I suggest more appropriate use of article categorisation instead? --Barberio 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete That the creator may have had a conflict of interest is not a problem with an article; lack of NPOV is a problem with an article. If an article is not neutral because of a conflict of interest, it does the average reader no good to know why. Rather, having a basic NPOV template (and then details on the talk page) can be useful. I have no problems with a template or category indicating a potential conflict of interest on the talk page (for monitoring), but not blemishing the article. I think that noticeboard is an excellent idea. I am less satisfied with the means of tracking. Gracenotes^T § 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, Gracenotes brings up a good point, and one I had not previously thought of. I personally was inclined to keep, but I admit I am somewhat active at the COI noticeboard; are these, however, necessary? Why is a conflict of interest different than general NPOV or undue weight? --Iamunknown 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Reword slightly to indicate that the article in question may actually have a problem (not just that the subject is the main contributor) otherwise, they're fine. I think COI is a little different from a standard neutrality problem. Grand master ka 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep (maybe reword). COI articles often suffer from many complicated distortions of the truth that are hard to diagnose unless you ar:re very familiar with the company/product/person, beyond a mere NPOV language. This template should exist if only to direct attention to the relevant WP:COIN discussion. nadav 22:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and reword per Grandmasterka. Endorse WP:SNOW closure per Barberio. Leuko 00:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, possibly reword and/or merge them. Erik Warmelink 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, useful in two ways: it alerts editors to the issue and attracts analysis and focus on NPOV, verifiability, sources, etc.; and secondly, it alerts readers that it may not be wise to consider the article as it stands as authoritative. So it's both a cleanup tag and a disclaimer. (I realize that the latter [disclaimers on articles] is a very controversial topic, but as a practical matter, it serves to protect Wikipedia during the period before any COI issues can be investigated and dealt with.) --MCB 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, there is no way to clean up a conflict of interest. Such cleanup is not actionable, because in and of itself, COI is not a problem with prose; it is a problem with article development. Such an issue seems much better suited for the talk page of an article, and the fixable problem (NPOV) should be displayed more prominently.
- Second, we don't need disclaimer templates because we already have a general disclaimer. COI can hurt the encyclopedia, but a pointer out of the article space—not to a policy, but to a guideline—in order to explain Wikipedia-specific jargon, seems extraneous. Gracenotes^T § 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

we don't need disclaimer templates because we already have a general disclaimer

The general disclaimer is true enough, but it's far more helpful to readers to have specific disclaimers on especially suspect articles. Tearlach 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I kind of agree that {{NPOV}} covers a lot of the scope of this template. Aquarius • talk 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I do a lot of work on the DEP project, and this template sees a lot of use there. It serves as an intermediate flag, somewhere between speedy deletion and no marking at all, showing that there's a serious problem with the article, but that the person placing the template isn't convinced the article is beyond all hope. (The NPOV template doesn't seem to convey this as well as COI.)--Kathy A. 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep nominator appears to be trying to circumvent consensus, today he edited both templates and virtually gutted them. (and I reverted). Nardman1 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to edit these templates to bring them into line with the various applicable policy and guidelines so they could be kept. Note, the templates as they are currently written and used seem to be violating WP:BITE, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks (comment on the content, not the contributor!), Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references... --Barberio 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references

Could you explain the relevance of this? The self-reference guideline applies only to article text. A quick glance at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes shows that it's perfectly normal for warning templates to contain links to the guideline or policy they refer to. Tearlach 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These templates are currently being used on article texts, not talk pages. And as such are clear self-references. Check Template:POV and you'll notice that it's identified as a self reference, and thus to be used with extreme caution. These templates are being used pretty much at-will, and often where there is no directly identified problem with the article itself.--Barberio 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, but there's a difference between the "This Wikipedia article discusses..." kind (which are not OK) and various useful templates (which are, and should "not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia"). Tearlach 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Reword. Ban the graffiti, not the spray can. Wikipedia guidelines urge "great caution" and similar steps when there is a potential conflict of interest, but they do not outright ban people from editing their own articles. Perhaps conflicts of interest inevitably lead to biased articles, but in that case they should inevitably lead Wikipeidans to find the bias and fix it -- not just to declare the article biased and leave it at that. The problem with this tag is that it taints articles that come out okay, without differentiating them from articles that have actual problems from an actual conflict of interest. This creates a related problem, that there is no obvious path to getting the tag removed. There is a reference to guidelines, which in turn reference mediation and arbitration options, but that's not very direct. A clean-up tag can and should be removed once the article is cleaned up. We don't want to stunt Wikipedia's growth by putting a permanent tag on some article subjects. So my argument is either get rid of these specific templates in favor of templates that relate to the article content, or create a procedure (or reference an existing one if there is one) for how tagged articles can be evaluated, mediated, and revised if necessary to meet quality standards.Wikidemo 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI/N does that. As far as I can tell, those tags are used in association with a post on WP:COI/N, and removed when discussion there is closed. Tearlach 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are twenty articles listed on WP:COI/N right now. There are over 300 transclusion of these templates. The templates do not direct people to any discussion on WP:COI/N, nor is there any indication of when or if the template should be removed from an article. The wording of the article suggest it may never be removed from articles created by the wrong person. --Barberio 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Reword. Since there is only some strong language against conflict of interest in editing articles and no firm policy or guideline, it may be better to just reword it so it mentions something more tangible, namely NPOV. I doubt anyone has an issue with COI if the edit is perfectly neutral. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, we actually do have a real, tangible guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Even if someone can write a perfectly neutral article about themselves or their own project, they are technically violating the guideline and will probably need to join in a discussion, sometimes with a patroller of the COI noticeboard, before their article is free of concerns. So it's *not* the case that only neutrality matters, under current guidelines. If their edits are basically OK, no-one is going to revert them, but we need to be sure they are aware of Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston 01:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue with the Editor, not the Article. Articles should not be forever 'tainted' somehow because they were created or edited by someone with a COI. --Barberio 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep (but probably do a rewrite/recategorisation); we do have WP:COI, which states that authors should avoid editing subjects where they are close to. When an author creates such documents, these tag the article suitable for attention of the COI patrollers (WP:COIN). Since I started up user:COIBot (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports) I see how often people create articles that overlap with their username (and COIBot does not 'see' the authors where username and pagename do not overlap, except for the blacklisted ones). These templates easily attract the attention to these articles, without having to go through having to start a new subject on WP:COIN every time, as most of the pagecreations do need some form of attention. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for a large 'warning' style tag to be placed on the article in order to sort COI articles. They could be placed in an appropriate category, or have an unobtrusive tag placed on the talk page. I'd have less objection if they were re-written to be placed only on the talk page, or only as short hand for a correct categorisation, but my last attempt to do so was reverted. --Barberio 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If an article is of questionable notability or neutrality it also gets a big banner on top (as with many other tags). I think that these templates could nicely combine {{neutrality}} and {{notability}}, and inform other readers/editors what POV might be encountered (and should be removed), when the issue is resolved, the tag can be removed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is where the argument in support of these templates brakes down. If these templates are used to identify notability or neutrality issues, they're redundant to {{neutrality}} and {{notability}}, and should be deleted. If they're not identifying specific problems with the article (and not the editor), then they're an unwarranted self reference and disclaimer, and should be deleted. If they're identifying problems with an editor's activity, they should be placed only on talk pages not articles. --Barberio 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But, in that case, we would get three templates, {{neutrality}} and {{notability}} on the page itself, and {{coi}} on the talkpage. I am inclined to think that having to do only one edit with one template would be more convenient to the coi patrollers (as with double tagging on top of the article). But I see your problem with redundancy here.

With regard to WP:BITE (the post in the header of this section), I think that a neutrally worded tag on the page (I agree in rewording of the current tag) is less biting than either the speedy delete and a {{uw-coi1}}/{{nn-warn}} on the userpage, or a double tagging with notability and neutrality (and maybe others that apply).

Having established that there is an issue here, maybe we should continue this discussion at WT:COIN (I guess some sort of template will stay in existence or will be recreated in another form after deletion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

keeep but reword a bit. these templates might be better used on talk pages, with a more general NPOV or advertising or simialr tag on the articel itself, where warrented. DES ^(talk) 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, This is a useful template. It could possibly be reworded for more clarity. We need to muster editing manpower to deal with the tagged articles and their worth will be proven. --Stormbay 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, angry salad and borderline inflammatory. People edit articles about themselves all the time, generally we don't know about it, or even bother to ask, unless they make it obvious through their edits, and if that is the case, any of the dozens other templates would be better. In most cases the situation would be better addressed by a notice on the article's talk page, as this information should only be of interest to the other users who are editing the article. — CharlotteWebb 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep this useful template. Sure we try hard to keep articles NPOV, but we can't be everywhere at once. Users who edit their own articles or articles about their family members and companies often return to edit again, and this puts readers on notice that there may be POV issues that are now otherwise obvious. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in my suggestion that a template similar to this be placed on talk pages, and NPOV is a prose problem which has its own template. Gracenotes^T § 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, very useful template and helps keep articles NPOV. --Hu12 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Very useful tool in dealing with an all-too-common problem -- and since it's a maintenance template, "very useful" is a damned good reason. The reasoning is pretty well outlined in {{COI2}} in a way that {{Notable Wikipedian}} doesn't cover, especially since the latter's very title implies that the article's subject actually belongs on Wikipedia in the first place. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's really annoying to see this template change every time I run across it. Any possibility of leaving it alone until a concensus is reached?--Kathy A. 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This template needs substantial change. In my experience, the template does not help at all, so it's not useful in its current form. If the goal is to tag articles for further investigation, then there are subtler ways to do this (e.g., put the template on a talk page). If the goal is to alert the reader, then the template should state specifically that the problem is possible bias (COI2 is much better in this regard). It should also be made clear how to get rid of the template. The text of the template implies that the only way that the template can be removed is by completely rewriting the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep; its need is obvious. We get autobiographies all the time, and they need to be tagged appropriately in the cases where the article can't be speedy deleted (as happens when the subject has a genuine claim to notability; I just found one doing move log patrol). We need these templates since they serve both as a caution to the article creator, and as a general cleanup notice. Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing in the template says that, because of COI, article should be deleted. It only recommends cleanup of an article; that editors may draw the conclusion that said article deserves deletion is coincidental.

[edit] Template:ScotPlacesKey

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template which is not used anywhere - it never caught on. Also pretty pointless since removal of fair-use images. — Edward Waverley 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AustralianMorningNewsShowsat6

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit... you know, advertise-y, and really doesn't need to be here. Only transcluded on two pages. Really doesn't serve much use apart from take up space on already clogged-up article. ~Spe bi 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - They have them for American and British Morning AM Shows. How is it advertisey? They are from Major Australian Television networks and the articles are not clogged at all. I do not see your reasoning? No valid criteria for deletion - Mike Beckham 09:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per Mike Beckham's comments. Stickeylabel 09:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above comments; I see no reason to delete this. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep As per - Mike Beckham. Dfrg.msc 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete obtrusive in its current format and generally useless.--cj | talk 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom and CJ. Sorry, just because another country has them does not make them appropriate for another. Just another navbox to clog articles which serves no use. Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - as per Mike Becham's comments. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. – Riana ⁂ 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and CJ. Not useful, just adds to clutter. – Riana ⁂ 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Only two notable programs (Sunrise and Today) and certainly no need for such a large infobox. Orderinchaos 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and Delete as nominee. ~Spe bi 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Question I was not aware the nominator could vote s well. This seems like it's going to end in a non-consensus. - Mike Beckham 09:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the template is much smaller without the deletion tag which is enormously large and obtrusive. - Mike Beckham 09:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- - As far as I am concerned, nominators are allowed to support the discussion; this happens all the time at WP:RFA. –Se bi ~ 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote, and it is always nice for the nominator to clearly state his or her stance. I have restored the tag in a less obstrusive manner. –Pomte 13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Okay update, it is now displayed on all the shows pages, it displays 5 Breakfast shows. It's notability and importance has now increased and it working fully. I still don't see any VALID criteria for deletion. Clutter is purely a matter of opinion and the American version seems to do well and helps navigation. - Mike Beckham 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not a useful template - spurious connection between shows, and seems a bit commercially-oriented and adverty. Sky News should definitely go even if the template somehow manages to survive. On second review, C31 should *definitely* go - this is national programs, not Melbourne programs - C31 is utterly non notable (For non-Australian audiences this is like community TV and is highly unrepresentative of pretty much anybody, we have Access 31 in Perth and it's equally off.) Zivko85 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Have fixed C31 issue, and the heading of the box, which was previously somewhat confusing to non-English first language speakers and also contained redundant information (Breakfast shows <-> 6 a.m.) Zivko85 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Orthodox Judaism

The result of the debate was what IZAK said. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This template is riddled with errors, both technical (links to wrong articles -- e.g. "Denominations [of Orthodoxy]" in the specific sense does not and cannot equal all "Jewish denominations") and informational and projects an image of WP:OWN of Judaism not suitable to the milieu of Wikipedia. From the instant it was introduced by User:Yehoishophot Oliver (contributions) this template has caused controversy, not surprisingly, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Orthodox Judaism template. User:Yehoishophot Oliver is clearly intent on approaching this subject from a Chabad POV, as is evident from the fact that he gives pride of place to "Lubvitcher Rebbe" by giving him one line to himself in "Important figures" (when no-one can judge as to who the greatest Orthodox rabbis really are.) But that is part of a bigger problem here in that 80% of what is on this template can already be found on the well-used Template:Judaism as well as on Template:Jews and Judaism and it tries to pre-empt some other excellent widely-used templates such as Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays, Template:Jewish life. And for religious texts there are already Template:Books of Torah, Template:Books of Nevi'im, Template:Books of Ketuvim. And Template:Jewish language covers the languages. (One wonders if the creator even bothered to do the research about these key existing templates that he in essence duplicates.) Thus this template fails, as it stands, because on the one hand it links to Biblical articles with Christian views in them and even views that make a total mockery of the Orthodox perspective which in turn makes a total joke of the fact that this template wishes to project and link up the entire "Orthodox" POV, which it fails to do. And, on the other hand, this template makes a very bad precedant since it will mean that Template:Reform Judaism; Template:Conservative Judaism (this one exists as a small template, but it is very modest and does not attempt to swallow all of Judaism into its purview); Template:Reconstructionist Judaism will be created and they will all use the same 80% of information on Wikipedia that they will have in common. So for now, having one template of this nature (such as Template:Judaism) that in any case: (a) includes 90% of so-called "Orthodox" articles and at the same time (b) represents all Jewish denominations is quite enough. Thus this template is essentially a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking especially of Template:Judaism and Template:Jews and Judaism, and see Templates for deletion: This template is: (1) not helpful; (2) it is redundant to another better-designed template; (3) it is not WP:NPOV; and as it stands (4) it is virtually impossible be modify it. Finally, there already is a more specific Template:Chabad so perhaps User:Yehoishophot Oliver should consider merging everything in this Template:Orthodox Judaism into Template:Chabad and then see if that makes any sense to anyone. IZAK 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Strange as it may seem, the underlying issues here are very similar to the problems relating to creating a "Messianic Judaism" template whereby some MJ editors first proposed that it include links to articles that are generic to all of Judaism (indeed to lots of Orthodox Judaism), and that were not specific to Messianic Judaism as such, see the proposed Messianic Judaism template. But after lengthy TfD discussions [1], [2], and [3] that kind of egregious template was absolutely rejected, as this Orthodox one should also be for almost the same reasons (i.e. that the bulk of its contents could easily be considered to belong to all of Judaism and almost all Jewish denominations, not just Orthodoxy alone.) Instead, the MJ editors then returned to a modified {{Messianic Judaism}} template that sticks to its known core issues and best known institutions and organizations and is in fact very similar to the more compact and focused {{Conservative Judaism}} template. Perhaps it's worth creating one for Orthodoxy as well. IZAK 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I have now created a NEW {{OrthodoxJudaism}} template based on the {{Conservative Judaism}} model. It is compact and to the point and will link to Orthodox Judaism articles and categories in a clearer and more efficient fashion. It is also less obtrusive and less haughty and unlike the one that's up for deletion here, it does not hog any page it's on. Thank you and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Currently Template:Judaism contains things of no direct relevance to Judaism. I would agree to deletion of Template:Orthodox Judaism if Template:Judaism can be edited suitably.--Redaktor 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Redaktor: The Orthodox template is a real mish-mash. What would you like edited in the Judaism template? It has evolved into the {{Jews and Judaism}} template actually. By the way, do you see the neat job of the {{Conservative Judaism}} template and how it sticks to the point of Conservative Judaism ONLY, and does not fly all over the place, like all the way back to "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" etc etc etc. If the Orthodox template would have been like that, instead of trying to encompass the universe and trying to "preach" a global lesson then it would be normal, but it doesn't exist that way, so it must go. Just because one likes Orthodoxy does not mean that one has to like this template merely because it has the name ""Orthodox" on it. It's really a "crazy-mixed-up-kid" template. IZAK 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Today's template is an obvious tweak of Template:Judaism. I think it should contain more original content, along the lines of Template:Chabad or Template:Conservative Judaism. On the other hand, if there is nothing unique to Orthodox Judaism that isn't already in Template:Judaism, then Template:Orthodox Judaism should be deleted. But I find that hard to believe; as an example, instead of repeating all the "Important figures" from Jewish history, Template:Orthodox Judaism should focus on rabbis who were important in the development of the modern (lower-case) Orthodox movement. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As it is, it serves no purpose, for all reasons stated above. If there's really a need for Template:Orthodox Judaism it needs to be re-done from scratch.

As to the suggestion for something similar to Template:Chabad, I would caution that that template too is riddled with problems. I highly doubt terms such a Choizer, Chitas, and Shliach deserve separate encyclopedia entries. But I guess that's for another discussion. --Kotzker 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Glad you're having a discussion on this. What is gained by using the Orthodox (or Conservative) template? Seems like an unhelpful move toward balkanizing the Judaism Project (Portal, etc). First, I think it's unhelpful for most readers, who are likely to be working more at the generalized Judaism level. Second, it's unhelpful for article content, which often deals with overlapping and cross-over aspects (e.g., Ortho critique of Conservatives and vice versa). Third, it's unhelpful for understanding Orthodoxy, which is a very diverse world of folks many of whom (i.e., some haredi) who do not identify as "Orthodox" per se. (By the same token, although Conservative Judaism is much more institutionally narrow, its borders are also somewhat diffuse and the template doesn't capture the whole picture.) So, moving in this direction will tend to generate unnecessary squabbling over choice of template. Better to get rid of the Conservative template -- which looks to me simply like a list of the Conservative J category -- rather than start creating Conservative / Reform /Reconstructionist /Renewal /Secular etc templates. We need to stop feeding the POV-forking frenzy and build a coherent NPOV mapping of Judaism's diversity. HG | Talk 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi HG: The {{Conservative Judaism}} template is excellent because it is focused, not "all over the place" ideas and links-wise, and does its job very well, so much so that it has inspired me to create the NEW {{OrthodoxJudaism}}. IZAK 23:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as povfork -- Y not? 23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and replace by IZAK's proposed template, which seems much more helpful and appropriate. DGG 08:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Izak: The template in its current format needs a lot of work; I don't deny that. No template was complete when it was first posted. I don't see why we can't work with the current format; I'm willing to be flexible.

1. I find it odd that you say that adding an Orthodox Judaism template is unhelpful because it will spark reform etc templates, yet you go and create another template yourself.

2. I find it odd that you accuse me of having a Chabad POV bias by including the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the template, when I also included Rabbi O. Yosef and other more recent leaders. This pouncing at any mention of Chabad appears to be a case of reverse discrimination.

3. Although Haredim will disassociate themselves from MO, they will certainly identify with the core idea of Orthodox Judaism which is careful adherence to the Rabbinic tradition. They will say that MO is not really Orthodox, they will not say that MO is Orthodox and they are not.

4. Izak, I find it unhelpful that when you removed my template from certain articles, e.g., the 10th of Tevet, you said that "10th of Tevet is for all Jews", as if I implied otherwise. You appear to be an Orthodox Jew. As such you should know that all according to this religion, the 10th of Tevet is a day that all Jews should keep, regardless of how they choose to identify themselves. My intention in placing the Orthodox Judaism template there is to clarify that this is a day that was enacted by the rabbis and as such is part of Orthodox Judaism, and a template that connects it with all sorts of ideas that according to Orthodox Judaism's self-definition are either irrelevant to Orthodox Judaism or anathema to it. A solution has to be found to prevent this lumping together, and that is the purpose of the Orthodox Judaism template that I've created.

5. :HG: I recognise that overlapping with reform etc. is a problem, but why do we have to scrap the whole of idea of a Orthodox Judaism template to replace the Jews and Judaism or the Judaism template which contain so many ideas that are anathema to Orthodox Judaism, falsely implying that there exists some commonality when there doesn't? One solution might be that on any given topic we would create different articles for each the different religions: one for the religion of Orthodox Judaism, another for the religion of reform, christianity, etc. Each article could then have its own template. The article on, let's say, tzniut, could be divided up into tzniut_(Orthodox_Judaism), tzniut_(conservatives_Judaism), etc. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to point #4: Placing this template (or any replacement) on a Jewish holiday creates extreme POV. They belong to all Jews, not only the Orthodox. Likewise, Rabbinic Judaism is an article of relevance to Judaism, not just Orthodox Judaism. By replacing Template:Judaism with Template:Orthodox Judaism at Rabbinic Judaism, as you did on May 17, you imposed your POV that only Orthodox Jews are followers of Rabbinic Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not my point of view, it's the POV of Orthodox Judaism, and the current setup imposes a different POV. As I suggested, a possible solution would be to create separate articles for the religion of Orthodox Judaism and of conservative, etc.Yehoishophot Oliver 23:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not write articles about traditional Jewish halakha, holidays, etc., which would be generally descriptive of Orthodox and usually descriptive of Conservative halakha, etc. Where appropriate, describe variations from tradition that apply to other movements. I don't think the right solution is to create articles about Orthodox Passover, Conservative Passover, Reform Passover, Reconstructionist Passover, Renewal Passover, etc.

Also, putting an "Orthodox Judaism" template on an article that applies to other Jewish movements is an imposition of your POV. "Orthodox Judaism" doesn't put templates into Wikipedia articles, editors do. Take a look at Abraham. It has three templates: Template:Prophets of Judaism, Template:Prophets of Christianity-ot, and Template:Prophets in the Qur'an. Remove Christianity and Islam, and you've imposed your POV that only Judaism has a legitimate claim on Abraham. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Shavua tov. Yehoishophot, you've hit the nail on the head: "it's the POV of Orthodox Judaism" (i.e., of your hard-line characterization of Orthodoxy). But a template reflects the editorial viewpoint of the encyclopedia, which should be NPOV. I feel fairly confident that the neutral view, incorporating many Orthodox folks, would accept the Judaism template. (Most haredi rabbis are courteous enough not to publicly describe the other movements as you have.) Indeed, the Judaism template should be useful even for those who think that Orthodoxy is the only "Judaism" -- because when it mentions Conservative and Reform on the template, it takes you to articles that include the Orthodox critique of them. Anyway, most readers are probably raised Christian would think it's fair to let the Judaism template cover all the movements. HG | Talk 03:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. My view is that "Orthodox Judaism" is a momentary Ashkenazi abberation in the vast history of Judaism, that came about as a reaction to the wanton apostasy advocated by the "Reform" (hahaha) movement...but that notwithstanding, Reform is so "out there" that it warrants a template to include such things as Abortion advocacy, whacko leftist social activism, excessive Holocaust lamentation, and Self-hating Jews, for example...but Orthodox Judaism, while it, in many ways, includes a great many obnoxious commentators who denigrate Jewish epikorsim, is a far less cohesive concept than "Canadian nationalism" (which can best be defined as "We're not Americans")... The template has no redeeming qualities whatsoever... let Judaism be Judaism, and let the epikorsim be epikorsim, "Orthodox Judaism" is a subset within traditional Judaism, and to create a template indicating otherwise gives undue weight to the relevance of the people who, ignorantly or otherwise, oppose it. Tongue in cheek, as appropriate. Tom e r ^talk 04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Replace with IZAK's template, {{OrthodoxJudaism}}, and reinsert {{Judaism}} into articles, as appropriate. Tom e r ^talk 04:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as POVfork, and replace with IZAK's template. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and replace with IZAK's template, which stays focused on articles appropriate and specific to Orthodox Judaism. We'll find out what the future of Orthodox Judaism will be in due course. In the meanwhile, let's build an encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and replace with IZAK's template, as per Shira. IZAK's template is small enough that it can be added at the bottom of all articles about Orthodox Judaism, in addition to the Judaism template which can be used elsewhere. However, there might also be articles where only IZAK's template is relevant; for example articles about small Chareidi groups (check, for example, Bnei Yoel - IZAK's template would be fine there, but not the huge Judaism template. --Rabbeinu 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox MK

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Created by Chocom (talk · contribs) on April 16, and hasn't been touched since. Chocom him/herself has not edited since April 17. I have no idea what the template was intended for. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No clues are offered at Mk (disambiguation) either. Delete - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - By looking at Chocom's edit history, this template was meant for members of the Knesset. But the template Template:MKs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is used instead. Whether or not Infobox MK is meant to supercede this is unclear. - 52 Pickup 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Userfy for creator as redundant and unused, but the alternate look may be worked on in the future. –Pomte 13:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox County of Nova Scotia

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete All. This and all the the rest have been replaced with {{Infobox Settlement}}. Which was modified to retain the Nova Scotia Flag/Places link. While their creation was good intentioned, switching to Infobox Settlement gives the communities of Nova Scotia a consistent look with other places in Canada such as Montreal, Toronto, and Edmonton — MJCdetroit 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also included in this TfD are the following templates:

Merge All with {{Infobox Settlement}}. The picture on these templates could be used on the city infobox to produce much the same effect. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment.I already did that, see New Glasgow, Nova Scotia for an example. —MJCdetroit 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but you all just undid about 18 months of work by people associated with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nova_Scotia without any discussion. I respect you have your own project underway here but I think you could have given the rest of us a heads up. I think your infoboxes are missing data that I and we wanted to be there as apart of our ongoing efforts to bring clarity to the HRM and NS related articles, such as villages within a planning area, to use one example. Maybe your boxes can be made to work in the context of the NS articles, but think it might have been a nice courtesy on your part to talk to other relevant projects before doing what you have done. I would appreciate it if you didn't delete these templates until the use of them is full resolved.WayeMason 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while I do wish you had warned us (i had a freaking heart attack) it seems pretty good. Can your template be stretch to villages and neighbourhoods like here? WayeMason 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, good thing you have free health care. When it comes to standardization of templates, I've learn (long ago) that sometimes the 800# gorilla approach works better (and quicker). I assure you that I made every effort to transfer all data and even add extras like dot maps. I just did Albro Lake, Nova Scotia for your review and correction of the dot placement. —MJCdetroit 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for Template:Infobox County of Nova Scotia, because a county is not (generally) a particlular settlement, but an area of governance that tends to include many particular settlements, or might even include only part of a large settlement. Counties are a different kind of animal from settlements. Rather, they are of the same nature as Canadian Provinces and American States, although (within North America) smaller and subordinate to Provinces and States.
Conditionally oppose as regards the others, on the grounds that bulling through such a sweeping change without asking and discussing first -- the 800lbs-gorilla approach -- is uncollegial. I'm sure it is easier and quicker and surer in getting such a change through, but it is, well, inconsiderate if not rude. A simple search for, and invitation of other potentially interested parties, during the new template's building, would have remedied this beforehand. Afterwards, the thing to do would have been to make the new template known and encourage its adoption, without acting peremptorily. So my opposition is conditional on the needful discussion not (yet) having taken place. Myself, I'm about neutral on whether the standardised template is better than the "home-grown" ones of WikiProject Nova Scotia. -- Lonewolf BC 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again sorry. I don't/didn't mean to be rude or inconsiderate and perhaps my choice of words was poor. However, I understand where you are coming from. Like I said, I found in the past that when you propose replacing an single use/local infobox with the standard infobox some editors "circle the wagons" and "start digging trenches". Then it is so much harder. The most recent example I can think of is on the Berlin talk. I guess because as you put it they are defending something that is "home-grown", even if it is not as good as the one its being replaced with. In my defense, I did contact Sonyuser, who had quite a few edits to some of the infoboxes and told him what I did/was doing. I probably should have told WayneMason too, but he seems ok with it now.

I am not quite sure I follow your reasoning for opposing switching the counties. Almost, all the information was transfered over to {{Infobox Settlement}} and in some cases information was added. Unless it is just the name Settlement itself that you don't like. The only information that could not be transfered was the 4 way geographic location. That can be taken care of with {{Geographic Location (8-way)}} if needed. We can always discuss this in further detail; either here or on some other talk page. Regards —MJCdetroit 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete I find {{Infobox Settlement}} to be more flexable than the Nova Scotia and HRM boxes --Sonyuser 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Second sunday in march

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant template created for use in the Second Sunday in March article, which has now been deleted. Masaruemoto 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 06:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colbert Report boards

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) an ugly, enormous template that has no purpose. The items do not link to Colbert Report boards, they link to Wikipedia articles. Even if they did link to Colbert Report boards, this template would not be appropriate, as we do not and hopefully will not have articles on each Colbert Report board. Corvus cornix 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They are ugly and enormous, but that could be fixed instead of deleting them. If they are properly explained, they could help the reader to better understand important parts of the Colbert character and of the show. --Toadaron 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Or not. Now it's even uglier, more enormous, and even less useful. Corvus cornix 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete of Fix One horrible template. Dfrg.msc 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - subjects of the listed articles owe little or no notability to Colbert, let alone deserve a template for it. Wikipedia is not Comedy Central—well, not usually :) Gracenotes^T § 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I cannot fathom why anyone would find this useful. A link to every topic covered by Colbert Report boards or the show? How many people are looking for a huge, ugly navigational template for that? (And where's Criticism of Wikipedia?) Grand master ka 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, only in use on one article (The Colbert Report). No reason to have a template for that. Someone seems to misunderstand the purpose of templates. Xtifr _tälk 09:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Oy. Grace and Xtifr are, to be sure, quite right. Joe 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete This has got to be one of the least attractive templates I've ever seen, irrespective of its merit (which is amply covered above). Orderinchaos 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: the component templates, Template:Colbert Report boards/item and Template:Colbert Report boards/Fantasies item should also probably be included, as they serve no purpose except to help support this one. Xtifr _tälk 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, although having Ric Ocasek put Todd Rundgren on notice for replacing him in The Cars is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time . . . -Butseriouslyfolks 04:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)