Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 23

April 23

Template:WikiLobby

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

This template fails WP:AGF by immediately placing any editor with a certain POV under suspicion, without giving any specific benefit as a trade off. There is not much any editor can do with this knowledge in the face of a suspicion, beyond enforce policy as normal. And more generally, the idea of creating a template for each specific occurance of a known conspiracy could be the thin end of the wedge of talk page template cruft on controversial articles. — MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This template serves no purpose but to create panic and poison the well by casting a cloud over editors with a certain POV. Since nobody can point to any evidence the supposed Lobby campaign ever generated any edits on Wikipedia itself, the argument that this template needs to be there to protect these articles is simply wrong. - Merzbow (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Provisional Keep - If this template is altered to be one solution for all such occasions. Is there another template I am unaware of? Here is what the template actually says: "Conversely, all editors are reminded that assuming good faith is an important policy. If you suspect that a fellow editor has been directed by this campaign, please remember that this is page is for discussing changes to the article, and not an appropriate place to air such suspicions." It is warning against exactly what the nominator claims will happen. Also, if a certain POV, represented by the off Wiki coordination, is caste under more scrutiny then this template has exactly served its purpose and will in the future help deter those types of efforts.PelleSmith (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware that the template links the text "off-site lobbying campaign" to the page regarding the CAMERA incident. It is most certainly not, in its current form, "one solution for all such occasions". If somebody wishes to edit the template to make it so, then perhaps it might be useful. - Merzbow (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think that it would be useful under such circumstances then maybe you should change your answer to provisional keep, as I'm about to.PelleSmith (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Subst all instances Has precedent at Talk:Bogdanov_Affair.--Goon Noot (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Cautious keep. I'm worried about the atmosphere of paranoia this template could create, but I nonetheless think it is needed - on more than one occasion, it has been established that an off-wiki group has set out to edit Wikipedia articles and slant them towards a certain POV. When this has been found, it should be noted on the articles in question. However, this template should be used with extreme caution - it can easily be abused by a disgruntled editor keen to argue that there is a 'cabal' against them. Hence it should only be applied to articles where consensus supports it (or where ArbCom mandates it). Terraxos (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And as an additional point: the current picture, which appears to be a WWII propaganda poster, is highly inappropriate, and should be removed immediately - comparing people to Nazis rarely encourages them to keep cool and assume good faith. Terraxos (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete despite what it says I think the template encourages people to ignore policy. Guest9999 (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Damage to AGF would be greater than the possitive benifits this template has. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary, divisive, encouraging of paranoia. If this stays around it will get used in all kinds of stupid edit wars. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Its not paranoia if they really are out to get you. :) (Incidentally, anyone know where that line's from?) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At this link the quote is attributed to the movie Catch-22. --NBahn (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I feel suitably uneducated. Though I must say that I do remember the passage in C.P. Snow's Strangers and Brothers which used "when people get persecution mania, they usually have a good deal to feel persecuted about". --Relata refero (disp.) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you" was the wording used by St. Kurt in "Territorial Pissings". — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If a page is known to be under an organized outside campaign, AGF needs to be done with more skepticism. As wikipedia grows to in influence and traffic, it will surely come under such campaigns (as is believed at present). It doesnt encourage paranoia it encourages caution.
  • Caution or suspicion? There are other templates that reinforce caution. Who out there is seriously applying AGF to Isr-Pal articles at the same level as the more uncontroversial articles anyway?. The amount of AGF is surely already applied relative to the article at hand, surely nobody needs this template to tell them that basic fact. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This template is just plain silly and makes us look paranoid. Bstone (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I am not persuaded by the argument that this will be abused; by that criterion, no template could ever be used. At some point, you have to trust the system to do the right thing. Or at least that's how it seems to me.
  NBahn (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Serves a good purpose to have editors take a second look at the neutrality of the article. Use it only when it's proven to be true. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A good enough purpose to prejudice AGF for every editor from the start? MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Even those who recommend a wishy-washy everything-is-normal we-can-handle-it-in-our-sleep kind of approach to this problem have said that more eyes on these articles, and awareness of possible co-ordination, is a good thing. This can be TfDed once we are reasonably certain that that necessity no longer exists. Can someone explain what the policy bassed reasons for deletion are, anyway? Note that this is not the first such template, only a modified one. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That template is similarly disputed, but I must point out, that template does not refer to a specific POV immediately placing suspicion on one side. And as below, I see no point in time where anyone could say for certain there is no threat anymore, hence I see it remaining in perpetuity. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Relata refero. I don't see the policy reasons for deletion. This latest CAMERA incident is hardly the first time we've been subject to offsite lobbying. To take one example, the Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo solicited its readers to vote in the Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks naming poll. "Assume good faith" is not equivalent to "you must be a total sap". --Folantin (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that campaign had a defined purpose and endpoint, this one has neither. For you and the others above, I see no point at which anyone could say it's no longer needed, so I see it becoming a permanent part of the talk page. And what happens when a similar campaign appears with the opposite POV? Do we then place two templates on it? Or are we going to grow up and realise people don't need to be told an Isr-Pal article is going to be controversial and thus possibly subject to dodginess. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as the nominator's rationale is, IMO, groundless. The template does not assume bad faith on the part of any user; it simply highlights the concern of a very serious to undermine the project. It notifies others that the article has been the focus of an off-wiki meatpuppet group, directs those who are concerned to a centralized discussion area and away from cluttering the article talk page, and cautions the reader that AGF still applies. This template won't be necessary forever, but while this is still ongoing, it was a very good idea to create. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See reply above, I see no defineable end point. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So since, in your opinion, there no hard end date for when the template would be deleted, that is the rationale for deleting it now? Curious logic, that. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not the primary reason for my nomination, which you clearly disagree with, but, yes, I see this being the thin end of the wedge causing a proliferation of POV specific template cruft on all articles that ever recieve offsite attention (lets not pretend this is a special case here, this happens a lot as far as I have seen). But if you disagree there is no end point, I would ask you to look ahead and define what the test would be to determine the secret campaign is no longer a specific threat, and thereby a Tfd on this would pass on the 'no longer needed' basis. I don't see it. By its very nature, the campaign was designed to go unnoticed, hence I see the possibility for endless paranoia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, improve if needed, and mandate substitution. There really is a problem here, and, as Goon Noot notes, there's precedent from the Bogdanov affair article (where a similar warning was even mandated by Arbcom). I don't encourage panicking (or paralysis), but I do think a warning to good-faith editors is needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For this and the others mentioning subts, this template has no support from arbcom as yet that I see compared to Bogdanov, the case is not even accepted yet. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's mandated by Arbcom, or that it necessarily will be mandated by Arbcom - I'm saying that Arbcom's choice of a solution in that case was a very good one that we should emulate on our own initiative in this case. If Arbcom also later agrees with this, fine. It's not required to act, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Divisive and paranoid if not changed. If changed, you'd have to put one on every politician, political group, rights group, and 9/11 page to name a few. There's lobbying to edit WP everywhere. Why not let the usual policies and dispute resolution routes continue to work? --PTR (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"There's lobbying to edit WP everywhere." True, but in this particular instance, there is also an attempt to corrupt the Wikipedia system. If Electronic Intifada hadn't found out about it, then we would STILL be unaware of the campaign. Are you assuming that merely because the campaign has been exposed that the campaign has ceased to function? If so, then you are quite naive. You're also quite naive in thinking that "the usual policies and dispute resolution routes..." are sufficient to both deter and prevent such a campaign from succeeding.
--NBahn (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What special measure does this template give anyone to do anything but follow the apparently 'insufficient' usual rules? It's just as naive on your part to assume that just because they haven't been outed, that Entifada don't have a similar campaign ongoing, and it's even worse to lower your oversight due to the absence of a dramatic but ultimately unhelpful template. MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If, in fact Electronic Intifada has engaged in egregious behavior then please, for my sake, tell me what those actions are and constitute. I'm not the only one who would like to know this, I'm sure.
--NBahn (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you didn't answer my queries, but in answer to your strawman, I have one of my own. If you had evidence of an EI campaign, what would you do then? Would we then have to have two useless ABF templates? MickMacNee (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not helpful, overdramatizes an incident that has (fortunately) been of rather minor actual effect; may be used by the opposing party to reap ideological profit from this incident by painting the other side as the bad guys. Besides, frankly, we have enough template clutter on talkpages as is; who reads such stuff anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Plays right into the hands of those seeking to undermine Wikipedia, and to question the viability of its central premise; namely, that simple duiscussion and collaboration on an equal level will be enough to forge sensible consensus, based on attention to facts. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ron Paul

Template:Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:RonPaul.

This template had previously reached a consensus for deletion. It was later re-created, so I asked for it to be speedy deleted, per CSD G4. However, a few Ron Paul fans came along and removed the tag saying that there was a consensus to keep it. I didn't want to violate the three revert rule, so I am now nominating it here. I say delete it - per CSD G4 and my previous deletion nomination which succeeded. The template strays from the topic, and I don't see how Ron Paul needs his own template to begin with. There isn't much salvageable material here worthy of having its own template. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: Nom has not followed any of the recommended steps prior to TFD (editing, discussing, or proposing merge), but has moved directly to TFD out of process after two unsuccessful CSDs on this template based on a four-month-old consensus superseded by the silent keep consensus the intervening four months. Nom submitted the parallel template RonPaul for deletion similarly out of process, rather than merge the two or constructively edit either. JJB 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah, there was consensus to keep it, for the past four months! G4 claim is without evidence and has been turned down twice. "Template strays from topic" is fixable and debate has already been initiated on talk page without nom's help. Why Paul needs a template should be obvious from Category:Politician navigational templates; see Template:John Edwards or Template:Mohammad Khatami or Template:Kwame Kilpatrick or Template:Dennis Kucinich or Template:Raila Odinga for instance. Paul has more articles than most of those and needs a navigation aid. Finally, I don't know what "there isn't much salvageable material here" means in a navbox; does it mean that only a few of the articles are worthy of listing in a template? (If so that is an argument to trim and keep.) If not what else could it mean? (Note also that nom's many other late precipitous actions in this content area, while completely failing to open improvement-related dialogue at any talk page as requested, are now rising to the level of needing to be considered in relation to newer precipitous actions like this one: so please review this.) JJB 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I also don't have a clue what nom means by "my previous deletion nomination which succeeded". Nom made no input at previous TFD, and if nom made an out-of-process CSD or PROD around Dec, it was clearly rejected. This kind of language is troubling. JJB 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I have notified the other editors of these templates at this point. JJB 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: We do not know if this version is significantly different to the old speedy deleted version. If it is, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Also, most of the other presidential candidates have their own navbox too, so I don't see what's the problem. ViperSnake151 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Qualified keep' pending acceptable selection criteria. As one of the editors who declined the nominators inaccurate speedy nomination (the content of the template was not substantially a repost of the deleted version) and who has not been active in editing Ron Paul articles on Wikipedia, I find it in bad faith to be labeled a "Ron Paul fan". The question is whether or not there is a version of this template that will be of navigational aid to readers. I believe that with a main Ron Paul and Political positions article, two presidential campaign articles which significantly cover (several paragraphs) this individuals activities, an article on his legislative efforts in general as well as 5 individual pieces of sponsored legislation and two books, it is uncontroversial that there are enough articles that significantly relate to Ron Paul to make a navigational template more desireable than a bloated see also section. Skomorokh 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Material is not a repost of previous deleted material. There's clearly enough articles related to Ron Paul on Wikipedia to warrant a template, the same way there's enough to warrant his own category. Buspar (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to admins: the above editor was Canvassed by User:John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have decided not to answer with an involved reductio ad absurdam satire about unsolicited boilerplates, because no one but I would appreciate the humor. I'll just post the links, for the subtle.[1][2][3][4][5] Respectfully yours, JJB 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ron Paul's over-representation on wikipedia is a WP:GAME or WP:HOAX issue. The articles are being maintained in a pos-POV manner turning Wikipedia into a propaganda organ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those apply. This is clearly NOT a hoax, since the template is meant to be used seriously. It's not gaming the system, either, as there's no rules lawyering going on here, just article creation. Please remember to assume good faith and to sign your comments. Buspar (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a deletion argument. Over-representation is to be decided in each individual case, like this TFD. !Voter presents no reason why this template is a particular case of over-representation or POV, other than generic unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith (as both links demonstrate) that do not relate to this template. I find hoaxing particularly inapposite, because it is intended for a wholly different class of material, like "Paul has been endorsed by McCain", certainly not like "Paul has several articles and sections of notable material". JJB 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If you have problems with the template straying from topic, you should discuss them at the template talk page. If you have a problem with an article listed in the template you can discuss that on the article's talk page. If you have problems with certain editors you suspect are "Ron Paul fans", you can open a discussion with them on their talk pages but do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. MantisEars (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to admins: the above editor was Canvassed by User:John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • See my comment above. JJB 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It looks as though User:John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) has been canvassing several other Ron Paul fans not only to this discussion, but also to other related ones. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • See my comment above. JJB 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • JJB contacted those who have been involved in editing the template and did so in a neutral manner, saying only that the templates were up for deletion and that they should participate if interested. He did NOT tell others how to vote, only made them aware of the discussion. This is a case when canvasing is acceptable, per WP:CANVAS. Buspar (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No need to explain, JJB said it all. Incomplete nomination to name one thing, and I don't see any reason to delete the template. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Neuroshima

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

Not useful for navigation. Only has three related gaming articles, together with links to other general articles (with no close connection to either of the games). The three related gaming articles are already linked inside the main article text. — --Craw-daddy | T | 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete an ugly template full of a bunch of redlinks and links to unrelated pages. Mr.Z-man 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough articles on this subject to need a navigation template. Terraxos (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've simplified the template a bit, although I don't think it really makes a difference. Guest9999 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not ugly anymore, but still not very useful. Mr.Z-man 03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NZR member

Template:NZR member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused user template for nonexistent project "NZR Project". Also delete enclosing category Category:NZR Project, whose only member is this template. — DH85868993 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unused userbox. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment -- The template may be unused, but Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR is by no means a nonexistent project. I took a quick look through the user pages of editors that are listed as project members and didn't see this userbox displayed. I've left a note about this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NZR. Slambo (Speak) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: as one of the main participants in the NZR WikiProject, I didn't even know this existed! I personally would not have an interest in using it, but other members may have been similarly unaware of its existence and would like to use it, so I'm not going to cast a vote for deletion. I suppose I'm fairly neutral on its fate. - Axver (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (from nominator). Given that the project actually exists, I'm quite happy for the template to remain, provided the link to the WikiProject and category are corrected. But I'll leave the nom, to save the Project having to renominate it if they decide they don't want it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wolfram-screenshot

Template:Wolfram-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No evidence that Wolfram Research has licensed this software under a free license. — Kelly ^hi! 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - there's no evidence that Adobe Photoshop is released under a free license, either, but we nonetheless allow users to create and alter images using that software. This template is not sufficient to describe licensing of the images created by it, nor does it give source of the image (it could be someone other than the uploader) – but it indicates that the copyright holder of the image is not Wolfram Research, which is useful, I guess. Gracenotes^T § 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative delete. This categorizes pages into Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed, but doing a quick search of the system, I can find no such permission. I'll ask on the mailing list if anyone knows about this. Mr.Z-man 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at the license info on my own installation of Mathematica also turned up nothing like this. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative delete Same here, I'll do another search under some different terms, see if I can't come up with something. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative delete I believe the user may have misunderstood this: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/termsofuse.html CC-BY-NC-3.0 is not acceptable under free use. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That also only seems to refer to images from that site, not from the Mathmatica software itself. Mr.Z-man 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:AtlantiumFlags

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

Unused and redundant to this table in the article. All but 2 of the images have been removed as they are non-free. No links except to the main article. Essentially pointless.. RichardΩ612 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - entirely useless, for the reasons given by the nominator. Terraxos (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Useless, I created the template, but replaced it with a table after the problems with the non-free images. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete—Completely useless. All but two images are gone, and almost no links. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)