Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 18

May 18

Template:NavboxOddBG

Template:NavboxOddBG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the only one left of a series of outdated templates which used to populate Category:Navigational box helper templates. we now have css and {{navbox}} which takes care of this automatically. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:N Jakarta

Template:N Jakarta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:S Jakarta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:E Jakarta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:W Jakarta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by {{Jakarta}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The new template is clearly superior and the four old ones are unused and no longer needed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Non-free architectural work

Template:Non-free architectural work (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template misstates the policy of Wikipedia and leads to situations like File:Atomium_20-08-07.jpg where a non-free image of a free work is uploaded. See prior discussion on this point at Template talk:FoP-USonly which is the tag that should be used instead. In the US, buildings before 1990 are not copyrighted. Period. There is no URAA restoration of copyright to foreign buildings because there was no copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights where it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored. For buildings constructed after 1990, the FoP law restricts the right of copyright owners to prevent the making of derivative works in the form of photographs. Hence this template is not needed. These works are not considered unfree under US law. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessary. Use {{FoP-USonly}} instead.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Let's continue the discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly rather than debate one issue in two places. 9carney (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No need for two templates. The images are free in the United States, so it looks wrong to have a non-free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. This template has been in place since May 2008 and accurately states US law and Wikipedia and WMF policy. The proposed replacement {{FoP-USonly}} completely misstates both law and policy. Any proposals to amend policy should be made on the talk pages of the appropriate policies. There is lengthy discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly 9carney (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you have claimed that the other template misstates both law and policy, but you have forgot to present any source for that claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I have nominated {{FoP-USonly}} and {{FoP-US}} for deletion, for the reasons stated and explained at some length in Template talk:FoP-USonly 9carney (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Newbie-biting

Template:Newbie-biting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Uw-bite}}, and much less clear Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Blatant bad faith nomination in retaliaton after editor was warned in a friendly manner [1] for biting a new editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not biting him, I'm actually staying silent during his insults. And he's not a newbie, he's here since 2007. But do not change the topic: this discussion is about the template, which is redundant and less clear Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Whack Cambalachero with a trout - This is not redundant, it is a humourous and light-hearted alternative. Salvidrim! 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• delete, non-standard, obtuse, and redundant to the more widely used {{uw-bite}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject East Carolina University

Template:WikiProject East Carolina University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer needed. This project has been inactive for a long time. In addition this project and its parent North Carolina are now supported by the WikiProject United States template. Kumioko (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• delete as no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:RetiredForLong

Template:RetiredForLong (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to Template:Retired, with the exception that there is a vague definition of "a long time" included instead of simply saying that the user is no longer active. Further retired implies they are gone for good (because everyone who retires never comes back, right? Is that crickets I hear?). Not active for a long time implies a long Wikibreak, not retiring. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy to creator & only user, User:Yasht101. Salvidrim! 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - I see no harm in users creating their own customized templates in their own userspace; evidently enough, I have a few of those myself. Salvidrim! 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy. This seems the best way to both respect Yasht101's intent and to reduce redundancy in the template namespace. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant and antithetic. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note Yasht already has a contingency plan in place in case it gets deleted, a note at the bottom asking for it to be replaced with {{retired}}. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject West Virginia University

Template:WikiProject West Virginia University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer needed. WikiProject WVU went inactive a while ago and there are no articles associated to this template. The articles and project now fall under the scope of WikiProjects West Virginia and United States which both also use the WPUS banner. This template has also continually shown up on the unused templates list. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• delete as no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pedophilia

Template:Pedophilia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Impossible for the selection of articles to be NPOV; in some cases, the connection is not only POV, it violates WP:BLP. However, if I just delete the BLP entries, there would be further dispute, so I'm proposing deletion in its entirety. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All the articles are pedophilia-related and cited in the pedophilia article. How is the connection POV? Oct13 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, you said on my talk page "I cannot see any possible way Pedophilia could be NPOV, with all the accusations of pedophilia going on". What did you mean by that? Oct13 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed the half-dozen articles not associated with pedophilia; it happens that none of the scandals actually have evidence or proof of pedophilia, even those which had evidence of child sexual abuse or accusations of pedophilia. Perhaps the template can be kept clean, after all. We'll see.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Details on template talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but carefully review its links and what pages it's used on. All of the links there are unquestionably subtopics of pedophilia. I don't understand the BLP violation, unless this template is used on biographies (I haven't checked the links list) - Even so, there is nothing wrong with including this on biographies of a person convicted of pedophilia crimes, or a person or organization that advocates in its favor. (In fact, this template should probably have a proponents section linking to pro-pedophilia organizations and persons) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The template doesn't link to biographies. I don't know of any pedophile organizations or persons. Oct13 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The template did link to reports on criminal cases, and the defendants are (in some cases) still living. Where convictions were not obtained, that is still a WP:BLP violation. Even if a conviction on child sexual abuse were to have occurred, it still might be a WP:BLP violation to assert that pedophilia was involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know where the perceived bias is from. I made this template using code from another template of mine, and forgot to remove the Catholic categories in the code. At first I thought Arthur added the categories, but than I remembered where I got the code from. My apologies. Oct13 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly delete. The template violates principles of NPOV, civility, child protection. It looks like hidden intention to promote subject. Why should be mixed pro- and anti- p. organizations? Who should establish criteria for including articles to template? It should be deleted.Ans-mo (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Huh? Promote it? How the hell does an organized list of articles "promote" pedophilia? And don't tons of templates mix pro and anti organizations? I would expect an abortion template to list prominent pro and anti abortion organizations, and no one it their right mind would say that it's "promoting" abortion to point to articles about it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of this template would set a troubling precedent. Saying that this template can never meet NPOV creates the problem that any other topic about a topic that disgusts most people can never meet it either. Wikipedia is not censored, and there should be templates on topics that disgust people, and it would be completely wrong to delete all of them. And no matter how much something disgusts most of the population, everything has a minority who favors it. This template properly does its job in pointing readers to more articles on the broader topic, just as it should, and the difficulty in maintaining NPOV is not a valid reason to delete it, and probably eventually a whole bunch of other templates on disgusting topics. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It's more like Category:Terrorists (as opposed to Category:Terrorism); there's too much disagreement as to whether something is associated with it. For example, Child sexual abuse (and subarticles) is (are) associated with pedophilia, but not closely associated. And, if we are to have consistent standards, the recently removed local organization should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This template doesn't promote pedophilia anymore than the Medjugorje template I made promote the Medjugorje apparitions. Moreover, this template is about a disorder, not the people with said disorder. This template further distances itself from the child abuse and sexual abuse templates by including topics specifically about pedophilia. This template does not disgust me; on the contrary, I see it as a helpful means for people to find articles on pedophilia and related topics, the same as my other templates on their respected topics. Finally, I'm trying to find a better alternative to the word "Organizations", since it has too much of a pro-pedophilia feel to it; I want a word that explains the associations are pedophilic. Oct13 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse are not pedophilia, as made clear in their articles and the Pedophilia article. That is why this template is WP:Original research and a WP:NPOV violation. And I know that it's confusing when one says that child sexual abuse is not pedophilia; that's why you need to study this topic, starting with reading what the Pedophilia article says about that. Not all pedophiles commit child sexual abuse, and not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hebephilia and ephebophilia are issues fixed by editing, not deletion. And I think the connection between pedophilia and child sexual abuse is so obvious as to qualify under WP:BLUE D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If it can be fixed, then fix it. They should not be under the heading pedophilia as a type of pedophilia, especially not ephebophilia (which is the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents/teenagers; aka usually post-pubescent individuals). Pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Hebephilia is being debated as to whether or not it overlaps with pedophilia enough to be considered a subset of pedophilia (meaning pubescent children who still look prepubescent or very child-like), but it still isn't officially considered a type of pedophilia. Editors at the Pedophilia article have worked on that article to make clear in it what pedophilia is and isn't, and this template, as currently formatted, is undermining that. For the Pedophilia article to go over in the lead, as well as lower in the article in the Misuse of medical terminology section, how the term "pedophilia" is often misused, but then to have a template saying "Nope, it's all pedophilia"...is highly contradicting. We're trying to educate people here, so that they don't go around calling some 21-year-old guy with a 17-year-old girlfriend a pedophile, as though there is some significant physical difference between 17 and 18-year-olds. Too many people confuse pedophilia with age of consent and age of majority laws, and we're trying to keep that distinction clear. As for the connection between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, or pedophilia and other child sexual abuse behaviors, looking at the template more closely, I don't mind those being included since they are listed under Behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. First, I don't see why possible problems with unwise placement of this navigational template should count in favor of its deletion. Also, I see a lot of, in my opinion, irrational, arguments flying here already, such as this template contributing to the promotion of child abuse, or that clearly belonging topics should not be associated with pedophilia. I suppose all of this is to be expected for this topic, but now I at least have given my opinion on the matter. __meco (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hebephilia and ephebophilia are not "clearly belonging topics," as I've just explained above. That is my only problem with this template. If they are included in this template in a way that doesn't classify them as types of pedophilia, then I won't have a problem with the template. The listing for them should either be renamed or they should be removed. They should be listed as "Associated philias," "Associated chronophilias," or something of that nature. One could suggest "Associated paraphilias," but there is debate as to whether or not hebephilia is a paraphilia, and ephebophilia isn't even (normally) a paraphilia. Neither is an official mental disorder either, so they also shouldn't be categorized as "Associated mental disorders." Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and edit as necessary. I read mainly the oppositional comments. All valid issues can be resolved by editing and having a template is not promotion any more than having any other template or any article is promotion. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Nick. That's all I'm asking for regarding this -- is accuracy. I don't see any promotion of pedophilia either. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:ISIHighlyCited

Template:ISIHighlyCited (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The site this template covers, highlycited.com, is no longer maintained, and all invocations of the template redirect to the site's top page; not to the individual researcher, as designed. The template no longer works, and cannot be updated to work. "As of December 31, 2011, Highly Cited Research will no longer be maintained or updated as a stand-alone resource." I propose a bot remove the transclusions of the template and that it be deleted. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. As template author I've been aware of this problem but remiss in doing anything about it, so I thank TJRC for bringing this up but I don't think deletion is the answer. I've just removed the (50-odd) transclusions that were used merely as external links, and changed the half-dozen transclusions that were used only to verify the person was an ISI Highly Cited researcher to a link to one of the still-functional category list pages. That leaves 16 transclusions that are being used as references for more substantive information, including a few where this is the only reference for the biography of a living person (e.g. Gheorghe Păun, Duane Ilstrup). It seems unhelpful to delete these as, per WP:Link rot#Keeping dead links, "Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past". It would probably be useful to update the template to mark the links as dead, and update its documentation page, but I'll await the outcome of this discussion. Qwfp (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Qwpf. My sampling found uses only as external links, where WP:DEADLINK isn't applicable. You raise an excellent point for those instances where they are used as references. For those, I suggest that they be subst'd, so that the reference can be retained despite the link rot, and then the template should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G8. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)