Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 10



Template:Warning2

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy notification template, superseded by current procedures, not part of current warning systems.  MBisanz  talk 19:01, 10 July 2008 (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.

Template:Coi2

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This template is a serious problem. For the most part, it is a specialized NPOV template, with a touch of "this article is self-promoting." But the template does not advise any actual action that can be taken to clean it up - it's primarily phrased as a user warning template that goes on articles. As a result, there is no clear way to fix the template and remove it. Given that the template makes a direct accusation about the subject of the article, who, if they are editing Wikipedia, is probably alive, this further amounts to an unsourced negative accusation about a living person masquerading as cleanup text. This template should be removed, and instead of it specific templates that point to perceived problems with the article's text should be employed. COI is a user issue, not an article issue, and warnings of user conduct are for talk pages, not article pages. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the problem here is that it is in the article space. We would never allow someone to add a section to an article that read "X edited the article about her on Wikipedia, removing claims that Y. This violated Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, and was reverted." And yet this template does exactly that, only in a colorful box at the top of the page. Utter madness. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A final note - what, exactly, does this template achieve that Template:COI doesn't? For the purposes of cleaning up an article, Template:COI seems sensible and useful. Why would we ever use COI2 instead? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (like the previous voting). When addressing shifting IP accounts, or people who edit using both IPs and logged in accounts (or even sockpuppets), then this warning is just about the only way of reaching them.  Also (though that is also true when a talkpage template would be used), it tracks easier which articles may be having a problem, without having to post on WP:COIN all the time (the latter would be more suitable for the more abusive/persistent cases).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The convenience of warning here cannot possibly be taken to balance out a template that elevates a random Wikipedian's suspicion of COI into the article namespace, and that has no reasonable criteria for removal. Your convenience in issuing warning templates does not trump BLP. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While we do have some major goshdarn pains in the backside pushing conflicts of interest, this actual problem won't be solved by warnings on the page itself. In all cases I've seen and been involved in, it requires close monitoring anyway - patient and persistent admins, checkusers, arbs keeping an eye on the problem person, with a bit of outreach work in parallel trying to convince them to work better with Wikipedia. Might be good for talk pages, though, for the tracking you describe. (I'm also not sure it's a good idea to pay that much attention to the more intractable cases in the article space.) It's a hard problem, and templates in article space (in my subjective opinion, of course) sully the article space for too little practical gain - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not convenience, and it generally only gets used when there are significant number of edits by someone who probably is affiliated with the subject, not one or two edits out of hundred. It gives a more elaborate explanation than COI.  And as I said, putting it on the talk, or on a users page does not always have the desired effect, IP switching users, or etc. do not always get it.  Yes, it is a problem with the user, but we still have to address them.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the problem (oh boy), but this still doesn't strike me as anything like the most effective approach - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to COI - this is fundamentally unsuited to the article space, and is a magnet for BLP violations - which apply very much to the subjects of the articles even when they're being a pain on Wikipedia. If the article's being damaged, it's not clear what this achieves that can't be achieved by locking the article and talking about the problem on the talk page. COI always needs to be addressed with a presumption of good faith - especially if they're behaving in a manner indistinguishable from an obnoxious jerk - which the present template also violates. Writing something suitable on their talk page, and/or on the article talk page, is I think 100% more likely to actually have a good result and not leave the subject of the article feeling utterly burnt by Wikipedia and ranting about us forever. Even when they are violating Wikipedia rules. This sort of case requires actual hard work, not templating - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional thoughts ... With COI, we're talking about people who don't get Wikipedia or won't get Wikipedia, or fundamentally disagree with the massive power we actually have. Remember, we're an 800lb gorilla. Visibly fighting back can come across as swinging our huge web-dicks. The conflicted ones often feel completely steamrollered by us, so they act up to their utmost because that's the only way they think they can combat what they see as a problem. Being aggressively visibly combative back escalates things. Not being visibly combative, but just quietly cleaning up the mess, is less likely to spur them on and more likely to wear them out. At which point the parallel attempts at reason may have a chance to sink in. As an 800lb gorilla, we have an obligation to be seen to play nice, even with people who are quite definitely making dicks of themselves. (And I speak as someone with some experience of having blown this one myself and made a COI problem arguably less good than it could have been.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete basically on GD's advice and experience. Overkill.DGG (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Many, many many article subjects (employees of corporations, biographies) edit their own article and therefore have a "COI". It's impossible to track them all.  Since this template doesn't actually say that there is an issue with the article (POV, Advertising, Spam) but only that someone who is on the article *might* have a COI--it doesn't address any specific problem with the article itself (Content, quality, style).  It feels to me that this template does more harm than good, by targeting a specific contributor.  We don't need to stalk everyone we think has a conflict of interest.  Everyone has a bias of some kind or another; and COI is not a policy (nor should it ever be.)  Bastique demandez 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Bastique, as a WMF employee, is one of those who gets the direct phone calls from the aggrieved ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete COI is such a nicer, non-OUTing way of addressing the same issue.  MBisanz  talk 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the deletes above; Anything useful is better and more nicely said by the other template.John Z (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2008 (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.

Template:Fish market topics

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. PeterSymonds (talk)  17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Redundant to Fishing industry which already has these links under the "marketing" section, and appears to be used in all of the same articles. — PC78 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have replaced Fishing industry, which was very cluttered, with Fisheries and fishing. I agree with you that Fishing industry really shouldn't contain duplicates of the items in the side bars. If you look at Ship of the line, it also has a template at the bottom, though it just refers to the lead article for the sidebar, Ship of the line, and does not list the subtopics in the template. The fishing templates at the bottom should likewise list only the lead item on each of the more principal sidebars. This means, in effect, that each item on the bottom template refers to a side bar. When I have finished updating the fishing articles I will put Fishing industry up for deletion, as well as two other cluttered templates, Fisheries and Recreational fishing, which were used to cover all the topics. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure It's not really redundant because a person might see one template but not the other. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? So we should duplicate all templates just in case people miss the first one? PC78 (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a rather arbitrary and totally incomplete list of fish markets. Nearly every coastal city of any size has a live auction fish market of some sort. Thetrick (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes sure, but this template just lists the really notable ones. As far as I am aware, most of the really significant ones are already in the template, and maybe one or two could be removed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Creator was never notified. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The reason for two templates is that they have different functions. The side panel, Fish market topics, lets you focus on topics that are immediately close to the one you are looking at. The template at the bottom, Fishing industry – now replaced with Fisheries and fishing – is if you want to look at the whole field. There are another sixty side panels used on 900 articles within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. These side panels are modest in width (100px) compared to most side bars (300px), and have been carefully constructed to try and keep the focus to articles most immediately relevant to the one that is currently being viewed. To get the feel of how these function, you need to spend some time cruising the fishing articles. Of course, it helps if you have an interest in the subject. Since the side panels were installed, the traffic counts for fishing articles have hugely increased, particularly for the more obscure articles which now have hits rate three or four times greater than they had before the side panels were installed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not redundant and useful for driving traffic to fishing project articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2008 (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.

Template:User wikipedia/rollback

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to User rollback. PeterSymonds (talk)  17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate page (same as User rollback, which has full features implied catagory pages.  Tyw7, formerly Troop350    (Talk ● Contributions) 08:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I boldly redirected it. Not much point going to all that effort of deleting and replacing. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect-oh it was already done. ;)-- S R X  16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets call this discussion over. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (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.

Template:Electroshock

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk)  17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template is a hodgepodge of unrelated topics loosely associated by the fact that they in some way involve electric shocks to humans. Contents include Electroconvulsive Therapy, various tasing incidents, Pulsed energy weapon, Defibrilation. When it is used in an article, most of these links seem really out of context. If retained, it should probably be spun off into two lists, one for unfortunate tasing incidents, and another for weapons based on electric shock. Steve CarlsonTalk 08:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I copied notifications of this TfD to Talk:Taser and Talk:Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or move and trim. reconsidered after relisting—Flatscan (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that the association is quite loose. Move to Template:Taser or similar, remove all links not closely related to Taser. Flatscan (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked through the weapon articles. Taser and Electroshock weapon are closely related, and Electrolaser has a good amount of content. The rest are very short and include discontinued or prototype weapons. They seem to be all Category:Less-lethal weapons that use electric shock. I don't see much value in including them in a template/infobox. Flatscan (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator's proposal to split. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — The template is unneeded, and the contents are unconnected. Leonard( Bloom ) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete loose association and possible POV in application. DGG (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (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.

Template:FAMAS Awards Chron

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Orphaned template with no transclusions. PeterSymonds (talk)  07:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly redlinked navbox that basically duplicates FAMAS Awards. Unused. --Thetrick (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete-per nom.-- S R X  16:35, 10 July 2008 (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.

Template:GawadUrian Awards

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Orphaned template with no transclusions. PeterSymonds (talk)  07:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost entirely redlinked navbox for a Philippines film award. 1 article use. --Thetrick (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the whole template is based on redlinks, there is no purpose for the template.-- S R X  16:34, 10 July 2008 (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.