Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 17



Template:Phobias

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Serves no additional purpose beyond category:Phobias and List of phobias. It is not' like, for navigation among subtopics of a general topic, like History of Russia`'Míkka>t 23:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, navigation templates are usually redundant to categories, but are kept to offer readers an additional and easier way to navigate. The categories are not immediately obvious to many readers and take two clicks to navigate to a topic. Additionally Category:Phobias contains non-professional listings such as Sissyphobia: Gay Men and Effeminate Behavior, the template restricts itself to recognized psychological conditions. Ashanda (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, you're right Ashanda, the template only contains medical phobias. Plus, there are other templates, such as Popes that do the same thing.   α Яβ ιτ Я α Я ι ŁΨθ  ( talk ) 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaphs it would be a good idea to classisfy the phobias listed by "subcategories" (phobias to objects, to people, to situations...), for easier topic search, IMO. RUL3R (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good idea RUL3R, I'll do that as soon as I get a chance.   α Яβ ιτ Я α Я ι ŁΨθ  ( talk ) 21:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, dozens of pages still use this template.-- Free way  guy  23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ashanda. &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  23:38, 21 October 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:Illustrated Wikipedia

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This self referential template links to humorous cartoons made by a now seemingly defunct Wikiproject mocking the subject of the article. It should be deleted because it is out of scope (a cartoon is wholly unencyclopedic), doesn't add valuable content to the subject matter (they contain a copy of material present in the article) and it constitutes original research. There's already for advertising the images in user space or talk space. It cannot be compared to links to project sister which have a totally unrelated objective. And last but not least, several uses of these templates are BLP violations. Cenarium Talk  22:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two prior TfDs: 2006 November 21 and 2007 June 26. Both closed as keep.
 * Currently 70 or so in-article uses, linking to the 56 illustrations. Nothing new since March 2008.


 * Delete. The illustrations aren't to my taste, and I've stated before that I'd like to see this template deleted (because the talkpage template, WikiWorld, should be sufficient), but I'm not really that bothered by them, as long as they get placed at the bottom of articles, in the External links section . When they're placed at the top of an article, that I find irritating. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take for example Image:W WikiWorld.png, it contains a caricature of George Bush. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it stayed behind the scene. But having it displayed on W, that's a BLP violation. This is also unpublished, and Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of material. Not to mention that there's a major breach of NPOV in it (George Bush is a "marionette"). So this is out of scope and violates three major policies. Cenarium  Talk  14:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes. !vote changed from comment to delete. Possibly speedy. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly is that a BLP violation? Just because it is in the style of a caricature? Anomie⚔ 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means that it's suggesting that W's a puppet to to someone else, like maybe special interests. Personally my first thought was that since Bert is president of the W association, he was just making W like Bert... I can see where he's coming from, but I think you have to work at making a BLP out of it. Ashanda (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope not, that would be such a stretch it could only be intentional misinterpretation. It's not a political cartoon, after all, it's just a way to present some facts related to the letter W in a fun way. I agree with your first thought, Bush is drawn as a muppet to match Bert so the whole thing fits together better. Anomie⚔ 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a known accusation that Bush is manipulated by powerful magnates. But any way, if you read blp, you see that mocking the subject of an article is a violation, in spirit, and to the letter: by the very introduction, and also the section Basic human dignity. The cartoon wouldn't have last one minute on Bush's biography. Cenarium  Talk  00:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it wouldn't have lasted a minute there, it doesn't have anything to do with Bush besides mentioning his nickname (which isn't mentioned in George W. Bush either).
 * I fail to see how that cartoon is at all mocking of Bush. It seems to me BLP is just being used as a bludgeon here to try to force through a deletion, or else BLP-in-practice has grown to an over-sensitive monster. And if it is such a blatant BLP violation, why hasn't anyone ever nominated it for deletion, or even mentioned it before now (judging by the lack of links to it)? Does Commons not have anything resembling BLP? Anomie⚔ 01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Representing Bush as a marionette with big ears, globular eyes, etc is not mocking him ? You know there's more latitude for BLP-related material out of mainspace. If you had researched in my contributions, you would know that I don't throw away BLP as a reason for deletion inconsiderably. Cenarium  Talk  01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that any cartoon from illustrated Wikipedia would be fired from the Bush article, and more generally from any high profile article. It gives the impression that low profile articles are not considered seriously, it's a double standard. For another example of blp violation, see Image:2000s WikiWorld.png, which reads "Remember when Mickael Jackson was still white ? ... before he became translucent ?". I will cite BLP: "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.".   Cenarium  Talk  12:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if an individual image is a BLP violation, go nominate it for deletion. It's not a valid reason to delete this template unless you're claiming all the images are BLP violations, in which case you should also go ask the Wikimedia Foundation why they approved the use of the Wikipedia logo in connection with the comics. Anomie⚔ 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no time now to start another deletion discussion. A certain number of those images have BLP problems, which only adds to the existing global issues I mentioned. Wikipedia was different in the end of 2006, in the ambiance and processes. I'm sure they would disapprove the cited images now, and they may not have been fully aware of them previously. Cenarium  Talk  17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:2000s WikiWorld.png is not a very good example; it's obviously a quote from Dennis Miller who's on the TV screen in that particular frame. I suppose someone could look it up and add a citation if anyone wants to complain. As has been pointed out, though, that's a reason to take the image to IfD, not to delete the template. And how could we not be aware of Wikiworld? It was in the Wikipedia Weekly every week! They are not WP:BLP violations because we're not saying the subjects *are* something, we are displaying a topical caricature that evokes the subject's connection to others in a non-linear fashion. It is not a violation of WP:OR because the artist himself (a published newspaper caricaturist) isn't putting the images into articles, other editors are. Ashanda (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the difference if this is a quote ? As you say, it's a caricature so intentionally misrepresents, or mock the subject. This is a violation of BLP: it also applies to rumors, other people's comments and views on the subject together with WP:UNDUE, etc. That the author himself or other persons put images in articles doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is used to publish original material here. Cenarium  Talk  18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP basically says that articles on living people should be sourced and conservatively written &mdash; it specifically says that unsourced material should be removed, regardless of whether it's positive, negative or neutral. The one sentence you quote has the important modifier "primarily", in other words the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV still applies to the article as a whole. That doesn't mean that critical quotes by others can't be included, only that they can't be included in the article out of proportion. As to the subject of caricature, again it's the article that can't primarily serve to disparage or mock the subject, not bits of it. I may ask you in the particular case being discussed, just who is being caricatured? Dennis Miller is the one who's in the image cracking a not very nice joke; perhaps you're missing the point of the satire here &mdash; or maybe not; the cartoon can be read on many levels, which is one of the things Wikipedians like about it. Anyways, I've already stated below that I think the images should be kept on the talk pages rather than in the articles, so this discussion is moot for me anyways. I guess I'm just getting some preemptive discussion in in case you decide to take them to WP:IFD. ;-) Ashanda (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention to bring them to IFD, as I think they are inappropriate for use in an article, but am not bothered if they remain off mainspace. I do agree with your interpretation of BLP. But in the present case, the quote is out of context and gratuitous (no encyclopedic value). The citation also says 'whether directly, or indirectly. I concur, though, that this is only a reason to (at least) remove images from article and not to delete the template. But the other reasons stand. Cenarium  Talk'  16:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, weakly only because it's basically duplication of WikiWorld. The comics usually contain information from two or three articles in a non-linear fashion that I do believe adds a small bit of value to the article. Ashanda (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite a dup, WikiWorld is intended for article talk pages while this template is intended for the "See also" section of relevant articles. Of course, some think the comics shouldn't be linked from "See also" sections at all, although several of the supposed arguments I've seen so far could apply just as well to Spoken Wikipedia and I don't see that up for deletion. Anomie⚔ 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoken Wikipedia is a service to readers which renders the exact text of the (recorded version of the) article, nothing more. It doesn't cause any issue with BLP, NOR or NPOV provided the recorded version itself has none. I wouldn't object to link comics if they were published (and of course would satisfy policies and guidelines like undue weight). But by the fact they are created in Wikipedia, they are part of its content and subject to the same policies. Cenarium  Talk  01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not changing my vote, but rather strengthening my rationale. The WikiWorld cartoons were always meant as an inside joke and are probably better kept on article talk pages rather than in the articles themselves. Having said that, I would not be adverse to a text template &mdash; something like what we use for WikiTravel, IMDB, etc. &mdash; for use in the *see also* section. Ashanda (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the good reasons given by the nominator. These templates may be 'fun', but they really don't add any encyclopaedic value - if anything, they detract from it. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the arguments in the previous AFDs, I see nothing here that has changed since then. I find the claims of BLP violations, OR, and the rest completely unfounded, which leaves only a WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the nominator. And furthermore, the BLP claim would be reason to delete the individual images rather than this template if it were even valid. Anomie⚔ 01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me how an entirely user-generated image is not a violation of WP:OR, which states that only published material is acceptable in articles ? My view on images is irrelevant. As I said above, there are more latency for BLP-related images out of mainspace, especially funny ones. Cenarium  Talk  02:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're against any user-created images at all unless they've been published? Uh oh, we'd better delete most of the non-fair-use images on Wikipedia then! Let me know when you've listed all the images in Universal Product Code (to pick one example) for deletion, as they are all user-created and unpublished. And where exactly is this exception for BLP violations in images? WP:BLP says exactly the opposite. Anomie⚔ 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no exception, but in practice we're more lenient. I said entirely user-generated images. By material, I meant research, innovative material. Images which are primary sources, like photographies used for illustration, non-copyrightable images (like Image:Copyright.svg, Image:UPC-A-036000291452.png), because "it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.", are not original research. Images like Image:UPC EANUCC-12 barcode.svg based on this type of images (brackets, barcodes, arrows ...) cannot be reasonably considered original research. Diagrams and maps aren't either, provided the data they use have been published. NOR implies that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a way to publish 'new', 'original' content that doesn't rely on published material. Illustrated Wikipedia is a clear example of that. Note also that the author is clearly mentioned at the top of the image, which in itself is a violation of our Image use policy. Cenarium  Talk  17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Deelte, templates cannot be use like this. -- Free way  guy  23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A blatant violation of WP:SELF; the appropriate talk page template is more than sufficient. PC78 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic and violation of wp:self. The talk page template is indeed more than sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To those pointing to WP:SELF, do note this template is specifically mentioned at WP:SELF as an example of a self-ref that should "not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia." From what I've read elsewhere, it was added after one of the previous TFDs where that very argument for deletion was rejected. Anomie⚔ 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it is a violation of how wp:self should be. :) Either way, I still think the template should be deleted per all of the other reasons mentioned. Garion96 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I absolutely loved these cartoons, and am sad that they are no longer being produced.  But you know what?  The one I loved most was one in which 98% was text that I had written.  I was, in a juvenile way, proud that "my writing" was featured in one of these cartoons.  And isn't that proof positive that these cartoons are/were violations of WP:SELF?  If they ever come back, I want to see them in the Signpost, but they must stay behind the scenes, and therefore, I have to vote to
 * Delete for the reasons I've listed immediately above. Unschool (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Diffident delete. It might have made sense while the cartoons were being created, but now that they aren't this is just clutter. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 28 October 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:Whitewash

 * 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 Garion96 (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the wording but it duplicates POV Adoniscik(t, c) 12:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deelte, White wash tempalte is same as POV one.-- Free way  guy  23:40, 20 October 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:Pbneutral

 * 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.

This looks like a template that would permanently remain on an article. Is this what we want? Why not just stick a little comment at the top so casual viewers don't see it? Adoniscik(t, c) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this version with no objections to a properly placed version. There are plenty of options to give editors this sort of reminder without poking the readers in the eye (talk page, HTML comment, editnotice, etc.). Placing this visibly on articles violates the principle of serving th readers first. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So in your opinion should it be a smaller template, or more simply a basic text template?Spitfire (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it should not be visible on the article page at all, at least to readers. Most readers don't edit, so we shouldn't give them notices that don't apply to them - contrast something like, which informs both editors and readers of a possible issue with the page so tagged. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why its entry in Template messages/Disputes Says: "For use on highly sensitive high traffic articles that are prone to opinionated edits." Where it goes: "Talk Page Top". Spitfire (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except, part of template is blue bg, anything else differs.-- Free way  guy  23:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reformat to tmbox, which is specifically for talk page templates of this kind. The template currently uses ambox which is for article templates only, and I think that's part of the problem here. PC78 (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Boldly done. PC78 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 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:uw-authorshipclaims

 * 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 - redundant, unused template. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Authorship claims, and completely unused (all content has been enclosed in &lt;noinclude> tags since its creation). And frankly it's excessively bitey, contains vague legal threats, and is redundant to WP:PUI/uw-copyright depending on the situation. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically I built it to be less bitey than the original template (which was up for deletion at the time of creation). It was in response to someone's vote that it was not standardized. ViperSnake151 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've removed the vague legal threats, but IMO it's still redundant to WP:PUI (and the associated idw-pui) and uw-copyright. Anomie⚔ 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ohters one is tougher to tell, because it's just black punctual codes.-- Free way  guy  23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Anomie.  MBisanz  talk 12:53, 31 October 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.