Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 10



Template:Arbcom proposed

 * 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 discussion was keep. delldot  &nabla;.  04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This template sets a very dangerous precedent, because it implies that arbcom can create policy without consensus. The idea that arbcom can "propose" policies isn't particularly problematic, but the idea that they only need community "input" and not consent is. I tried rewriting this to say "proposed policy" and not "tentative policy" and to speak of "community consensus" rather than merely "participation" (which could be ignored), however I was reverted by a member of the arbcom with the comment "Err, no, the /point/ of this template is to distinguish from community proposal that require consensus".

Now, I am aware that arbcom can tweek their own operating procedures, and I am aware that they are currently asserting that setting up politically-charged and time-consuming elections is simply "delegating". However, even if that is accepted (and I'd say simply delegating is simply delegating not creating CREEPy instructions - but leave that aside) the creation of this template implies that arbcom are going to make a habit of proposing actually policy and not asking for consensus. Now, maybe that's not so bad, but it certainly needs some thought, and not just done by the back door.

Can we delete this general template, and start a proper discussion? Scott Mac (Doc) 17:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment If the Arbitration policy is clear on the limits of the institution's power, then an acceptable form of this template ought to be achievable. If it is unclear, then we have a very serious problem and Arbcom initiatives ought to be viewed with trepidation. TfD would not appear to be the best forum at which to approach this issue. The cautious approach is to delete the template while ambiguity exists, however. Skomorokh 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion to test the community's mind would be my preferred option. Unfortunately when policy templates are created and used, prior to consensus-generating discussion, we've got a serious problem. If there's no policy consensus to support this template's purpose, then if should not exist until/unless one is formed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott, there is no policy to support the creation of *any* template. Risker (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Arbitration policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things.". This template clearly implies something else.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; the template was created for the specific purpose of distinguishing the case where a proposal comes from the community at large, and is subject to the normal handling. I don't think this is to become habitual, or particularily frequent.  (The committee is currently examining a number of such changes for the coming year, but that's more about "lots to catch up" than it is about "needs to be done often").  Originally, proposed was used but it was pointed out that its text did not match the reality of the situation&mdash; hence this variation.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the basis in Arbitration Policy for this template? If you changed it to "proposed tweek" to AC, and ensured it was only used for such, that would be fine.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While fresh initiatives and boldness are welcome and admirable, the Committee ought to get its house in order first. The Committee claims as within the scope of its powers to appoint Checkusers and Oversighters however it wishes - why not administrators also? What specifically is preventing Arbcom from legislating over content (case in point WP:BLPSE), or assuming any number of extra powers as it chooses? I strongly suggest the Committee discuss its remit internally and with the foundation and come up with comprehensive and unambiguous clarification on what exactly its powers are. Until such clarity is reached, templates for deletion are going to be the least of your problems. Skomorokh  19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete arbitrators are free to propose policy and guideline changes in their capacity as editors on the same basis accorded to any other editor in good standing. Election to the arbitration committee accords no special status or distinction in determining policy.  Consensus within ArbCom about what policy ought to be matters no more than consensus within MedCom or any other small group of editors.  All animals are equal, and none are more equal than others.  Durova Charge! 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Durova &mdash; Jake   Wartenberg  20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Conditional Keep per GRBerry. &mdash;  Jake   Wartenberg  02:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Arbitration Committee has certain responsibilities vested in it by the Arbitration policy and by the Wikimedia Foundation with respect to Checkuser and Oversight permissions and usage monitoring. Foundation policy cannot be changed by English Wikipedia. A significant portion of the community has indicated the desire to be more involved in these processes, and the Arbitration Committee has been developing internal processes in consultation with the community. As the Committee cannot abrogate these responsibilities, any policies related to them are more correctly considered to be an extension or sub-policy of the Arbitration policy proper. This is not about a template; this is about not wanting the Arbitration Committee to document the manner in which it intends to meet its Foundation-based responsibilities and to involve the community in that decision. Risker (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment a discussion about the interaction between procedures, policy, arbcom, the community, delegation is poorly served by TfD.--Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I've changed the template to more accurately describe how the template is used.--Tznkai (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If a similar template emerged from MedCom or MILHIST or WikiProject The Simpsons it would probably get MFD'd too, on the basis that policy discussions are best served by bringing together editors from diverse areas who have firsthand experience in different aspects of the wiki. Cliquishness is not a good thing at the policy level.  Durova Charge! 22:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck through per changes. Durova Charge! 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, Tznkai's rewording is quite adequate and does not detract from the intended meaning. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have to agree with Doc on this one. Why must the arbs continue to think they are above everyone else on the wiki? Tex (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I look at it now, it is about "a tentative modification to Arbitration policy", which is within the committee's remit. At the time it was nominated, it was about a proposed policy on any subject where the proposer was the committee.  That is not within the committee's remit.  Keep only as revised by Tznkai, delete if it gets back to being as expansive as it was at the time of nomination.  I also note that it is debatable whether the proposal on which it is currently used meets the more limited criteria allowing the template to be kept, but that is another issue for another page.  GRBerry 02:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. As nearly as I can determine, this is intended for use in discussions of actual Arbcom procedural changes, rather than general editing policy. Arbcom has the right to make such changes (other than expansion of scope, of course) without community input, so they certainly can do so with community input. It's reasonable to have a standard header template for such things. Moreover, TfD itself has no scope to prevent Arbcom from conducting discussions in one way or another; at most, it could propose to rule that Arbcom had to keep the header out of template space - so the nominator's reason for deletion is essentially void on grounds of futility. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not the place to discuss the powers or non-powers of ArbCom. The only issue is is the template utile, and that is, for good or ill, the only issue. As it is, it is. Collect (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it now stands. I would have opinioned "delete" before, but the new changes make it more acceptable. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's funny to see the future power structure of wikipedia contested in a relatively obscure and minor TfD nom. Scott, Slim, etc, are old school, and believe in wiki the way it used to be: ArbCom can do this, it can't do that, etc; all fine sounding but misplaced. In reality, as Coren well knows, the Arbcom can really do what they like, and you can state they "can do this" and "can't do that". But how, pray tell me, would you stop them if they just decided to anyway? You couldn't. So it's better for templates to state this explicitly now than skirt around the issue pretending to "respect" community consensus when all along such trifles are no issue. It's good and helpful then to distinguish between policy Arbcom decides to create and policy the community is discussing. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in its present form, per Collect. Joe 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Risker. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep so long as it is clear it is referring only to Arbcom-internal and not en.wiki-wide policy. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:33, 18 February 2009 (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:MediaWiki Lag warn high

 * 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)



Was created to be used in MediaWiki:Lag-warn-high; was implemented in June 2007, reverted half an hour later, and is unused ever since. Happy‑melon 08:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a test page or something. The change was reverted specifically because it didn't work, so the template's useless. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:59, 12 February 2009 (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:GH3 Songs

 * 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)



Declined T3 because it's not redundant but unused still. Listing here for original speedy tagger.  So Why  09:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. The only parameter it contains that isn't in the current Guitar Hero 3 page (which I assume this is intended for) is 'Album', and that could easily be added if necessary. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2009 (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.