Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 30



Uw-paid series

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. They may need further cleanup, but with the new paid COI terms they are likely to be heavily used in the future. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC) This cannot be a good idea. Apart from redundant to uw-coi, these do not conform to how user warnings are normally formatted. Altrough paid editors are required to disclose their paid editing, that is not a reason for continuously warning them (probably why uw-coi is single-level), the paid editing should be discussed instead at WP:COIN if the user has not already disclosed their paid editing. TL22 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uw-paid1
 * Uw-paid2
 * Uw-paid3
 * Uw-paid4
 * Delete not documented into the template warning system, and these are new templates, so they should have been. Can someone point to the Village Pump or Administration discussion that supports the creation of these? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment how can one determine if someone's edits conform to a manner to appears as to be paid for editing, instead of some other COI issue? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment not documented into the template warning system, YET.--Elvey(t•c) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the village pump or administrators discussion for this? It shouldn't have been created without that. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all I would think, per what 70 just said, that once someone is known as a paid editor that's hard to take back unless that person is no longer paid to edit. There is no reason to force someone to admit to being paid to edit; once it's known, it's known. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there an argument in there? I mean is this sound: "once someone is known as a crook, that's hard to take back unless that person is no longer a crook. There is no reason to force someone to admit to being a crook" No. Neither is the above.--Elvey(t•c) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down. There is an argument in there - read it again. What is the point of squeezing a confession out of a paid editor? Once it's known, why continuously warn someone to 'fess up to it? Furthermore, I don't understand what else you're saying here - we should make it clear we have had any conflicts of interest in our editing so far? That makes no sense. We can't prove it. Talk is cheap. A COI can only be determined either way once it's clear the editor even has one. It would be far better to assume editors don't have any kind of stake in the subject matter - remember, innocent until proven guilty. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. If you want to change that policy, have at it.  You mean Before it's known?  Once it's known, no need.  Calm down and write clearly if you want to be convincing.--Elvey(t•c) 08:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elvey on this. Horrorist's "There is no reason to force someone to admit to being paid to edit;" seems to deny the existence of our Terms of use. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Keep. Keep. I have made no contributions that require a COI disclosure. Have many of the folks who !vote to delete?  Well, one of them is even posting as an anonymous IP.  I say !votes from anyone unwilling to state that they have made no contributions that require a COI disclosure deserve greater scrutiny/less weight.  Why keep?
 * FACT: Disclosure of paid editing is required. That's official.
 * FACT: Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. That's official.
 * So steadfastly refusing to be responsive to a good-faith question such as that asked by Uw-paid1 and reiterated with -paid2, -3, and -4 is a bannable offense. I'm not saying they couldn't be improved, but they're good enough to start documenting into the template warning system and using.--Elvey(t•c) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you hide behind your username instead? Having a username means little, since it isn't linked to a primary email address, work email address, home phone number, cell number, Facebook account, Social Security Number, etc. Look at how many people have multiple Wikipedia accounts ; Indeed, many people have stated to me that Wikipedia user accounts offer more anonymity, so your point is lacking, aside from aspersions about my character. What COI are you accusing me of having? Do you expect every single user to write their entire Facebook and Linked In profiles onto their user pages for you to minutely examine to see if they have for every single edit every user makes? (such as your alma mater, your ex-employer, your hometown, what videogames you play, what OS your computer runs, etc?) What sort of disclosure are you demanding from all users to disclose? All that are potentially forms of COI. Did you like a film? Don't you have a COI due to (dis)liking it? What if you worked in the movie theatre? Is it a COI under your conditions to write in an article about a currently playing movie? Or you own stock in General Electric, and they pay you dividends on your stock, and you've edited their article. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to add onto this, again, that talk is cheap - I can, "No, I have no COI," or "No, I am not involved with the topic of this article," but that has no effect on my editing style and it can't be proven or proven. Zeke , the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I'm not opposed to rewording, but we do need a way to ask if somebody is not disclosing that they are paid, when on the surface it looks like they are paid. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The keep opinions above have valid points here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment How about a compromise? I still fail to see how people's feathers are getting ruffled here by people like me denying that this would be a useful solution to the problem, but perhaps there's another way. Why not have an admin come by and plop a notice like "This editor is being paid to edit here for X" on the user's userpage? If that user doesn't like it, he/she can leave, and trying to remove the notice is grounds for being indeffed/banned. But I don't understand the use of a gradual warning system like this one - again, once we know a person's paid to edit, which itself requires strong evidence, it's a known fact. The most I can see that we can do to force disclosure is to place a notice on their userpage and force them to keep it there. Especially on the Internet you can't force anyone to admit anything, and people can lie & say, "No, I am not being paid to edit here." I don't see how those are such difficult concepts for people to wrap their heads around. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is part of the new system of disclosure for paid editing per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. They are used in conjunction with paid and Connected contributor (paid) which implement the guidance in WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. All of which has been subject of intense community discussion.  J bh  Talk  20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The regulars at COIN including me all know how useful these are. If you don't engage in COI discussions you probably don't know that 1) paid editing has certain trademark patterns and sometimes is evidenced by off-wiki behavior that we can't bring up here and 2) paid editors are persuaded by "soft power" and it doesn't always take an admin hammerblow to get things to where they should be. In fact, admins are in the minority at COIN and most of the work there is done by non-sysops. Refer to my COIN workload analysis if you'd like to see who contributes. Many new editors are simply ignorant of the Terms of Service and yes, we all know it's right there where you click "save". And even if they do lie and continue COI editing, the fact that they lied is useful to have on the record for future procedures. So the templates have both a remedial and a punitive aspect, and should be retained. – Brianhe (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments of Brianhe and Jbhunley. I encounter a fair number of these situations and it's very useful rather than having to create a message like this each time and ad hoc. If there are concerns about the number of levels, it could be scaled down to two levels (1 and 3). If they continue after the second warning, then take them to COIN, ANI, or whatever. Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2015 (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).

Cartoon Network–specific navboxes

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 11. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC) In the same vein as : The navbox for pilots, films and specials is so gigantic, full of red links that aren't in the process of creation, and linkless entries that it's useless. Its purpose is better served by the categories Cartoon Network Studios animated films and Cartoon Network television films.
 * Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials
 * Cartoon Network video games

The function of the navbox for video games is also made redudant by the category Cartoon Network video games and list of Cartoon Network video games. (I created this template.) 23W 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've created himself the template "Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials", but only to solve the problem of a too exaggerated former template (Cartoon Network programming). Then, I am not at all agree on their inclusion of all titles in the above categories, because the template in this way is more comprehensive, functional and orderly. So keep it officially. Luigi1090 talk 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I Think " Cartoon Network video games" could remain created. With respect to "Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials" you could also stay ... just what it would take to make some changes and remove redirects.--  Philip J Fry   (talk)  01:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As creator of this template, I had written it before and I write now: "Keep" the page. Luigi1090 talk 23:03, 3 November 2015 (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).

Template:Busy3

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 11. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC) This was part of a recent batch nomination of templates. I'm renominating this one (per WP:NPASR) because it's easily the worst of the lot; it's basically a fork of that has got slightly out of sync, with the only substantive difference being the mention of consensus reality (via an interwiki link, for some reason) rather than real life. As such, it's most comparable to a WP:POVFORK, or perhaps an idiosyncratic equivalent to a userbox, but I doubt this change is going to be sufficiently commonly wanted to be templated.
 * Busy3

The only current user is User:MECU. If a template with the diverged wording is wanted, I can understand userfying this (so as to save having to rewrite the template every time the user in question comes on and off busyness), but it's not going to be a sufficiently generally applicable template to hang around in mainspace. If nobody wants to userfy it, just delete it (and replace existing transclusions, likely just the one, with ). --ais523 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2015 (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).