Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5

This template should be put at the head of articles which relate directly to Wikia, Inc. in order to clarify that Wikia, Inc is not a "sister" organisation to Wikipedia, nor its "commercial arm", etc. This being misunderstood is a far too common problem regularly experienced by the WMF office and Chapters / OTRS responders, hence this template. --AlisonW (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the reference to "removing without permission". To whom are we to ask permission? Has WMF actually made any official comment on this, or is it merely a matter of annoyance for some? GreenReaper (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This template exists following Internal and Communications Committee discussions. It is unlikely that any of the current three locations it is used will not continue to have it placed on them. The "without permission" is there to, hopefully, prevent its accidental removal. --AlisonW (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
How is it that the UK chair of Wikimedia creates and publishes this template, and the co-founder of Wikia modifies it, and this is not falling under the "conflict of interest" guidelines of Wikipedia? I am sickened by this. Look at the Form 990 of the WMF. Wikia is legally related. -- John Russ Finley (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the edit -- Angela's edit is a simple factual correction. Yes, she should not have made and she should have suggested it here instead of making it herself. However, nobody's going to revert it because her changes are correct and I doubt anyone will hassle her about it given the nature of the edit.


 * As for the larger issues of Wikia and Wikimedia -- those are important questions and beyond the scope of this template. Given potential tax and litigation issues, Wikia's investors have a lot to lose if there's inadequate separation between the two entities. I imagine the tax authorities and the two entities' respective auditing firms scrutinize this closely. -- A. B. (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The two organisations are not "legally related" despite what John Russ Finley writes. The fact that two individuals who were at the time of Wikia's creation both members of the Foundation Board (and are still closely related to the Foundation) does not create a "legal relationship" between the two organisations. They both have *personal* connections with both operations, but that doesn't create a direct legal one. Whilst both organisations are clearly aware of each other and may - like many websites world wide - have direct url-based links that is the same as every other site out there and is not a "legal relationship" per se. So far as any COI is concerned, there isn't. The various Press and reply teams associated with both Wikipedia and Wikia have found continued and ongoing errors being printed or promulgated in the media, often of the "Wikia, the for-profit arm of Wikipedia" type which are completely wrong' and this template, located as it is at the top of relevant articles, is but one method of hopefully reducing that level of factual error about the two organisations. The 'Interest' in this header template is that of the Wikimedia Foundation seeking to reduce errors of understanding by readers and the press, and that is to the benefit of all, especially editors of Wikipedia. --AlisonW (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alison, Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are in fact "legally related" in a tax-law sense, per line 80 of the Wikimedia Foundation form 990:
 * 80a Is the organization related ... through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc, to any other exempt or nonexempt organization? (Yes)
 * b If "Yes," enter the name of the organization -> (Wikia, Inc.)
 * I understand that you mean that they are not legally related in what might be called the incorporation sense, and that Wikia does not fund the Wikimedia Foundation. I suggest stressing that lack of funding aspect, as the, how to put it, "aggressive" attitude of certain people on the topic of how Wikia is overall related to Wikipedia can generate significant cynicism. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible ambiguity?
I think there might be a comma missing in "Please do not move or remove this template from any article where it has been placed without permission." ... although the "without permission" almost certainly applies to the removal of the template, the positioning of "without permission" in the sentence allows an interpretation that it was the initial placement that was without permission. Since that's hopefully not likely, the wording ought to be fixed. I'd fix it myself but I'm a bit leery of the ramifications. How about?  "Please do not, without permission, move or remove this template from any article where it has been placed." ? Note also it might be good to clarify whose permission is required to remove it and how one obtains it. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, mea culpa. Ideally the template is never deleted from or moved from the top of any page on which it appears, but I wanted to be polite when creating it! Foundation approval would be required as we (WMF, Chapters, Communications Committee, Press people, etc) are trying to reduce the number of articles and media items which get 'Wikipedia/Wikimedia' muddled up with 'Wikia'. I shall take on board your suggestion, thank you. --AlisonW (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TFD
Wikia is not Wikipedia


 * See Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems

 * 1) Wikipedia is not here to serve the board, foundation of committee, rather the other way around.
 * 2) Wikia and Wiimedia are in lots of ways related
 * 3) This template amounts to special treatment of both Wikia and Wikimedia, such as we have always avoided in the past.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:38 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Removed
I have removed this from all articles it was on. That hidden note, whomever left it, has no binding authority on anyone anywhere. Wikia staff of course have no authority here, and the Foundation cannot intervene on content matters like this. Given it's TFD status and even after, this very sensitive COI nature, this really shouldn't be readded without community consensus, review, and approval by users with no stake in Wikimedia (Alison) or Wikia staff (Angela, etc.). Lawrence §  t / e  00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For someone having a banner on their userpage that they are anti-vandalism I am greatly surprised that you have seen fit to remove a template (a) that has specific notes upon it not to do so, and (b) notwithstanding a is currently undergoing TfD and so shouldn't be removed! It is only because your bot shows you as offline that I have not immediately blocked you. As to "approval by users with no stake in Wikimedia" the very idea that *any* editor could write that when they would not have the ability or privilege of editing Wikipedia without that 'stake' is quite beyond me. --AlisonW (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alison, may I ask who's support this template has? If anything it is more likely to promote a perceived link (giving special attention to Wikia articles) then help dispel it. The article's below the notice no doubt explain this anyway. This simply does not belong. Prodego  talk  01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite online, thank you. That bot is flakey. A block over this would be beyond out-of-bounds and probably end up going before ArbCom as abuse of tools. That hidden notice carries no special authority, and a good faith edit is never vandalism. Removing a template that has no consensus support is most definitely, as well, not vandalism, especially given the COI concerns. I would recommend you withdraw a threat of admin action here, as it is utterly inappropriate. Lawrence  §  t / e  01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Alison, I'm very disappointed that you would accuse someone of vandalism and threaten to block said user for defying an instruction that you possessed absolutely no authority to issue. —David Levy 11:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the others who have commented here. If people could unilaterally make changes permanent simply by adding a do-not-remove-plz-kthxbye comment above them, this would be a very different site. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'd get away with a lot more! I need to ponder my next move...mwahaha. Mike H. Fierce! 20:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)