Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 2

< May 1	May 3 >

May 2 edit

Template:PAIDWATCH edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAIDWATCH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created, and thus far predominately placed, by User:Mistress Selina Kyle, who was blocked (for 6 months this time) for an overzealous "whistleblower" editing attitude. The only other placement of this was here, where a user was (arguably) engaged in an edit war over detailed environmental impact data, and used this tag to accompany his accusation that his opponents were industry insiders.

This template weighs on one POV, against corporate advocacy. We already have {{COI}} for when someone wants to voice concerns over any conflict of interest, and I think that's a much better option. I don't see any need for a special "corporate COI" tag, as this seems to be, and I foresee its primary use being misuse for its chilling effect in content disputes. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unnecessarily hostile template. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hostile template that goes beyond WP:COI. Would also support redirect to COI template.--LauraHale (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clearly: Delete. mabdul 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LauraHale. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; needlessly adversarial. I wouldn't rule out the development of a better label in future but I think that the COI template is a better choice, for now. bobrayner (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WikiProjects, including WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch, can use their own version of Template:WPBannerMeta to tag article talk pages. Obviously, the template as is should be delted per the above. Instead of:

This article is currently watchlisted by the WikiProject Advocacy Watch, a collaborative effort to protect articles at risk of astroturfing from edits made with a conflict of interest on behalf of corporations or other organisations. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

a better template may be:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Wikipedia having edits by contributors with a close connection to the article topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current Template:WikiProject Cooperation ...

This article has been improved with assistance from WikiProject Cooperation, a collaborative effort by members of the community to work with editors and organizations that have a conflict of interest on articles so that they can be improved according to the standards of the Wikipedia community. To learn more, or to join the project, please visit the project page.

... seems similar. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 23:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Cooperation seems promotional, subjective, and, assuming that "has been improved" could be established as being true, it would be true only so long as no one else subsequently edited the article differently. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but substitute - The alternative template by Uzma Gamal is better. Factseducado (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hold off on implementing such a replacement. The current discussions over the acceptability of paid editing seems to weigh heavily on this, and we shouldn't implement something like this until that question is settled. Note that the replacement tag above was suggested by a paid editor, which is itself a COI with this issue (appreciating that they pointed this out themselves). Equazcion ^(talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:KerberosSagaRanks edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KerberosSagaRanks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused fancruft. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused. mabdul 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Jepara Division 1 League edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jepara Division 1 League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no evidence of notability, this league is only youth, amateur, internal league for reserve team of cub Persijap Jepara *Annas* (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until AfD is finished. mabdul 11:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User has been adding NN clubs for this NN league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too many articles in the template are on the verge of turning from blueto red, because they are also non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given the fact the league & teams have now been deleted via AfD the template is redundant. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:ABP edit

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, but can be recreated once there are more articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is this really necessary? Only two bluelinks. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, other new articles will likely be created and the 'old' ones might also get created. We have no deadline ;-). mabdul 11:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You sure about that? The only two bluelinks were created by Baqir fabregas (talk · contribs) who also created this template – he was active for only five days in Jan 2010 and since then it doesn't appear that anyone else has shown any interest in these articles. I think it unlikely that any new articles will be created. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept rename to {{Anugerah Bintang Popular}}, since ABP has a variety of uses, the most prominent in the post-2008 financial crash world is asset backed paper, so this name is bad. When this is renamed, the redirect should be suppressed. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes are for navigating existing content. They are expressly not skeletons for future work. They should not be created until they are needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we can use a see also here. when (or rather if) the other articles are created, we can trivially recreate the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Barcelona Metro/line list edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barcelona Metro/line list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is being used as a navbox but is completely redundant to the more standard Template:Barcelona Metro line navbox. See Barcelona Metro line 2 for example of both being used in the same article. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. mabdul 11:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.