Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3[edit]

Uw-paid series[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on October 30. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment not documented into the template warning system, YET.--Elvey(t•c) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 not 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have to add onto this, again, that talk is cheap - I can say, "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 disproven. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep The keep opinions above have valid points here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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).

Template:Infobox music festival[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. The nominator changed their !vote to merge, which gathered zero support. In terms of arguments, the sense of the room is that having more specific infoboxes for a certain topic is not necessarily redundant. Certainly there is no consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template is 100% redundant to Template:Infobox recurring event. Adding to that, it is sometimes more suitable to use the latter template, even for music festivals, since it is way better organized and has a lot more parameter that may be used for a music festival. r a y u k k. 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's already a frontend, are you saying we should just substitute it? Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry forgot to say it.. My opinion is we should delete the template and just use the infobox recurring event for all instances in which it is used. r a y u k k. 17:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. Largely because not all music festivals are recurring. Woodstock is not recurring, so why use a 'recurring event' infobox for it? Besides, I think the infobox for recurring events is overly complicated and has rows unnecessary for music festivals. The current music festival box has everything need you need and nothing more, so changing it I imagine would only increase the difficulty of getting up a music festival infobox with speed. Since most of the music festival pages still need infoboxes and there are probably several hundred manhours of work that need to be done on the project overall, I don't think a change would make things better or easier for anyone. Earflaps (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good point. But I think rather than keeping the template, which just has seven real parameters, I think it would be better to just rename the "infobox recurring event" template to something more suitable, so it contains recurring and past events (at the top of my head: Infobox past and recurring events, but that strives for improvement).
Also, another idea would be to add the "infobox music festival" to the "infobox recurring event" template in a way it was done with Infobox convention. That way the few parameters that are not needed (most of the ones in infobox recurring event are also good for a music festival) can be left out. What do you think?,,r a y u k k. 20:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have left {{Please see}}s at WT:WPMU and WT:CM. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think making it so the recurring event infobox also more explicitly works for singular events might be a good idea (a really good idea even) - maybe bigger scope than just music infoboxes though? The "festival" infobox already redirects there, so yeah, if the 'event' infobox was simple enough and was made to be not recurring only, I probably wouldn't complain about it supplanting the music infobox one. Also, to be a semantic brat, I've interpreted 'recurring' to mean occurred more than once at some point, not necessarily still ongoing in 2015. Hmm. Is there a reason simply "events" doesn't work, I wonder, with "recurring" simply being a row you fill in or leave blank? Maybe "organized event?" would work better? Would an infobox for a riot and a holiday be the same thing 0-o i'm overthinking this, I'll just bow out of the conversation for now Earflaps (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. For non-recurring events, use {{Infobox event}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, best way to describe a music festival is to have the correct template to start with. It makes things easier, especially for newer users too. Reoccurring events can be many things. Music fests are a type of event. The template as it is in it's current form, is a great grab'n use tool Karl Twist (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Idea - hmmm. Don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier, but over the last year I've been working on creating an infobox for the music festival topic and subtopics (though not the individual festivals) - I've made a particular color scheme using orange/salmon, which I recently started applying to some of the festival list pages as well, when I realized they were all naked pretty much. But here's the idea - since 'festival' seem to be a distinct type of event per Karl Twist's comment, would we maybe be best off creating a new "festival" infobox with its own color scheme? Maybe extra colors would be too busy (the white in the current music festival infobox is kind of soothing), but it might help make the "festival" topic tree feel more homogenous. Earflaps (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Karl. And, the claim that anything more specific than Template:Infobox event would be redundant is silly: A war is an event, but we don't need to delete Template:Infobox War... There are good reasons we have more than one or a handful of Template:Infobox ... --Elvey(t•c) 01:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so my new proposal (as said above) would be to merge it into the infobox recurring event. So that both template openers (e.g. <{{Infobox recurring event or {{Infobox music festival) can be used. The existing parameters from the infobox music festival are the standard parameters, but more parameters from Infobox recurring event can be added without any problems, should they be needed. r a y u k k. 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Karl and Elvey. Having something tailored to music festivals isn't "redundant". Shelbystripes (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Please... I just placed it on an article that was incorrectly using Template:infobox musical artist! It was for a festival that is founding this year with only one event thus far. Seems most useful to have. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 11:22, 18 October 2015 (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).

Cartoon Network–specific navboxes[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on October 30. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein as {{Cartoon Network programming}}: 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.

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)[reply]

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)[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).

Template:Hathazari Upazila[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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure why this template is a stand alone or if should be merged to Hathazari Upazila article or deleted. Quis separabit? 13:45, 3 October 2015 (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).

Template:Front Mission chronology[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological templates are considered to be in-universe information (WP:GAMETRIVIA). For the discussion, see here. Previous video game chronology templates were deleted too. Soetermans. T / C 11:16, 3 October 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_3&oldid=1138533256"