Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31

Template:MDP

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Yannismarou 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the template creator's own wiki. Since 2005, template creator User:JamieHari has been admonished for his persistent inclusion of this linkspam. His article about his own wiki was removed following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel Database Project and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel Database Project (second nomination) — Tenebrae 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you want to have a way to link to another wiki, you need to go to meta. ~ Wikihermit 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (See below) In the same vein as Template:Imdb_title or Template:imdb name. IMDB is a wiki, in principle as it is completely comprised of user submitted content and subject to the same possibilities of human error introduction. If links to the Marvel Database shouldn't be created via a formatted template, how should they be added? I based it off the above IMDB templates and similar. Should MarvelDatabase:Foo be used instead? (They are valid links and are allowed as per WP:EL and below.)
- "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" - This is very much the case. The Marvel Database Project articles often include greater detail and contain internal links to articles offering further reading, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Linking to the MDP is not restricted.
- Closely matches point #3, of what should be linked.
- Point #4, links to be considered. Arguably, the MDP is one of the most reliable sources in existance, with a very good reputation for overall accuracy. (The MDP does not allow anonymous editing and has a strong recent changes patrol.) (WP:RS)
- Regarding links to be avoided, the only point that possibly might apply is #13: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
  - Rebuttal: It is NOT an open wiki (see above). It has a substantial history of stability, with over 2 and a half years of tenure and often being referenced by other influential reference sites. The Marvel Database project most definitely has a substantial number of editors, well into the hundreds of experienced editors.

In conclusion, the Marvel Database is very much equivalent to IMDB, or other similiar community-generated databases which specialize in one subject.

--JamieHari 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: JamieHari is violating WP:COI to drive traffic to his site.
- It is an open wiki — anyone can edit it — as opposed to IMDb, which has an editorial vetting process that can take days for an edit to go live. To say his MDP is not an open wiki is inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
- The MDP additionally is filled with the same sort of comic-fan POV, rumormongering and fancruft as many comic-book articles in Wikipedia that aren't regularly policed. It is in no way a reliable reference source.
- There are dozens of reliable edited-and-vetted sources that comics editors can use, from Grand Comics Database to Marvel.com. (I'm referring to Marvel's official site, not Marvel's own wiki.) With so many extant reliable sources, there's no need for a fannish wiki, and ...
- ...for the creator of that wiki to come here and argue for it is blatantly self-promotional. I put this question up with links to background material, and am only responding to the self-serving post above. I ask the wiki's creator to let the disinterested community talk and decide. --Tenebrae 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of a long-running conflict of interest debacle (it was a year and a half ago that this issue was raised and has been addressed by a number of editors pointing out the clear policy violations [1]). (Emperor 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments on a few points first:
1. As Tenebrae has noted, as the creator/admin of both the Marvel and DC Database Projects, JamieHari is stepping into a conflict of interests by creating the template. That, in and of itself, is self promotion, period. Stepping up here to defend the move just make the transgression that much worse.
2. As a reference template, this template, and the DCDP one if it exists, are less than useful. As pointed out above, both are wikis of the same type as Wikipedia, no editorial oversight save the users coming to agreement, or not. Based on that, the guidelines of this wiki is that the two DPs cannot be considered reliable sources. Beyond that, there are positions that the DPs take on what they can include in articles that undercut the consensus thresholds and policies here.
3. As a "See also/External site" template, the need is also questionable. Looking at the structure, it is more complicated to use than the standard http call with alternate text. That is unless there is a need to see which Wikipedia articles make reference to or have been linked to the DPs. And for the life of me, I cannot see a valid reason for that.
4. Beyond the scope of this template, I really cannot see a reason, beyond length of the section, not to include the DP article in the "External sites" with the notation that they are targeted toward a more narrow scope than Wiki. There is nothing wrong with that, and they will hold information that winds up getting compressed here.

Bottom line, Delete the templates, and refrain from using the DPs as in-article citations, but lets not totally ostracize the sites, and those that feel they have merit. - J Greb 03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum In light of the conversations here and looking at the relevant edit histories for adding the template, there are strong grounds for JamieHari to step away from adding in links to the DP, period. Right now it reads as COI link-spmming at its worst and it may have damages any one's ability to add these links at a later date. - J Greb 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. I can't see any reason people can't use a link to MDP in an external links section but, as things stand, Jamiehari has been told about the conflict of interest rules and has carried on regardless (and created a template to make it easier for them). In fact it is a surprise they haven't been warned/banned and/or had the link to their site spamlisted which given my first point would be a shame as their persistence could end up having the opposite result as no one would be able to link to the site. (Emperor 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry you all feel the intent was anything more than linking to a site I personally believe is valuable to other comic book readers. (my bias and affiliation do come into play, you are right)

As requested, I will refrain from adding links personally, as per WP:COI, which seems fair.

With that said I still believe the links, either as cited references or external links, provide additional value.

Thank you for considering the overall situation in an objective view.

Please don't take my words or actions to represent the entire sentiments of the projects.

They are a large community which has worked very hard to build a reliable resource and will continue to strive for accuracy and excellence.

Regards,

--JamieHari 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if it weren't for the fact that you are the proud creator of the two DPs, I'd have no problem seeing the inclusions of the links as a good faith edit. And would wholeheartedly agree with keeping them as "External links". They are a good supplementary place to send users from a general use encyclopedia who want expanded in-universe information. As pointed out above, I cannot see a reason though for the template in those cases.

Beyond that, my concern still stands. Once the likely cleanup to remove the templates happens, either because the template goes or to remove what looks like link-spam, I hope there isn't a fall out that point-blank prevents other editors from adding the links as appropriate. - J Greb 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote of confidence in the site itself. Admittedly, linking to my own site isn't a neutral unbiased activity, which leads to WP:COI issues.

As you recommend, it will not be a problem any longer; I have no problem voluntarily withdrawing any further such edits.

The last thing I wanted was to hurt the project's reputation or success.

Kind regards,

--JamieHari 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are clear: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." [2] If the links are considered useful you will have to leave it up to other users to add and given the continued 'spamming' of the link you have done over the years I'd avoid any kind of promotion of the site for now [3] as it could easily end up having a negative effect. (Emperor 12:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I thank you for the idea, I agree it is not my place to continue to link to the site as I have a bias.

I will not make any further such edits.

I hope that this does not cause any negative effects for the projects...

Kind regards,

--JamieHari 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be fine if it is nipped in the bud now before things go any further but if the issues continued or other similar ones arose (for example, there was the whiff of a campaign here or elsewhere to get various editors to pump in MDP/DCDP links) then I can see things escalating rapidly and the simplest would adding both sites to the spam lists and I don't feel that would be good for Wikipedia (especially as updates in WP:FICT might mean there is more transwiking done). Although it can't be used as a reliable source I'd not have a problem adding an MDP/DCDP link to the external links if I thought it provided more detail on the topic than Wikipedia can provide. However, I can't stress strongly enough that this has to be a line drawn under the whole matter - Hiding outlined the issue a year and a half ago and it didn't stop this issue from arising again recently and I don't want to have to deal with this issue 12+ months down the line. I do think you understand how serious the issue is (relatively speaking - its not up there with war and famine ;) ) and you only wanted to add helpful links so I don't see any reason this should be taken further (other than removing this template). (Emperor 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with your summary. Well though out, indeed.

Here's hoping you are right about the issue being nipped in the bud now.

I change my vote to Delete as well.

Kind regards,

--JamieHari 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we shouldn't use such templates to advertise third-party wikis. >Radiant< 07:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Radiant! --Fredrick day 12:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above and my opinions expressed on this issue 18 months ago at which point I believed the issue had been settled. Hiding Talk 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, at that time it was discussed that if incidences occurred again in the future, the sites Jamie Hari maintains/owns would be added to the spam blacklist to prevent them being linked to on Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 13:22, 5 September 2007 (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:RC Ecclesiastical Province of Miami

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that provides navigation for 2 articles, and 1 redlink. Unnecessary. There isn't even an article on the topic that template is trying to cover Eccesiastical Province of Miami. — Andrew c ^[talk] 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Cheers,Je t Lover 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew c said all. Carlosguitar 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only very few links. As nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:41, 1 September 2007 (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:Brazil squad - 2007 Copa América

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant with the list found Copa_América_2007_squads#Brazil and the article Brazil national football team. Andrew c ^[talk] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Andrew c said all. Carlosguitar 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew. Link to the squad page(s) from the athletes, and there is much more info than the template could support. Neier 07:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Andrew once again makes a good nomination here. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:43, 1 September 2007 (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:BBCsitcomsproject

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Sitcoms Wikiproject which this was used for has now been merged into a task force of WP:BBC, meaning that this template is now redundant. — Boy1jhn 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It could be used as a meta-template of {{BBCproject}} with the parameter task force=BBC Sitcoms, but there are no uses of it, so may as well delete the template. Gracenotes^T § 02:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yup, redundant. Bob talk 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 September 2007 (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:AI infobox

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (CSD G2) Caknuck 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this to be used for. Only used on one user page and even then it is just a red link. — 122.164.155.213 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Either delete as a recursive (and for that reason, not that useful) template, or develop into a full infobox, if it's a good idea for an infobox. Gracenotes^T § 07:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've successfully speedy deleted many of these kinds of templates before as G2 test pages. I'm not sure if these will also fit under G6 "housekeeping" as currently defined, but it should. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 31 August 2007 (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:Duplicate

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. — Malcolm (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{db-redundantimage}}. — Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now, {{db-redundantimage}} is for orphaned duplicates (with some other properties as well), while {{duplicate}} is for just any duplicates. I wouldn't mind a merge though, seems to me we don't really need the specificity. Staecker 17:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template adds image to the ambiguously named Category:Duplicate; the speedy deletion template adds them to Category:Redundant images for speedy deletion. This template is an indirect way to delete a redundant image (hoping that someone will come along to clear a backlog), but it definitely has a unique, and possibly useful, function. Gracenotes^T § 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the duplicate exists in commons under a different name, for example target image is foo.gif which duplicates commons image, foo.png, the {{db-redundantimage}} does not work correctly. Adding "commons:image:foo.png" to the argument field does NOT have the expected effect. Keep {{duplicate}} at least until this bug is fixed. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 15:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this is a feature, not a bug- {{db-redundantimage}} specifically says it is for a duplicate "which is on Wikipedia (not Commons)". Again, I'm not sure we really need this level of specificity, but it seems to be operating as intended, for what that's worth. Staecker 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template is used in commons also.189.175.208.38 22:21, 4 September 2007 (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:Eur-C

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Malcolm (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template for "Chinese immigration to Europe". Redundant to the more comprehensive {{Overseas Chinese2}}; no need to create another template for every continent. — cab 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Shalom ^Hello 14:43, 7 September 2007 (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.