Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< February 4	February 6 >

1 February 5

[edit] February 5

[edit] Template:Drogheda-related-article

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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Duplicates Category:Drogheda in purpose except it adds in article text instead of a category. — Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Sigh - we just had an identical problem with the same editor at WP:SFD. He seems to want a personal list of articles connected with Drogheda - something far better handled either by consulting Cat:Drogheda or making a list on a user subpage. A template simply isn't required or desirable. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 February 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:Real Madrid C squad

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the players in this template are junior footballers playing for Real Madrid's 2nd reserves, all players fail Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, if the template is kept it just invites people to create articles on non-notable players. — King of the North East 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes. EJF (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is quite pathetic. If the article itself doesn't make it clear that this is the case, then the article should be improved; we shouldn't be slapping hideous templates at the top. We don't do this for any of our other articles.

I see absolutely no discussion onwiki about this, and no consensus for such a template to exist. The Foundation has no precedent in getting involved in content decisions that don't involve legal issues. The command that it cannot be removed 'without permission' completely goes against the concept of the wiki. As there are no legal reasons for keeping the it, I see no good reason for having such an ugly, pointless banner at the top of pages like Wikia that only serve to give the impression of a COI. See also WP:SELF. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete in addition to the proposers reasons above:

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

Rich Farmbrough, 20:40 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Delete - Templates mar the articles they're placed on, hence they're only temporary, and being able to remove them is incentive for cleaning the article up; they're not supposed to be permanent fixtures like this one is intended to be. (Not to mention the questionable aspects of the whole Wikia/Wikimedia relationship.) krimpet ✽ 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Alison's explanation at Template talk:Wikia is not Wikipedia. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and I shall give a more complete reason why.

The grounds for this are the long-term stability of Wikipedia and the other WMF projects. To raise money and keep them advert-free we rely on donations, indeed we just finished a recent drive last month. Trouble is the press (be it written, spoken or visual) keep getting us (WMF projects like Wikipedia which are charitable, non-profit, a foundation) muddled up with Wikia (commercial, incorporated profit-making public company) and think that somehow Wikia is our 'commercial arm' and pays lots of money to Wikipedia. This error - which sadly keeps getting repeated all too frequently - will make it harder and harder to keep Wikipedia and the other projects we all know and love going in their present state and *everything* that can be done to try to ensure people realise that though Jimmy started the ball rolling on both he neither owns nor controls either, nor are the two legally connected. Yes, there are lots of little connections, but that is like saying people who shop at K-Mart and also at Walmart must be connected, and they aren't either. It might look like special treatment but every little that helps this message get out helps us raise money to keep Wikipedia going and is to the benefit of this and the other WMF projects. --AlisonW (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many common misconceptions and conflations, we don't label them with templates. Well we do, we have a "not to be confused with " template. If that had been used there would probably have been no issue raised, but the job of COmCOm is to make these messages known to the media, via normal communications channels. To pervert the encyclopaedia to that cause, however noble, is against everything that is key to WP. Especially as the body pushing the template has one of the leading executives of both WikiMedia and Wikia sittingon it. Flagrant COI I'm afraid. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Or to summarise it doesn't "look like special treatment", it patently is special treatment. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Comment this confusion was very apparent when Wikia roled out its new search product. Many mainstream media outlets were talking about Wikipedia's new search project. It's bad enough when the man in the street is confused but it's really bad when newspapers and magazines get it confused. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that's something the Foundation should be doing in interviews and press releases. What they shouldn't be doing is interfering in the encyclopedia to achieve this goal. If anything it merely encourages the perception of connections between the WMF and Wikia by giving the Wikia article preferential treatment over all of our other articles. In any other article in the encyclopedia where there is a risk of getting things confused, at most we use one of those little disambig templates that makes a little note in italics to go elsewhere. We don't put up a big, bright banner advertising the fact. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is a bit more akin to the president and several directors of the Salvation Army opening a chain of for-profit upscale urban boutiques called "The Salv'army," and then sewing tags onto the dresses and other clothes sold in the Salvation Army thrift shop saying "The Salv'army is a completely separate entity." krimpet ✽ 05:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Sure, you may be an admin, but this doesn't mean your exempted from the WP:NPOV and WP:COI guidelines. Per CordeliaHenrietta, you are just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The point being that we are not Wikia. ViperSnake151 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unless another template is made stating that "some argue that Wikipedia and Wikia are related." It's POV to declare they are not related. Hence, this template violates NPOV. Additionally, there is no need to state something in a template that can be (and should be) stated and sourced in the article body. Not to mention it is big, unattractive and useless. <joke>(Much like my first wife)</joke> :-) Regards and cheers, etc. etc. daveh4h 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Unless another template is made stating that "some argue that Wikipedia and Wikia are related."" I'm sorry, I really shouldn't take this bait but I can't help but do so. This is a matter of *law* not of opinion.--AlisonW (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh! The law is the point. Why didn't you say so! In that case let's make a banner that reads Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation have never been legally charged nor convicted of an illegal tax relationship or any other illegal relationship. On wait. Do we have a reliable published source for that to determine notability and verifiability? No? Oh well. Hey, I know! We can have Jimmy publish a news release that his company Wikia that he promotes and the Wikimedia Foundation he created and promotes are for tax purposes legally separate organizations. Yeah, that'll work. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, taking that bait, as others have mentioned, when WMF's 990 was filed, citing Wikia as a related entity, was that documenting a relationship, in legal terms? Because I do find it amusing that legality is being cited as the "need to state that they are two entities with no relationship", all the while those same laws are what has WMF citing its relationship with Wikia. Or is "the law" something only to be called on selectively? Also note that there is no legal requirement to state independence. Why not say "WMF is a wholely separate entity from Citibank/Halliburton/British Petroleum"? Yes, the example is "contrived" but really, if you're "completely independent", then all of those entities exist at the same distance from Wikia, so why are you singling Wikia out? Further question: why did you feel the need to remove the text that stated that a corporate officer of WMF became a corporate officer of Wikia? Achromatic (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Why is this here? This thing is a major COI concern, and the article text can detail the seperation between the companies from reliable sources. There is no need for this. Lawrence § t/e 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, unless you want to create this for every company and organization we link to / write about. Prodego ^talk 00:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

General request for everybody and not directed at just one person -- let's hold off on the sarcasm and assume good faith about both the folks that created this template and those that want to delete it. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Rich Farmbrough. Heavy-handed and unnecessary. --John (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - unnecessary template, and bypasses consensus as written. ~~If the Foundation believes this is needed, they can say so.~~ I see it refers to ComCom. If ComCom wants this, the ycan ask at WP:VP on how address this concern. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

'Delete' per all the delete reasons above, whose concerns I share. Viridae ^Talk 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Seriously. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Rich Farmbrough. JPG-GR (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Viridae. Risker (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This is self-reference, adds yet another annoying info box to various pages, and is arguably misleading (although strictly speaking accurate) given the historical sharing of a variety of founders, employees, board members, and other resources. If there is misapprehension on this point, absolutely address it! Any potential confusion about an article's subject matter should be cleared up in the article's text. Articles should not be treated any differently just because of their relation to Wikipedia, because article content is meant to be completely reusable. That means not sticking in notices that would be out of place in a third-party redistribution, if at all practical.
I do not view AlisonW's implications of officiality as significant. The British chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation is, to my knowledge, meant to coordinate off-wiki activities such as regional fundraising and conferences. I'm certain it does not have any authority over the content of the English-language Wikipedia, which if anything is dominated by Americans, with a large share of Canadians/Australians/New Zealanders/etc., and quite a few non-native speakers from many other countries. As for the Communications Committee, I have not yet seen any official decision of that body relating to this. Even if I did, I wouldn't be inclined to accept it without clarification from the office that the ComCom's mandate includes ordering changes to article content, regardless of the very generous "all steps necessary" stipulation of the resolution authorizing it.

On the other hand, if an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation proper were to mandate that this template be added to some set of articles as part of his or her official duties, that would be different. Such a decision would be immediately binding regardless of any discussion or community opinion to the contrary, and this TFD would be quickly and rightfully closed as overruled and irrelevant. Despite the claim above that the Foundation exists to serve Wikipedia and not the other way around, Wikipedia is legally owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Foundation has the legal right to mandate anything it wants whether or not the community agrees. Furthermore, on a purely pragmatic level, anyone who crosses an official action (knowingly or not) tends to very rapidly get blocked and/or desysopped. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, as Random832 points out below, this is explicitly covered by CSD T2: "Templates that are blatant misrepresentations of established policy. This includes . . . disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles." (emphasis removed and added). That explicit proviso has been around for at least a month, probably a lot longer, and is clearly part of established policy. This discussion shouldn't have even been started. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It's inappropriate, disfiguring, arguably POV, and has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. It also smacks of "doth protest too much," so it could end up being self-defeating anyway. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Unnecessary, and as per previous, the emphasis by template could be seen as counterproductive.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I wonder if this or a similar template has been added to parallel articles on other language Wikipedias. Has anyone checked? Any comment from AlisonW on that? Risker (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Answering my own question, it is present on the WP-fr article, but not on German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, Polish, or Portuguese Wikipedia articles. Risker (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I would question this on so many grounds - there is no "matter of law" that requires explicit delineation between the two entities. Clarification can be sought in the article body. There is special treatment of Wikia and WMF here, there is COI, there are threats of blocking, there is routing around procedure - "do not remove without permission"?!? Achromatic (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per AlisonW's explanation above. (Yes, I know she's arguing to keep.) Articles are not appropriate places to be taking fundraising measures. If there are problems with press misconceptions, write to those who have published inaccurate information and ask them to correct, issue a press release on the subject to refer people to, and educate those who write about Wikipedia frequently. Templating articles is not an appropriate means of issuing a press release, be it WMF's or anyone else's. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not clear what benefit is achieved by this. While many people will come to the conclusion that Wikipedia and Wikia are intimately connected, it's not because this article is confusing, it's because a multitude of individuals have on their resume positions of importance in both organizations. This problem is solved by removing Wikia-connected people from their positions, not by playing with templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Has anyone stopped to consider the possible reason so many mainstream media/journalists think that Wikia is a "for-profit spinoff" of Wikimedia/Wikipedia, is because it is? How else do you define a spinoff, other than when people involved in one project get together and launch a similar new project? -- GoldieRush (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per most of the above comments. Indeed, this is self-referential special treatment that we don't extend to any of the numerous other entities for which similar misunderstandings exist. (We're supposed to present neutral encyclopedia articles, not "Wikipedia" articles.) I also agree that this is counterproductive (as it serves to reinforce the belief that a close relationship between Wikimedia and Wikia exists) and that any factual information should be addressed in the article itself. —David Levy 11:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete'. This is a black and white issue. Either a) Wikia is not a for-profit off-shoot of Wikipedia, as AlisonW keeps insisting, in which case there will be absolutely no special treatment and the template is unneeded, or b) it is a for-profit offshoot of Wikipedia, as most people believe, and in which case the template is wrong. Either way, it does not need to exist. I would like to see all those who are involved in Wikia at a corporate level recuse themselves from involvement in Wikipedia to avoid such laughable claims as "there is no conflict of interest", when it is evident to everyone except themselves. Neıl ☎ 12:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and do not close this early. This needs to go by the book, to allow the community full chance to express their views and (given the current way it is progressing) to achieve an overwhelming consensus that this sort of thing is inappropriate and unwanted. Neıl ☎ 12:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NDT and, more importantly, WP:NPOV. The comments made by AlisonW indicate that this template was created by the Communications Committee for PR reasons (see [1]: "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.") NPOV is one of the five pillars and is non-negotiable. *** Crotalus *** 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Opens an interesting question, in case someone with actual OFFICE authority (who from reviewing Wikimedia UK wouldn't be anyone from there, it's an independent organization?). So if an actual employee from California or Florida claimed OFFICE here, does OFFICE have the authority to override NPOV, which is a founding principle? Or would that require the Board? How does that work? Lawrence § t/e 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually it works because they are not adding stuff, but removing it. If we have no article on a topic, our coverage of that topic is almost certain to be more neutral than if we do. Of course, selective removing of facts (like an officer of Wikimedia becoming an officer of Wikia) can itself be a problem. GreenReaper (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When push comes to shove, any dispute falls back to power. The Wikimedia Foundation's employees are the only ones with physical access to the servers ― specifically, the servers are in secure, guarded colocation facilities, whose operators will not allow anyone to touch a server that they can't show belongs to them. You can't stop the ones with physical access from doing absolutely anything they want to the site. Therefore, WP:OFFICE trumps everything. In practice, it doesn't get anywhere near that far, because everyone realizes that you can't get away with undoing an office action for exactly this reason. The legal owners of the site are the ones with ultimate control. They are not bound by anything other than the law, and the law doesn't exactly require NPOV. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, there are various way to exert popular (ie. elections) and legal (ie. charitable status) and publicity (ie. newspaper stories) pressures. Hopefully the Foundation realise that they don't operate in a vacuum, and they would be aware of and respond to such pressures, either with a clear statement and press release to the public and the Wikimedia community, or after taking the appropriate legal advice (if anyone ever thought that a lack of neutrality also betrayed a lack of charitable separation from commercial interests - or whatever it is that US laws say about such things). In other words, the law is not just about the Foundation legally owning the servers, but is also about the laws governing what the Foundation can and can not do. Here we go - it is at the bottom of every page: "the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity" Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, fine, all of that is true. (Except for the bit about non-profit status, which is irrelevant to this issue and any similar one ― non-profits are allowed to do anything anyone is, mostly, except of course pocketing income.) The fact remains that on-wiki policy does not and cannot ever trump or even compete with Wikimedia Foundation decisions. You can affect them in various ways, but not by citing WP:NPOV. Which is all I was saying. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This template is unnecessary, in that the material in it would be better included in the actual article(s) on the subject rather than a garish little box. Plus, the COI issues are a concern. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DENY in spirit. Protesting too much draws undesired attention. Better to fix the articles and when the press bobbles things, point them at the articles. They're going to ignore or misconstrue disclaimers anyway. I make this comment in full knowledge that the overwhelming deletes may in the end not be sufficient, as this may well be a matter of policy that becomes a mandate, which would trump consensus. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per [2]. AlisonW has already threatened a user with a "vandalism" block for disputing placement of this template. As this is entirely unacceptable, we must prevent it in the only workable way: delete the template. There are other issues (you did read the rest of the discussion, right?), but that one, unlike the template placement itself, is non-negotiable. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Further note: I second Neil's strong urging above not to perform an early closure of this debate, whatever the trend of the discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2. —Random832 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I was surprised to see this, let alone the message about not removing it, which seemed wholly inappropriate. It makes several material statements of fact, which should be backed up by references from an unrelated party, not stated by the organization itself. And then it was protected! I wish I could do that with pages and templates regarding my company or organization - would sure help avoid all those "misunderstandings" others have about us. GreenReaper (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all this template does is highlight the fact that the Wikia article is missing an extra paragraph in the Company section along the lines of "Due to Wales' and others involvement - Wikia is frequently mistated as being part of the Wikimedia Foundation(refs to dodgy journalism examples w/quotes), Wikimedia have refuted this statement and highlighted the differences between the non-profit foundation and the commercial company Wikia.(press release or whatever is WP:V)" Sure it's in the lead of the article (sans refs) but as per WP:LEAD the entree to the article is only supposed to be a summary of all salient points within the article. And as always, this is Wikipedia - we care about Verifiability not Truth remember. Nanonic (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Foaming at the mouth delete - It is not the mission of Wikipedia to make Wikimedia look good. Foundation intervention in Wikipedia editorial policy is appropriate to protect the legal position of Wikimedia Foundation (i.e. removal of legally contentious material), not to make it look good in the public eye or otherwise "get out the message". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Nanonic. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Article space is not the place for grandstanding on the part of the Foundation asserting its independence from Wikia; the facts of the matter, if notable and well-referenced, can be given (in a NPOV way, without undue weight) in the article text itself. The personalities of those supporting or opposing this are irrelevant, but Alison's behavior has me concerned; threatening to ban people for removing this template, and referring to the placing of it on TfD as "trolling" (which makes a large number of people trolls now, given the large support for deletion that cuts across usual battle lines -- I'm agreeing with Slim Virgin here!), are way out of line. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Down the road to more useless clutterfication. Any media outlet who seems confused about the seperation, should stop hiring high school freshman to write news articles. Turning this into our problem, just opens the door for similar silly templates to run rampant (more than they already do of course). The aggressive approach is also a real turn-off for me. Admins are janitors, not prison wardens.Wjhonson (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Template is worthless as-is, and as Wjhonson states, we don't have to spell things out for media outlets. If they were worth their salt they'd already know, or research it on their own. Mike H. Fierce! 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Create a project space article Wikipedia:The relationship between Wikipedia and Wikia where the relationship between WMF and Wikia can be discussed at length. --Salix alba (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually a link to Wikipedia:Press Kit would be appropriate. --Salix alba (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - per AlisonW...actually if you are part of Wikia, you will know that people always mix up Wikia to be part of the Wikimedia Foundation which is not the case, though it is owned by current and former board members of the Wikimedia foundation. actually its a Good idea to have a WP:Wikia..or Wikipedia:Wikia to collectively and clearly explain as to why Wikia and Wikimedia should not be seen as one or as per AlisonW, be the ""commercial arm" of Wikimedia..Wikia has taken steps to tell the public as to its relations or lack of it with Wikimedia, and we should do likewise..--Comet styles 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Wikimedia should take pains to clarify to the public what its relationship (or lack thereof) is with Wikia, but Wikipedia is not the venue with which to do so. This is tantamount to a newspaper publisher running a story for its own PR purposes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it happens more often than you think. But you're right that the issue at hand is how to do it. Using articles for this PR is not the way to do it. We have Meta for that. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Aside from the perceptions between Wikia and Wikimedia, the template is hurting the project. We have a guideline, which the community has consistenly defended, advising us to avoid referring to Wikipedia in our articles to maintiain NPOV and because our pages are widely used accross the net. This template goes against both, and should be deleted or at the very least prohibited from article space. I don't hold an opinion on the larger issues at hand, but if someone or some group wish to increase disclaimers over this issue they should seek the proper channels. The respective articles surrounding this could in fact include information on this issue within its body as an ecyclopedic entry if, and only if its notable, properly sourced, and NPOV. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Reality check -- newspaper reporters have deadlines and move fast. Rightly or wrongly, they come to Wikipedia for quick answers about everything from Chadian conflict to celebrities' personal lives. They'll come here for information about us but most won't stick around to follow all the hyperlinks and read all the fine print with encyclopaedic thoroughness. 90% will probably never read AlisonW's press kit, no matter how good she makes it or how effectively she distributes it. How many of us carefully read all of the required reading in school? How many have closely scrutinized all the fine print and specifications when buying something? And we're not even reporters, we're encyclopedia geeks. AlisonW has the right idea about some sort of template at the top of relevant articles, maybe it's just not worded the way we want it. Maybe it would be better to just have it say

"for more information on the relationship between Wikia, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, see our article, 'Relationship between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation,' "

then write a detailed, well-referenced, NPOV, non-OR encyclopaedia article (i.e., not in Wikipedia: space) on the subject fully spelling out the points made above. That avoids concerns that any one or two-sentence template will be some sort of NPOV because the story is too detailed.

As for concerns about templates being ugly, or that we have too many, those are valid points but I believe they are outweighed by the situation here. As for self-references, they are allowed per WP:SELF when notable and referenced; see the guideline's section: Writing about Wikipedia itself.

It's important that we get this particular story right … I think such a template is one step in doing so and I'm confident others can improve on the basic idea I've sketched out here.

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure you understand the reasons for most of these delete votes. The problem is that we will be affording this subject special treatment within the encyclopaedia by reason of a desire of the Wikimedia Foundation to be properly understood. Providing this sort of treatment to an entity affiliated with Wikipedia when we wouldn't do so for a subject unaffiliated with Wikipedia is inherently non-NPOV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But is it the job of Wikipedia (as an editorial entity creating mainspace articles, in contrast to the role of the Foundation office) to "set the record straight" on this any more than with regard to any other misconceptions the public or journalists may have about any other subject? We're supposed to avoid self-references and undue weight, and cover things related to us the same way as anything else, and there are specific policies and guidelines that, in particular, attempt to reduce or eliminate interference with editorial objectivity coming from people who think they have The Truth about some Important Subject and want to get the word out about it no matter what it disrupts. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An important issue in the background of this discussion is the perception held by much of the community that there are conflicts of interest between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia. That's a much larger issue than this template and must be addressed somehow, but I don't think this is the place. I encourage us here just to focus on how we can or cannot use this template to get the full story on Wikia and Wikimedia's connections encyclopaedically straight. In this case, I'm proposing we use a template to highlight the existence of a detailed explanation.

The main bind as I see it to what I've proposed is that we don't have many precedents for using a prominent template box for disambiguation purposes. I think that's a valid point but outweighed by the importance of this issue. Effectively I'm proposing we escalate the traditional disambiguation statement at the top of the article to a full blown notice box out of self-interest; everything else I've well within our standard practices. Furthermore, we do occasionally run small self-interested fund raising notices at the very tops of our pages.

Having said all this, if this TfD closes as a "delete", then I encourage folks to at least consider the preparation of a separate article on the relationship.

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Article space is sacrosanct, and not to be used for promotional purposes for either the Foundation nor outside for-profit companies like Wikia. Even if the Office were to make an official declaration of this, it would probably be a very, very bad thing, as I'd imagine a full uprising from the local project, us. The Foundation answers to the community, as the Community elects the Board, which grants "special" positions, like Jimbo's, and the Board hires staff. Since the entire Board can be scrubbed by the Community in an election or two, the Community functionally controls the Foundation, and it's employees are in service to the Community. We certainly don't serve them: we hired them to help us, not the other way around. More importantly, all proclamations from the Chairwoman of an apparently defunct meta:Wikimedia UK side project that looks like a local project of the Foundation would have no authority here that I can see. According to their own website, at http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/about, they appear to be a separate entity from even the Foundation. I don't think a local club of Wikipedians has any "override" authority here. Lawrence § t/e 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment to A.B.'s suggestion: While it may be true that some people have a hard time differentiating between these various organizations, nobody was all that worried when Wikipedia was occasionally being confused with The Wikimedia Foundation. It is only addition of the commercial entity (Wikia) that seems to be causing concern, and even still only recently. There are lots of organizations that get confused with each other (e.g., Johnson & Johnson vs S. C. Johnson & Son) and we don't have special templates or articles to deal with them; indeed, more readers are likely to confuse major similar-name companies, since the articles are more likely to be read. Having a template like this, and writing a "special" article about this confusion is navel-gazing at best; it presumes that this "confusion" is more important than either NPOV or notability. Where are the independent reliable sources that write about this supposed confusion? Examples of the confusion are not enough - verifiability vs. truth - and to write an article about this supposed confusion runs the serious risk of crossing over to WP:SYNTH. The WMF has Jay Walsh as Head of Communications and a Communications Committee to reinforce to journalists what the difference is between these organizations. The content of the encyclopedia should not be co-opted into this discussion. Risker (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly enoughindependent reliable sources to use in writing such an article. A Google News archive search for "Wikia + 'Wikimedia + Foundation'" produces 75 news articles. "Wikia + Wikimedia" produces 157 and "Wikia + Wikipedia", 589. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then include the sourced information into the respective articles, but be sure to include information from dissenting views if they're reliable. Don't create a fork article just to prove that Wikia and Wikimedia are not the same. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point, on the forking. If it were just a POV fork, it would be subject to a swift AFD then. Lawrence § t/e 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pop singer Jesse McCartney needs a template reminding people that he's not related to Paul McCartney... people might get that mistaken impression otherwise! *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete It may seem that any little bit of help clarifying the relationship between Wikia and Wikipedia is a good thing. But doing this via a template on article space is, I believe, a bad thing. There are no doubt thousands of corporations and charities that have unusual cross-pollination. The world's largest charity, the Bill Gates Foundation and its relationship to Microsoft immediately leaps to mind. Yet we should not give our charity (nor the business of our friends) special treatment that other charities and businesses do not receive. The confusion between the entities is unfortunate, but giving Wikia and Wikipedia special treatment in article space may make us appear even worse. --JayHenry (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per SV, Neil, Mtmelendez, Lawrence Cohen, et al. A bad idea really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Wow. ➪HiDrNick! 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Self-referential, does not belong in the mainspace. There are many organisations people might confuse, we aren't adding similar templates to those. Besides, this seems more likely to inflame issues about Wikia's connection to Wikipedia than to solve it, per SlimVirgin. WjBscribe 23:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Slim and Dan. Even supposing we were to ignore the countless times this sort of disclaimer template has been shot down in other circumstances, it seems very likely to me that it'll have exactly the opposite effect of what's intended. We don't generally make a practice of offering article subjects the chance of putting "the way I see it" templates atop their articles, and it reeks of self-favoritism that we're considering doing so here. Far from dispelling misconceptions, this is only going to emphasize the question in the worst way possible. Perhaps I'm missing something, but Alison's heavy handling here seems quite excessive and does nothing but make the whole situation seem dirtier. Since when has anyone been able to dictate policy just by saying "don't remove this text, kthx"? Since when is it acceptable to block people (should I say "peons"?) for voicing reasonable disagreement, especially when you're the originator of the disputed action? Since when is the WMF in the business of having Official Decrees on articles, and blocking anyone who so much as steps out of line with approved sentiment? There may be a problem here, but this strikes me as neither an appropriate solution nor an appropriate handling of one. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is, of course, the kind of situation for which {{otheruses}} and its siblings were created in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - By the way, the official 2007 audit released today by the WMF contains this related note:

“

Note E - Related Party Transactions

The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007.

Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization’s board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc.

”

This does seem to indicate that the WMF and Wikia do co-operate to some degree. krimpet ✽ 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read that earlier. But I don't think it's relevant to this discussion though. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Slim,Dan and neil - entirely Self-referential and the circumstances of it's "birth" are shoddy to say the least! --Fredrick day (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Strongly keep Wikipedia shouldn't be the source of entirely false and misleading information. Wikia Inc. and the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. are two separate and independent organizations. It is true that Jimbo founded them both and is still on the board of both but that does in no way implicate in anyway there is any cooperation between the two organizations. Sharing of office space in the past does not imply any strategic, financial or operational cooperation between the two organizations except for sharing some office space in the past. The entire concept of internet is sharing hosting and bandwidth over telecommunication connections. Gebruiker:Dedalus (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is a rationale for the inclusion of properly sourced information concerning this issue, written from a neutral perspective. Please explain why these particular organizations (as opposed to the countless other organizations for which similar confusion exists) should receive a special disclaimer template instead. —David Levy 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As with David: this discussion regards the noisy disclaimer template specifically, not the content of the articles. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NDT and WP:CSD#T2. I find it laughable that such a template is included in the mainspace. It sounds a bit like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".EJF (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NCite

The result of the debate was Delete. Clearly a reduplication of templates. Advise discussion at {{fact}} over preferred wording. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of {{fact}} which doesn't serve any deeper purpose. It's purported to be good for articles which have lots of missing references, but in that case a {{refimprove}} at the top of a section would be a better call. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, replacing all instances with {{fact}}. There is absolutely no reason for this (relatively) bloated duplication of a widely-used template to exist. Happy‑melon 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, and replace with {{fact}}. synonymous and hence one is unnecessary. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment the idea is rather than having "Peter is a famous^{[citation needed]} green^{[citation needed]} mouse ^{[citation needed]}" we can have "Peter is a famousTemplate:Ncite greenTemplate:Ncite mouse Template:Ncite". Not quite as uncitely. The danger of deletegin it is that the idea will be resurrected pretty soon, makes my life easier with one less template though Rich Farmbrough, 15:52 7 February 2008 (GMT).

Why not have the fact tag say 'cite' then? That would solve both problems. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

comment 2 Please let me know if this is to be deleted, as I have the code to migrate it to fact. Rich Farmbrough, 15:53 7 February 2008 (GMT).
Delete I see no reason to use this as the fact tag works fine for me and its not as long. Now I wouldn't oppose merging this shorter version to fact as it wouldn't take as much space on an article I tag. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Garima

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under WP:SD#G2. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparent test page.. Brianga (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CAint

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing this here for User:Freewayguy, who wrote: Does this template need to be deleted? Because we no longer use this template in California. Our current project template is the ELF style. See what others think. I suggest it to be delete.. –Pomte 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment template has a single transclusion remaining. JPG-GR (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment template I'll take care of it if I had time. If you see the white codes going just ignore but don't remove the tag from template. Help change it. If you have problem with it discuss here.--Freewayguy (Meet) 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inappropriate person

The result of the debate was keep Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Following up from my recent nomination of template {{you}}. Waste of a template; why not just fix the problem instead of adding a tag. Will we be making templates for misplaced commas next?. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as with the other template. It takes two seconds to add the tag to an article; fixing the problem may require a substantial rewrite, which many editors won't have time for. PC78 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - this general tag does have genuine utility. Happy‑melon 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, this is shooting the messenger. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: I was the initial creator of this template (a long time ago) -- my intention was to see it used in lengthy articles (often concerning a particular game or interactive activity with a fan audience) where I didn't have time to correct instances of "you". For example, if you spot it once, do not invoke this template. If you are on RC patrol, bumped into this article but don't have time to correct a possibly lengthy problem, it would be better to delegate the task to others. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UAAP templates

The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All these appear to be orphaned templates which have been deprecated by the very nice {{UAAPteam}}. Happy‑melon 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete all as deprecated. JPG-GR (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: These are not all orphaned. The 1st & 3rd each have a link. нмŵוτн τ 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

- Not any more. Happy‑melon 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ZHP

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is redundant to another better-designed template, non-redlink info has been merged into Template:Scouting in Poland. — Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OmnidexInfo

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inserts a link to a non-notable site. Not used currently, and should not be used. — TheBilly^(Talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It appears that this is a sister/substitute template to Template:Omnidex, which is already nominated for deletion here. It also appears that this template is orphaned. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - questionable under WP:EL. Happy‑melon 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)