Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 29 May 2007

May 26

Template:FreeContentMeta

Template:FreeContentMeta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The apparent purpose of this template is to "pimp" (as the author put it) Wikias. Misplaced Pages's MoS states nothing of boxes being allowed for GFDl/CC Wiki/websites. The two Wikis using this box style are both not that notable to begin with, thus text suffices. Matthew 16:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - querulous nomination as continuation of attempted edit war (see here). The MOS is advisory at best (and I've a project to go through it and make it clearer it's a guideline to the thoughtful, not a set of instructions for robotic implementation). The WMF mission statement, which is not advisory, says our mission is to push free content. This box is also useful for directing those who might add the really awful f*ncr*ft somewhere to satisfy their needs - David Gerard 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You're not stating why a box is needed over text. I've always been pro-linking to good Wikis, but you're going to need a better argument as to why we need a box to link to websites with objectionable amounts of adverts. Matthew 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages does not, to my knowledge, oppose advertisements as Foundation Policy. It does not use them, but it has, to my knowledge, no moral stance for or against them. It does, however, have a moral stance in favor of promoting free content, which we should therefore do boldly and proudly. Phil Sandifer 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It covers anything in the interwiki map. Thus, your second question doesn't actually match what it's questioning either - David Gerard 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Is not created to promote Wikias - in fact, the template uses the interwiki table, meaning any MedaiWiki installation can be linked to providing it's been judged by the devs as a reasonable free content resource. This is an ideal way to be a good neighbor - where encyclopedic coverage of a topic ends but other worthwhile coverage begins, we can provide an interwiki box, much like we do with Wictionary and Wikiquote. It is a poor decision to only favor our own content like this. If it's free content of even decent quality that compliments our own, it is worth linking to. (And note that the box is deliberately designed to be a different color from our sister project boxes to prevent confusion on this front). Phil Sandifer 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note also that the interwiki map is expressly biased toward free content wikis - David Gerard 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, to my knowledge, the MoS is not a complete list of what is permissable on Misplaced Pages and we do not generally need to first seek consensus at the MoS before trying out a new idea. If this policy has changed, please let me know so I can resign my adminship immediately. Phil Sandifer 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • /me goes to add "Admins called Phil are not allowed to quit" to the MoS - David Gerard 16:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• This is just a convenient and pretty way of inserting an interwiki link. It's useful, so it should be kept, even if it's not being used for much at present. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still not seeing any rationale as to why a box needs to be used, or any substance in the above "arguments". Matthew 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Because out-of-content text in articles is confusing whereas boxes clearly segregate navigational information? Because boxes match our other "Wiki X has information on this topic" formatting? Because, on balance, it's a reasonable amount of prominance for promotion of free content? Phil Sandifer 17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Matthew needs also to note that his "preferred version" - a template masquerading as plain text - is outside the rules for templates - David Gerard 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Huh? We have lots of plain text templates. -- Visviva 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - no real reason given to delete that's at all compelling. Moreschi 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Plain linking is fine enough.. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 15:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Plain linking is against policy. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - with Wikimedia wikis, and in mainspace, it's fine. This template isn't really used enough. Will 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Foundation policy is to support free content, not our free content. The template is visually distinct from the template links to Wikimedia projects - what's the problem with touting all such free content? That is why we have the interwiki table - specifically to make promoting other quality free content sites easier. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • and a box is needed to do that... why? Matthew 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
      • To match, aesthetically, with our links to Wikimedia projects while maintaining a distinct visual identity? Because, as has been said several times, templates masquerading as plaintext violate template policy. Phil Sandifer 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see any aesthetic match. Also could you point out the policy? If one is in existence then perhaps we should subst: the templates that are just plain text at present. Ta! Matthew 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The aesthetic match is probably best seen on Jedi - head down to the "See Also" section to see a Wictionary and Wookieepedia box right next to each other, and looking relatively in-place at that. As for the plain text rule, that would be in our policy on templates, which you should probably go find and read before nominating templates for deletion. Phil Sandifer 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Still not seeing it. What I do see though is that it screws up the following section on my res, oh... and why would some random reader look in see also for an external link? Not to mention the fact I read from left-to-right, so me, as a reader, isn't likely to notice the green box. Oh, and you're still going to have to link to this "policy", I really don't think we have a policy... I could be mistaken though, but I'm doubtful. Matthew 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
              • The box was made to be identical to the sisterproject box, except green, so if it's screwing up your screen it's almost certainly a problem on your end. (Since the sisterproject boxes are standard) And pretty much all studies of visual identity and strength suggest that a colored sidebar with an illustration will stand out more than a single entry in a list. Your mileage may vary, but if it does, you're definitely an atypical user. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I said section, not screen ;-). I'm sure you'll be able to link to these "studies" as well? Oh, and where's that policy? Hmm. Matthew 16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'm not going to give you visual layout 101 here. There really does come a point where skepticism is counter-productive. But do try Misplaced Pages:Template namespace for all your template-policy needs. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (unindent) ... A couple of things about Misplaced Pages:Template namespace... 1. It's a how-to page, does not have any binding force as policy (even if we consider policies binding, which of course they are not). 2. I assume the sentence in question is the one reading "should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace"... but a plain-text link template does nothing of the kind. -- Visviva 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, continue debate elsewhere - this is a proposed guideline at Misplaced Pages:Linking to other wikis, but no one commented enough on it, so it's been marked historical. The template as is isn't a problem - how it is proposed to be used is the issue here, and that should be addressed at that page, not through TfD. Nihiltres 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and convert its progeny (Template:TardisIndexFile, Template:Wookieepedia box, Template:BabylonProject, and Template:HarryPotterWiki) to single-line templates like gutenburg. Wikia is a for profit 'child of Jimbo', and the "official" Wikimedia Foundation sister projects are not for profit--big difference. AFAIK, there has long been, and I think should continue to be, a bright line between the two. Giving non-foundation site links the same 'look and feel' as foundation sites is misleading and gives them an air of authority they shouldn't have. See also Template talk:Wikia. Sohelpme 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not biased against for profit content - it's biased in favor of free content, which is what the Interwiki table this template uses lets us use. Wikia is free content and is thus on the interwiki table, but so are tons of other things that this template could be used for. Phil Sandifer 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand some of the statement(s) above--the template uses "infobox sisterproject", not some generic 'MediaWiki installation' class. My primary concern is maintaining a VERY bright line between Wikimedia Foundation websites and ALL other websites, and tweaking the background color of the template is not sufficiently clear IMHO. As for " is not biased against for profit content...", Misplaced Pages:External links is biased against sites with advertising. Also, I note the B5 and TARDIS wikis have hardly any activity, which seems to also run afoul of "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." under "Links normally to be avoided", so there seems to be a question of whether they should be linked at all at this point in time--another reason to maintain the bright line, let alone giving non-Wikimedia Foundation websites this sort of imprimatur. Sohelpme 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, how do you determine which non-Wikimedia Foundation websites get "promoted" to box status without violating WP:NPOV? Sohelpme 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally, I use the m:Interwiki table of trusted free content Wikis. You know, the one the developers made specifically so we could do links to other wikis that didn't have the nofollow tag? And external links merely notes that there's a problem with an objectionable amount of advertising - it does not ban or discourage links to sites with advertising. Please do actually be aware of policy before you vote according to it. It really will make discussions go more usefully. Phil Sandifer 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, partly based on "Misplaced Pages is not the place for advertising and/or propaganda," but mostly because this is just not a constructive direction for us to go in. Wikimedia wikis are one thing, and there are various reasons for giving those links a privileged status. However, providing "privileged"-seeming links to any free content provider is unwise and can only strengthen the impression that Misplaced Pages is a link farm.-- Visviva 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You can make that argument, but the existence of the interwiki table preetty much shows that not to be true. Put another way, if that were the case we wouldn't have an interwiki table of links that are meant to be used without the nofollow tag. The entire point of interwiki links is so that we can suport other free content sites. Phil Sandifer 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you provide your source that iinterwiki links are to promote free content? I've always been under the impression they're to make life easier... oh, and if they're to promote free content... why do we link to several non-free websites/non-content Wikis? Matthew 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, the only thing that presence on the m:interwiki map indicates is that a particular wiki (or in some cases, non-wiki) can be easily linked inline using an interwiki prefix. Ergo... why not just link them inline? -- Visviva 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see a compelling reason to delete this template (oh, oh, our dodgy MoS doesn't explicitly allow it? Deary me ... that reminds me of a joke), and I find David's link very interesting indeed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- comments:

1. Selected wikis should not take precedence over other free sites.
2. "Free" ≠ "desirable". WikiProject Spam has listings everyday of content-light, ad-heavy, "free" sites being spammed to Misplaced Pages. I'm not saying this is true of any of these wikis, but we do need to recognize that free is not always great.
3. Most Internet sites are "free".
4. The interwiki map has been abused in the past. It's probably "clean" now but bears watching for attempts to insert other stuff.
5. We don't box links to .gov or .edu pages.

--A. B. 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It shuold be easy enough to craft boxes for other free sites if appropriate.
2. This template uses the interwiki table, which is a spam free whitelist. It's not a generic template for external links by any stretch of the imagination.
3. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
4. Yes. We should watch it. That is not a reason not to use it.
5. Part of the use of these links is that they show people where to add good information that isn't encyclopedic. Just as a box for Wikiquote tells people where to add lists of quotations, a box for Wookieepedia tells people where to add in-universe information about Star Wars. Most .gov and .edu pages are not so accepting of user-generated content. Phil Sandifer 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Phil, in actuality, the interwiki map has a sorry history; see:

• Misplaced Pages:Interwiki map

That was the state of the map just 4 months ago. We want encyclopedic links. I'm not sure the criteria you cite, Phil, is in line with WP:EL, which specifically rules out linking to forums, and almost all other "user-generated sites". Linking to wikis is allowed but only if they are very well-established, high volume and self-correcting. Most of these are not.

Spotchecking just today, I find:

• http://corpknowpedia.org -- "The basic idea is to document and create a repository of information regarding those nefarious and elusive entities known collectively as corporations." POV
• http://jameshoward.us/ -- includes links to Mr. Howard's resume but many other links are broken, including the main search engine link.
• http://www.greencheese.us -- "coming soon"

Until I have more confidence in the quality of the interwiki map, I say "delete". --A. B. 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I personally believe that giving certain sites precedence could violate our Neutral Point of View. Matthew 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And the template page says "They should NOT be used to link to information that would be considered too unreliable or inflammatory for Misplaced Pages, or to free content resources that exist primarily to advance a particular agenda or point of view." So that's taken care of. Phil Sandifer 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:A Song of Ice and Fire Character

Template:A Song of Ice and Fire Character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template isn't used. Even if the template is "subst:"ed, a google search returned no evidence of its use. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:ASOIAF Character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to add this template to this discussion if you don't mind. Delete both as there is only one character article for this series (Daenerys Targaryen). All the other characters are grouped by House. –Pomte 03:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both, as nominator for former nom and in agreement with the latter nom. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. -- Phoenix2 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:User zh-wen-0

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 per user request. ^demon 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:User zh-wen-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I found that I cannot create a userbox which can match the other Template:User zh-wen-x. These userboxes are for Classical Chinese, yet I am unable to write in the same style of Classical Chinese as the others. So I strongly want this of my creation to be deleted. If I am an admin, I would have deleted immediately! --Edmundkh 16:37, 26 May 2007 (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.