< March 18	March 20 >

March 19

Template:Original Philadelphia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, consensus is this is better handled by an article, or a table within an article, rather than a navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original Philadelphia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template does not meet guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. The navbox subject does not correspond to any specific article, as no article on "Original Philadelphia" exists, and instead links to an article about the city's history (which does not specifically mention the content in the navbox). It includes too many piped links, many which include "explanations" about the topics which are not appropriate for a template and should instead be mentioned in an article –Dream out loud (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original details of what is in the template is from the History of Philadelphia. The original grid in Philadelphia was only Front Street-24th Street and between Cedar Street (now South Street) and Vine Street. It also talks about the 5 original square which the original template only included, but I expanded it to include the north-south and east-west streets. I don't think they need to be included in the Philadelphia Road Transportation template because some of the streets are actually very small (like alleys), probably not suitable for any major traffic and some are actually in segments like Lombard Street and Locust Street. The template was intended to capture the historical nature of the streets and not as transportation.--Veldtkitty40 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC) One more note... the original template was called Template:Five original squares of Philadelphia--Veldtkitty40 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC) --Veldtkitty40 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, poorly defined navbox with no real navigational purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:07, 26 March 2014 (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:Infobox Island of French Polynesia

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Island of French Polynesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox islands. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ICC world cup new template

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ICC world cup new template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox cricket tournament main. eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chris Troutman (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revised paid contributions

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revised paid contributions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If an article comply with all policies, then we shouldn't have a huge notice saying so. That's what we're aiming for, notices are for when there's a problem. Just because an article result from paid contributions is not a reason to have a giant notice at the top of an article. KTC (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NODISCLAIMERS if the contributions comply with all guidelines and rules, there's no need for an orange cleanup banner, which marks major problems. There's no need for any banner. Just have a talk page notice saying that the article contains paid contributions, same as they do when linked contributors edit articles and no COI problems exist. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is for allowing paid contributions in European Union, according with this judgement and Directive.--Temulco3 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the EU so stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.236.97 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is this a directive of the WMF handed down through the bureucrats or by Jimbo? If not, it still fails WP:NODISCLAIMERS; Wikipedia is based in the United States, not Europe. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Couple things here:

WP:NODISCLAIMERS is only a guideline, says "There are a few notable exceptions", and bases its authority mainly on "While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used" (which wouldn't apply if we decide to have this one) and "They are redundant to Wikipedia:General disclaimer (which arguably isn't true in this case). As a practical matter most disclaimer attempts have been about porn and so forth, which is why both Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles#Why disclaimers should not be used and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles#Dissenting opinions mostly talk about stuff related to WP:NOTCENSORED and forth, which doesn't apply here.
Dunno about the legal stuff, but as a matter ethics we should probably have some kind of notice. Even if it's not legally required by EU standards, I've never been a big fan of people who base their excuses for how they behave on "Well, technically I didn't break any law" and think that's the end of the discussion. And in fact every -- every -- other reputable publication uses something like this: ^{(advertisement)} at the top of commercial material that might be taken for editorial content.
After the existence of the template is accepted, we can discuss details, so I'd ask people to consider not necessarily being against this template if they're just against it's current form. For instance as a compromise we could change it to a smaller notice, like this: ^{(contains material provided by commercial contributors)} or something. Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another option here.--Temulco3 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see next template for details. In short some identification on the article page is necessary, *if a paid editors contributes commercial material*, but there is no rule that says we have to accept commercial material (indeed several rules against it -see WP:NOT) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus. --Andreas JN 466 02:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the EU court doesn't understand the notion of "not in the EU", let us draw them a picture. :) Seriously, the only people who would seem to be at risk if we don't include the template are firms in the EU that want to hire people to edit Wikipedia, and if that puts them at a competitive disadvantage relative to U.S. firms, boo hoo. :) But really seriously, the point is, if there's a legal reason for such a disclaimer then it needs to be written by WMF lawyers and put into the site disclaimer notice in a way that doesn't leave it as a matter of random chance whether it appears on a page. I should also inquire whether pro-template voters would say we would need this notice on those articles that got started with 1911 Britannica text, since that was produced commercially... Wnt (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea of keeping these templates is to say "this will satisfy legal requirements for disclosure" then we are just fooling folks (including ourselves). This and the template below, don't come close to satisfying the legal requirements. Perhaps WMF legal might weigh in on this, but in any case we shouldn't be suggesting that "legal advice" here - perhaps at WP:COI, with adequate disclosure in the text that we don't really give legal advice- but certainly not via a template discussion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question Looking at the text of the template, just who is supposed to determine that "The paid contributions comply with all Wikipedia policies"? Is the template intended to represent the view of the person who wrote the material, that they have complied with policy? Why should that have any more weight than the edits themselves? If, on the other hand, the template is intended to be used by someone revising the material from the paid editor, who exactly has the right to say this? As an admin I have the responsibility to remove material that I fell sure does not comply with policy, and like every editor I have the responsibility to refer doubtful instances to the community. I am not shy of doing these things, but unless I write the entire text of an article myself how can I say on my own authority that there are no errors, or policy violations, or that the declared paid editing has not harmed the article? If, for example, I have personally checked for copyvio and found none, I can and will say so, but I cannot say that I have checked for everything possible. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why do we need to warn people that an article is in compliance with all relevant policies? --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclosure to readers is not about identifying specific problems (no article is free of all problems), but rather is about maintaining the trust of readers by being open with the information that we as editors have that any such problems may reasonably be inferred as being caused by a conflict of interest. This is considered best practice in academic publications. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't actually identify all such edits though. And the court directive seems to indicate that all such edits need to be indicated. So that renders these templates inaccurate. Instead a blanket disclaimer should be placed on every page on Wikipedia. From my reading of what the signpost article said, it seems any connected contribution from someone who works in the field of the subject in question would require a disclaimer. So if you're a car mechanic and edit an article about car exhaust systems, to add technical detail without advertising your garage in Smallville USA, then you've just transgressed the line the German court set down, and the article is now tainted forever more, and any article taking material from this article. As people who work in a field are usually interested in their own field, we should expect these people would contribute to articles in their field. There's no way to identify these edits from the beginning of the 21st century when Wikipedia was founded through to now, so every page on Wikipedia will necessarily need to carry a disclaimer. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't actually identify all such edits. This is an important point but not necessarily a deal killer. There are probably lots of articles that are original research or biased or need refs that aren't tagged, and we aren't like "since we can't catch them all, let's not have a template at all".

This is not a legal issue at all. For one thing, German and EU (and UN) decisions have zero standing in American law which is the controlling authority. It's strictly and entirely a question of whether it's right for the Wikipedia and a service to its readers to have a template like this.

Therefore the car mechanic scenario above is entirely off the table. We're not gonna do that. However, there are other issues and questions, important and complicated ones, that do arise from the existence of a template like this, such as:

Exactly how and when it would be applied.
It's a disincentive for commercial editors to be aboveboard.
It is a regulation of commercial editing, and so could be seen as carrying the implication that commercial editing is allowed here, which is that very least debatable.

For complicated and subtle reasons that would take too long to describe here I don't at this time see these as a net negative, which is why I voted to keep the thing. Others may disagree. Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that there is some pressing legal need to place such a notice. If needed at all, this type of notice should go on article talk pages. Also currently unused. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but eliminate obnoxious characteristics. A small icon linking to the full text of the disclaimer, similar to Template:Pp-protected with the small=yes parameter, would be quite sufficient. While the disclaimer provides valuable information for the reader, there's no need for a huge Template:POV-style banner. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point. It may not meet the specified goal (regardless of whether that goal seems even vaguely desirable). Imagine that you're a company PR person. You make a small edit to the page, maybe to update the number of employees in the infobox. (I believe we can all agree that accurate numbers for common information is neutral and desirable, right?) Then you add this template in the hope that tagging the whole page will keep you out of legal trouble. But another editor comes along some day, and decides to remove it, on the grounds that everything seems to be just fine, so why clutter it up? Would the company then get into legal trouble? Would they be required to watching the page and edit-warring to keep the tag in place? And if not, then what really was the point of putting it up in the first place, and what's to keep someone "unrelated" and "unpaid" from mass-removing these tags in a purely-us-volunteers-here logrolling scheme? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paid contributions

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paid contributions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If there's NPOV problem, then we already have Template:POV. Just because an article result from paid contributions is not a reason to have a giant notice at the top of an article. KTC (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't this replicate ((COI)) ? the "close connection" is being paid to connect the subject to an article. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is for allowing paid contributions in European Union, according with this judgement and Directive.--Temulco3 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the EU so stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.236.97 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is this a directive of the WMF handed down through the bureucrats or by Jimbo? If not, it still fails WP:NODISCLAIMERS; Wikipedia is based in the United States, not Europe. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was boldly created by Temulco3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a template that anyone can add or remove may not be the best method, disclosures like this are indeed required under EU law. Also see Signpost report. Note that Smallbones and others recently sent a request for clarification to the Federal Trade Commission as to the legal situation in the US. Andreas JN 466 08:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry but I don't see templates being a solution for long term problems. Just sitting there at the top of the page, a template doesn't fix the problem and uglifies the page. Rather, IMHO templates should only be used temporarily while a fix is being attempted or at least contemplated. I don't know of a permanent fix for the problems caused by paid editing. The idea that this template is "required by the EU" is terribly wrong. The EU directive essentially says that *if a paid editor puts material on a page* (for commercial reasons) then that edit must be disclosed on the article page. Better solution - just don't put commercial edits in articles. Additional problem - the template doesn't identify what (or where) the commercial edit is (only that something is somewhere on the page). In short- the template looks like a futile attempt to satisfy the law. Bound to fail. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Smallbones, we agree on this: «The EU directive essentially says that *if a paid editor puts material on a page* (for commercial reasons) then that edit must be disclosed on the article page.». Please, can you make a design of a correct template for you?--Temulco3 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an open question whether we can put proper disclosure on the article page that is consistent with our rules and traditions, and this will take some time to work out. A simple template won't do it IMHO. Maybe something like a quotation will work: a) find a reliable source or the company's website that has the desired material. b) put the quoted material in a quotation template (separated off from the regular text). Identify the source as the company either immediately before or immediately after the quote. c) let editors know that they can't edit the material (just like the rule for quotations), so that we know what it is that the company is saying. But the quote can be removed in its entirely, just like any other quote, or (very, very carefully) have an extraneous paragraph removed. This all needs to be discussed in detail, not just slap a template on it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Wikipedians quoting the company's website. No disclosure is required for that (unless the Wikipedian is paid by the company). Andreas JN 466 01:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this or the one above. The original nominator's rationale is "Just because an article result from paid contributions is not a reason to have a giant notice at the top of an article". I agree that it's arguably true that a giant notice is not called for. So I've suggested possibly changing it to something less obtrusive such as ^{(contains material provided by commercial contributors)} or something. This should address the original nominator's concern and once we've decided to keep the template we can then discuss details regarding how unobtrusive it should be. If this doesn't address the nominator's concern and her point then devolves to "Just because an article result from paid contributions is not a reason to have ~~a giant~~ any notice at the top of an article" then: yes it is. I mean, of course it is. Every reputable publication includes a notice such as "^{(advertisement)}" in commercial material that might be taken for editorial content. Of course they do and even if they weren't legally required to (as I think they they are -- it gets debatable at the margins) they would still do as a matter of editorial hygiene, good practice, good ethics, and simple business sense. It makes no sense for any publication whose business model includes existing for more than few more years to try to bamboozle readers in this manner. So neither should we. Herostratus (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have the developers just put a blanket warning on every page that any page may contain paid contributions? We don't obviously know every paid edit, which seems to be a requirement of the court verdict, so a blanket disclaimer warning on every page would cover it; provided it is of the unobtrusive form you've outlined. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. I'm not sure if it'd be sufficient, but maybe. If there's an article in Time that's formatted to look like a news article but is an ad, it'll have ^{(advertisement)} right there, and the folks at Time wouldn't consider a notice on the masthead "Some of the stuff here looks like articles but is actually ads" to be sufficient, so I dunno. Food for thought, but any rate unless and until we can get the disclaimer changed maybe we should go with something like this. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start up a request at VPT or VPR to suggest a general disclaimer automatically shown on every page, then? (and a profile setting to turn it off) Seems the likely next step. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus. Andreas JN 466 02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Temulco3. Yeah, I know, he was a Keep vote. But what part of "this template is to allow paid contributions" carries any appeal? If paid contributors follow the bright line rule, they can disclaim their paid contributions when they post them to a talk page. When and if non paid contributors copy those additions to the article space, even if they happen to live in the EU, they should have no concern because they are simply reusing CC-licensed text on their own initiative. Wnt (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Either paid contributions are problematic, or they aren't. If they are, we've got a wide array of templates for marking exactly what those problems are, or we can simply remove the problematic contributions. If they're not problematic, why do we need to add a warning label? --Carnildo (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above [1]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hard experience has shown that paid contributions have a greater likelihood of containing NPOV problems than volunteer work, if the payment was by the article subject or someone connected to them, as is often the case. This template alerts editors to a situation requiring a higher level of scrutiny. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]