< May 25	May 27 >

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

The apparent purpose of this template is to "pimp" (as the author put it) Wikias. Wikipedia'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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Note also that the interwiki map is expressly biased toward free content wikis - David Gerard 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, to my knowledge, the MoS is not a complete list of what is permissable on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • /me goes to add "Admins called Phil are not allowed to quit" to the MoS - David Gerard 16:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Huh? We have lots of plain text templates. -- Visviva 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Huh?" indeed. I've been around for quite some time (though not as long as David), and this is the first time I've heard of any such "rule". I suppose if such a rule really did exist, the entire contents of Category:Citation templates would have to be the first to go... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well there is this TfD rule that things that are not "dynamic" enough shouldn't be templated. Since the format of these wikilinks is pretty much fixed, it might apply in this case. This is not the imdb template, where it is possible that imdb would change the format of the url arguments in a future version of their site, and having such a template would then save us a ton of Bot-scripting. Regardless, it's a bit far-stretched --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no real reason given to delete that's at all compelling. Moreschi ^Talk 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Plain linking is fine enough.. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 15:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain linking is against policy. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - with Wikimedia wikis, and in mainspace, it's fine. This template isn't really used enough. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • and a box is needed to do that... why? Matthew 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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 Wikipedia:Template namespace for all your template-policy needs. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) ... A couple of things about Wikipedia: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)[reply]
• Keep, continue debate elsewhere - this is a proposed guideline at Wikipedia: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^(t.c.s) 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • 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 "[WP] is not biased against for profit content...", Wikipedia: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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Without expressing any opion on whether this template should be deleted or not, I'd like to correct this misconception. The interwiki map was created to make linking to other wikis (including Wikimedia projects such as commons:) and other commonly referenced sites (such as google: and bugzilla:) easier, by making it unnecessary to type the entire URL and by automatically providing a reasonable default link text (and, somewhat incidentally, by avoiding the external link symbol that would otherwise interfere with text flow). The implementation is also closely tied with (and pretty much an obvious extension of) the interlanguage link system, which is useful for other reasons. The fact that it also allows linking to certain other sites without the rel="nofollow" attribute being applied is entirely coincidental (I believe the interwiki map is older than nofollow support in MediaWiki), and only kept as is a) because enabling nofollow on interwiki links in the obvious way would also enable it on links to sister projects, which seems silly, b) because we do have reasonably good confidence that no sites on the interwiki map are make-money-fast scams, "herbal viagra" salesmen or other common spam targets, c) because, for now, it is the closest thing to a nofollow greenlist we have, and d) because, really, no-one has yet managed to persuade the devs to change it. That doesn't mean it's deliberate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the interwiki map has some quality control issues -- see this audit from several months ago, Wikipedia:Interwiki map, as well as my comments below about some problems I found just today when spot checking 8 entries. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is troubling. I had remembered, from a few weeks ago, a discussion about restricting entires on the interwiki map more, and it had appeared to have a consensus. I'm honestly surprised to see that not implemented yet. Regardless, I think there is a clear agreement on Meta to do these cleanups to the interwiki map. Showing the benefits of a clean interwiki map full of honest-to-god free content sites is probably, in light of that, a good idea. Phil Sandifer 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, partly based on "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is a link farm.-- Visviva 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia. 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. ^(talk) 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia: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. ^(talk) 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- I'm fine with similar templates for individual wikis on the interwiki map on a case-by-case basis, just not an all-encompassing blank check such as this one for everything on the map, since as noted in the very negative audit of the interwiki map several months ago, and my own spotcheck this week, there are recurring problems with inappropriate stuff in the interwiki map.

On a side note, it would be nice if we had a tool to list interwiki links such as we have with Special:Linksearch already. (if there is such a tool, let me know.) There's not much transparency (that I'm aware of) as to how individual wikis are linking here. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I personally believe that giving certain sites precedence could violate our Neutral Point of View. Matthew 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. And the template page says "They should NOT be used to link to information that would be considered too unreliable or inflammatory for Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
• Keep per David, Phil, et al. I encourage Matthew to cease edit-warring. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; linking to other free-content (i.e., GFDL-compliant) wikis is a good idea, especially if it can be used to migrate excessive fancruft elsewhere. *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has questioned linking to other Wikis... what is questioned is the usage of a non-neutral box to do this. Matthew 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is non-neutral about the box? Phil Sandifer 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with Matthew. pimped out external link. There is no need for this ( i didn't like the the interwikifoundation boxes, and these are even worse). It's attention advertising for free content, which in my eyes is just not ok. I see no reason to have free-content links get any more attention then reputable non free external sites. Promoting free-content is fine, but let's not overdo it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This TfD is totally clouded by the bad judgments and edit warring of both sites. There is not flat out reason to delete this template ( i don't like it myself, but he), but there is equally no reason to not allow both a text and a prettified template to coexist at the same time. Do we really need to go an hold an RFC on "prettified" external link templates ???? Please tell me we are all wiser then that ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I just realized this ship has SAILED, because someone used a bot to rename all the old templates (MemoryAlpha and HP ) to the new template name. That was totally bypassing the TfD process and totally out of line. No wonder this resulted in an edit war... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No... nobody used a bot to do that. Look at the edits again. They were just removing bullet points that were messing up the formatting of the page. Phil Sandifer 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should expand on my reason for deletion: I am fully agreeable to boxed links to Wikimedia sites: q:Margaret Thatcher will contain useful information about Margaret Thatcher. We should be promoting our sites. But most Wikia sites tend to be unwritten and contain little information more than we have. Of course, they deserve a link, as it's useful information nonetheless, but treating like a Wikimedia site isn't on. Plus the green against white is immediately attention grabbing. Also, I don't agree with the plaintext argument - indeed, as Ilmari said, the citation templates would be the first to go. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a semi-sanctioned template that has a huge potential for spam funneling abuse. Plus the template looks like an advertisement. What's wrong with using the current inter-wiki text linking methods? (Requestion 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • They haven't succeeded in communicating to the legions of people who want to add in-universe information to Wikipedia that there are better places for them to go? Phil Sandifer 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a huge fan of the inter-wiki links in the first place. They already get a huge [[internal link]] benefit of the doubt plus the lack of nofollow. I'm all for free content but I'm not sure encouraging this with a flashy advertisement is a good idea. (Requestion 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete.I like the idea of linking to wikia content (and think we should do more of it), but I don't think that this box is the way to do it. I think that wikias should be treated like typical hobby external webpages, and linked via the External Links section. To put something in a box like this implies a certain amount of Wikipedia editorial oversight, which is incorrect. A wikia, as I understand it, could be about anything. Non-encyclopedic content, copyright violations, lists of school songs, recipes, etc. Simply having a green-tinted box is not enough of a differentiator. We as experienced editors might understand the difference, but the typical reader will not. So, yes to linking, but no to the box. --Elonka 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You understand Wikia wrongly. Also, this box is not restricted to Wikia. Phil Sandifer 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, not just Wikia, but it is intended to link to other locations that have had questionable content in the past. As such, I still think that it's better to link to such sites via an External Link, and not via a box. --Elonka 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All non-Foundation websites should be treated equally. Free content should not be a determining factor when all other factors are considered equal. Wikipedia's mission is to create a free encyclopedia, not promote the free-content movement. Boxes like this should be reserved for Foundation wikis, as that seems to be the only way we will be able to prevent promotion of certain websites over others. The mission statement of the Foundation, which if I recall correctly says something about pushing free-content, should not get in the way of preventing this sort of spam. --- RockMFR 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sister templates are already an exception to a rule that doesn't need more exceptions. An external or interwiki link to a project that hosts free content is sufficient, and it doesn't require a green box. What is next, a red box for non-free resources? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons outlined by David Gerard and Phil Sandifer. Sean William @ 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I like it, which seems as strong as any of the delete rationales I'm seeing (thanks to David and Phil's excellent responses). --InkSplotch 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I spent about 40 minutes digging up evidence of recurring problems with the interwiki map and you're telling me that's an IDONTLIKEIT rationale??? --A. B. ^(talk) 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an IDONTLIKEIT rationale, but as strong as. Which is not to discredit your efforts, but I think Phil did an excellent job responding to your points. I agree with you that the interwiki map has been abused, but I also agree with Phil's response that it's not a reason to abandon it entirely. --InkSplotch 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... really?? To each his own. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that's a bit POINTy? Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...eh? No comprende. --InkSplotch 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; it's being used to allow for readers to see more content at another free project that will cover the information more indepth. It's not "pimping" Wikias, as Matthew suggests. It's about as "pimping" as an external link to the article or main page of the other free content project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's more pimply than a plain external link. This is just barely tolerable for other Wikimedia sites, as they all have the same goal of producing free content as we do. The Wikia wikis that most uses of this template promotes, however, are first and foremost a way for Jimbo to make a buck. There's no way we should give links to these sites a large, attention-grabbing box, especially on articles such as Tunisia, where they drown out actual reliable sources. —Cryptic 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah... putting a link to a Star Wars Wiki on an article about Tunisia is pretty stupid. Notably, I did not do that - I redirected a template that was already there to the box form. Frankly, neither one belongs on Tunisia, so that hardly seems germaine to this discussion. Phil Sandifer 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Making templates just because you can is no argument for keeping nonsense around. 2005 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sisterproject-style boxes are for Wikimedia projects, not for random for-profit Wikia sites that are almost never appropriate as external links of any sort. —Cryptic 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Phil and David. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gives undue weight to certain external links. I agree that links to those sites are (or at least can be) valuable to an article, and I'm a big fan of templates that standardize such links (such as ((sww))), but this calls too much attention to those links. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I should point out that there have been "requests" made on IRC asking people here to come and add a "keep" (I think it's obvious which users have been asked...) The closing sysop should probably take this into account. Matthew 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm... because those users are expressing an opinion they disagree with? Phil Sandifer 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS is very serious regardless of the side the canvassing is done for. I've added the standard ((!vote)) header template. If canvassing is occurring on IRC, that's of even greater concern, since that's not very transparent. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no canvassing. The topic has come up in IRC, due largely to Matthew's edit warring on related templates. Some people from IRC have come in and joined the discussion. But looking through this discussion it seems to me that everybody, on both sides of the debate, has done an excellent job of explaining their views and making this a discussion, not a vote. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing on IRC for a TfD reported --A. B. ^(talk) 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • There is plainly no consensus for such templates. You should exercise common courtesy and move to have it deleted yourself. Attempting to create policies via templates is not a good idea. If you don't move to have it deleted yourself, others should feel free to remove any such template on sight. 2005 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ummm... I'm not creating policies. I'm creating external links that help Wikipedia. I tend not to think I need a policy to do this. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ummm, creating spam templates that directly violate the external links guidelines is rude, and requires a lot of work from other editors to clean up the mess. 2005 21:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're not spam templates, and I find it rather rude to suggest that they are. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are templates linking to sites that usually do not meet the guidelines for external links. Creating templates to such sites, and adding them habitually, is external link spamming by definition. Please start cleaning up the mess. 2005 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to have templates for Wikia sites which gives them undue weight. --MichaelLinnear 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(edit: Talking to matthew has make me modify my posistion into more of a repurpose, see below) Conventional way of linking to other free content wikis. The links are appropriate, no one argues that, and this is a rather easy way to maintain those links and place new ones. -M^ask? 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I disagree that the links are always appropriate. Take a look at Wikipedia:Interwiki map for just out of control the list gets from time to time. I spot-checked the current list and came up with 3 sketchy sites out of the 8 that I checked a day or two ago (see my comment above. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our guideline on external links specifically singles out open wikis without significant contributors and history of stability as links to be avoided. I don't see how you can claim that no one's arguing that the links are inappropriate. —Cryptic 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links are obviously not appropriate. The external links guideline specifically says links to open wikis should normally be avoided, except under specific exceptions. If someone wants to change the guideline, then advocate that. making templates to circumvent guidelines is very much out of line, as are comments that deleiberately violating guidelines is appropriate. 2005 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket reply I have always interpreted that as external links used as a source. Obviously, we do not use open wiki's as a source. Having an interwiki link is perfectly fine. Otherwise, we'd have to eliminate all the interwiki links to say, the italian encyclopedia, or the serbian one. If you want to rewrite the policy, go for it, but it seems a fair number of people read it the way I do. -M^ask? 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The guideline says "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources" so why on earth are you interpreting it exactly backwards. Now please stop trying to ignore the guidelines. We have an external links guideline. If 'you want to turn it exactly on its head, attempt to get a consensus on the appropriate discussion page. Here it just appropriate to note that both your conceptions are objectively false. These links, in general, are specifically called out to be avoided. In specific exceptions they can be used, but making a template that blatantly violates the guideline is just goofy. 2005 06:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not cited is different then not used as a source. Wording is important, and the wording supports multiple good-faith interpretations. One is mine, another is yours. Don't wikilawyer around the guidelines. It's a guideline. Just that, it is certainly subserviant to the five pillars, one of which is 'wikipedia is free content'. We are, and part of that goal is to support other free content. -M^ask? 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why a box needs to be used to do that? (That is what this TfD is about... a box) Rather than the long established text linking. Matthew 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The box I could take or leave really. It's quite nice to have a template to insert the link for you instead of having to remember interwiki prefixes. If you disagree with how the template presents that link, then that deserves to be brought up on the talkpage. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -M^ask? 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for taking the time to reply. This TfD is specifically about the box, this template isn't transcluded, it's simply used to give certain external links boxes (as it states on its template page). I fully support linking to other websites, but not in this fashion (I have even edit warred to the try and keep text links, I'm not proud... but I'll admit it). One must remember that we must remain neutral, pimping some links, but not others, is basically saying "Hey there! Yes you! This site is the best!" (WP:NPOV), also there's a point that giving some links more "priority" could be considered endorsement. Matthew 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then, I was under the impression that this debate included the future of its child templates as well. If this TfD is solely about this box, I will change my opinion to wrapping the whole thing in noinclude tags and moving the content to a Wikipedia: namespace page on how to make interwiki link templates like the ones we have for linking to MemoryAlpha and the Harry Potter wiki. The appearance of those templates can be decided by those who have a preference for those issues. -M^ask? 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of allowing the projects to decide how they want to link is good to me, and would be a good way to proceed! Matthew 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Gerard. At worst this is harmless. -Doc^g 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Supporting other free-content Wikis is a good thing, since anything added there has the potential of becoming content for us later on, and vice versa. It's also a great way to prevent non-notable fancruft articles on Wikipedia, because it directs editors to a Wiki that's more appropriate for that (saving us a great amount of time when we already have a mountain of cleanup to do as it is). If there is a particularly pointless link, remove that, but in general this is a very excellent idea. Wikipedia is apart of a larger internet community, whether people know it or not. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just not needed. We already have an external links section - thats what it is for. No need to highlight some links with a pretty box. Viridae^Talk 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. External links do not belong in boxes and we should not be promoting certain websites this way. Prolog 09:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because giving free content outside of Wikimedia a little bit more emphasis is both permissible and desirable.--ragesoss 19:06, 2 June 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.

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 both ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. --Jacj 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:01, 2 June 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.

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^{[omg plz]} 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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.