Template talk:FreeContentMeta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 26. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 February 6. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Contents 1 Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis 2 Proposed overhaul 2.1 In-between 3 Policy, promotion, and claiming sisterhood of Wikia

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis

There is a request for comments on Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis which may affect this template. Editors are encouraged to leave feedback on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis. --Phirazo 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per the recommendations at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis and Template talk:TardisIndexFile, I will be switching over FreeContentMeta to an inline style in a few days. I have an example in my user space at User:Phirazo/FreeContentMeta, User:Phirazo/Family Guy Wiki, and User:Phirazo/Sandbox 1. Thanks to User:Ned Scott for the proposal made at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis. --Phirazo 01:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this premature, and would like to see the change better discussed on the Village Pump and elsewhere. I, for one, was unaware that the Linking to other wikis proposal had come back to life - it was quite dead for a while after I first looked at it, and I'd not realized it had come back to life. Certainly it seems to have lower participation than many of the deletion debates that indicated a desire to keep these templates. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll post something on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), along with a more detailed rationale here. --Phirazo 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed overhaul

I am proposing to change this template to an inline style that better serves the purpose of promoting free content. I've never liked the current style of this template, which seems a little too much like a web ad. The style I am proposing looks like this:

•     The Doctor at The TARDIS Index File

As opposed to the current style, at right:

I think that the style I am proposing much more clearly indicates the linked content is free, and thus better promotes free content, while not looking like a web ad. It also avoids issues with logo copyrights, since many fandom wikis simply use the title card of the TV show they cover, and other free content wikis have their logos trademarked and copyrighted. --Phirazo 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned that the copyleft icon is a bit esoteric for a general readership. I am sympathetic to the logo issues involved with the FCM box, but am inclined to think that this logo is simply unhelpful and unclear. Furthermore, I don't think the web ad issue is significant - we use similar boxes for sister projects, and have no other sort of advertising. Nobody is going to think it's a Google ad.

Perhaps if we split the difference - abandoned the logos (which I agree are problematic) in favor of a copyleft icon, but maintained the box style (which I think is a good standard format for links that are not "related links" but rather "other free content resources with different sorts of articles on this topic." (Which is essentially what Wictionary and WikiQuote links are, and why we elevate them to box status - because they're not "other interesting stuff from the web," but rather "other free reference works on this subject." Which is a distinction worth drawing). Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Phirazo mentioned Google, Phil. That said I do believe it's an advert in it's present form. Matthew (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that was what he meant by "web ad," since Google ads are the most widely seen and visually similar to the sister project boxes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Phirazo, your idea is much better than the present "box". The Foundation's goal (AFAIK) is to support free content not promote it. At the moment this box: a) gives one link an unfair bias, b) is unnecessarily eye catching, and c) often disrupts the flow of the external links section (though the same can be said for Wikimedia boxes).

I'd definitely support implementation of your idea as it makes it clear the link is "free content" without giving it preferential treatment, and further it doesn't suffer from "LOOK HERE" syndrome.

Phil claims that "[free content] is a distinction worth drawing". Obviously I'm missing something here, but how does a box tell the reader that the content is "free"? It doesn't! However, your idea (with the logo and link) accomplishes that. Matthew (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I claim that "other interesting stuff" and "other reference works" is a distinction worth drawing - that is, that there's a fundamental difference between, say, a Wikiquote page on an actor and an IMDB page on an actor. When those reference works are also free content I think, based on our use of sister project boxes, we have an investment in differentiating the links to them. My concern about returning these to the EL section is based on that - doing so seems to me to eliminate an important part of the distinction that these boxes draw. Jimbo once said of Wikia that, if Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, Wikia is the rest of the bookshelf - that is, the other sorts of reference works. The sister project boxes always seemed, to me, a tool of cross-referencing the free content reference works. External links aren't about that, and a free content tag next to the free content elements in external links, while potentially a good idea, does not seem to me to duplicate the point of the FCM box. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Databank and Wookiepedia are both references on the Star Wars universe, but the former is copyrighted, and the later is available under a copyleft license. Thus the free resource has a box, and the non-free one does not. The reasoning behind this is opaque to our readers, who only see an eye-catching box, which lends Wookiepedia a certain amount of credibility, while the Databank, which is Lucasfilm's official online Star Wars reference, appears to be just another external link. There are problems calling unofficial, fan-created reference works like Wookiepedia truly "free", since they are based almost entirely on copyrighted material. This creates a derivative work, and the copyrighted material incorporated into the work is still copyrighted. While there are free content reference works that aren't sister projects and not derivative works (Wikitravel, for example), every box I've seen describes a fictional work. The boxes for sister projects are widely used, and have wide consensus behind them. However, these boxes are relatively unused; many boxes have only a handful of transclusions, especially when an inline version is available. I can understand the desire to promote free content, so I am proposing this as a compromise which promotes free content and doesn't draw undue attention. As for the icon, I would have no problems changing it; it could easily be an image that says Free, Libre, Free Content, or something similar. I went with the copyleft image because it was easily readable at small sizes and universal. --Phirazo 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We also routinely do a sister project link to Wiktionary, a free dictionary, which is of questionable value compared to the readily available Merriam-Webster, one of the two most respected English language dictionaries. Bartlett's Quotations can be accessed online, and yet we box-link Wikiquote, particularly bewildering given that it is a book of quotes, and thus the quotes are, by their nature, not free content. The intent of these boxes is clear - free content reference works. I support using better descriptions in the EL section to clearly indicate the quality of resource that the Star Wars Databank represents. But I think there is a genuine distinction to be drawn between free content reference works and other external links, and it's one we've drawn elsewhere. I think this distinction is significant and should be maintained. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The copyleft icon makes this distinction, and in a much clearer way than a box. How does a box say "free reference work"? --Phirazo 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The same way red text says "no article here" - by consistently meaning it until people understand it. (And I repeat my criticism that I don't think the copyleft icon is widely known enough to not be confusing) - especially when in a list with other items.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual icon is flexible - it could easily say Free, Libre, Copyleft, etc. The copyleft symbol just reduces well. Also, users can click on the icon to learn more about free content, and the box design never lets users know a resource is free. Red says "dead link" without having to explain it, the box does not. An icon to left of a link more clearly communicates "free" than a box. --Phirazo 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Phil, a box and a background does not convey "this is free content". You know that. However, it does say "look here and click me -- now". Matthew (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that a box that looks like a Wikiquote or Wikisource box suggests a resource that is similar to Wikiquote or Wikisource. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The sites linked aren't like Wikiquote or Wikisource. Most are supported by advertising, and none are run by Wikimedia. --Phirazo 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the current setup. As Wikia supports free content, it deseves a little extra attention, and should not be burried with other external links. And while Wikia is not strictly a sister project, it shares the same philosophy (as well as a founder). With regard to logos... if you see a logo that is copyrighted, remove it, as they violate policy anyway. However, that should not be an incentive to change this (and derivative) templates. (Oh, and... the TARDIS image has a proper licence.) — Edokter • Talk • 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like Phirazo's suggestion: identifies it as free (better than the current box) but isn't as attention-grabbing. And I think the FCM is meant for any free wiki, not just for Wikia projects. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel FCM is fine for many situations, but I do understand that people have objections to it being so attention-grabbing. The in-line icon style that Phirazo pointed out is likely to be a good middle ground. Other ideas with a similar style can be seen at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis#In-line EL with WIKI icon. I still hope that people will warm to the idea of using more distinction, especially during recent transwiki work, so readers know where the information went. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In-between

Here's a version "in-between". Any thoughts?

•     FreeContentMeta at Wikipedia

— Edokter • Talk • 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the background needed? The foundation's goal is to support free content not promote it (last time I checked). With no evidence to the contrary I can only fathom the purpose is to draw the reader's attention. Matthew (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is still to much of a soap box for the linked site. --Phirazo 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, Phirazo, don't kid yourselves. We are promoting other wikis, because they support free content, and because in doing so we help not only the other wiki, but we help Wikipedia at the same time. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use this or that, I'm just saying that promotion/distinction is the aim here. -- Ned Scott 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree - supporting and promoting are not significantly different. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV pretty clearly forbid the promotion of anything on Wikipedia. --Phirazo 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not sit here and split hairs over the definition of promotion. Why do we include some ELs in the EL section and not others? Couldn't it be said that we're promoting some ELs and not others, by our inclusion criteria for ELs? What about things like the IMDB links in Template:Film infobox? I'm guessing the reason the community doesn't see those as "evil promotions" is because we're not really giving a hoot about what organization or service is hosting the information we are linking to. We simply care about the information. We are promoting useful information. To add to that, we are giving distinction to information that is under a free license and is using a wiki interface, which is likely to be of additional interest to people who come to Wikipedia (a free wiki). -- Ned Scott 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the definition of "promotion" isn't terribly relevant. The real issue is to what extent we want to visually draw extra attention to free-content websites. In my assessment, there has never been consensus to use tinted boxes for anything other than sister sites. On the other hand, there also has been no consensus not to draw a visual distinction between non-Wikimedia websites that offer free content and those whose content isn't free (which is why some such templates have remained). It seems, therefore, that switching to the standard external link format with the addition of an appropriate icon is a reasonable compromise.

I'll note that Phil's argument that an icon such as the copyleft symbol has little meaning to the general public is directly contradicted by his argument that a tinted box will become widely recognizable as a free reference work indicator "by consistently meaning it until people understand it." Regardless, as Phirazo noted, we could use one or more different icons instead. —David Levy 06:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So do the boxes promote the sites linked to, or not? We're not splitting hairs on what is and isn't promotional; User:Matthew said the boxes are promotional, and User:Phil Sandifer and User:Ned Scott agreed with him. There is a long standing consensus that Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of anything. However, I think the icon strikes a good middle ground; it recognizes free content but does not draw undue attention to a particular external link. --Phirazo 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just made a donation to the Foundation today, and the follow up page listed three other organizations unrelated to the Foundation that they were encouraging donations to. One of them was freenode, the irc network where a lot of technical, administrative (not just the "admin" kind), and article collaboration happens. Another was to some math website, where I guess we got a lot of our content for math-related articles (since both sites are GFDL). I think the idea here with FCM, and with those donation links, is somewhat the same, in that helping/noting/linking those external resources comes back to help Wikipedia.

But I do see your point in that we don't want to make it like some kind of an advertisement. I think of it more as distinction, so that the reader is finding a relevant link that is likely to be of interest to them, and where they can tell it's a wiki from the link, etc. As long as we can do that then I'm fine with whatever we end up agreeing with here. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. To my mind, the important questions are these:

1. What is the purpose of the existing sister project boxes?

2. In what way are the FCM boxes different from the sister project boxes?

3. Are those differences relevant?

I have my views on those answers, but I'm curious what Phirazo and Matthew think. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'll weigh in:

1. The sister project boxes are intended to inform our users that other Wikimedia projects have information related to various articles' subjects. This benefits the projects (which receive additional readers/editors) and the users (who find additional information about these subjects and additional opportunities to contribute).

2. Non-Wikimedia websites don't necessarily have editorial standards comparable to that of the Wikimedia Foundation. Additionally, providing a flashy box comes across as an advertisement/endorsement. That's fine when we're advertising/endorsing an affiliated website, but it's troublesome when the only criterion is that the site be a free-content wiki (which in no way guarantees high quality). Applying additional criteria places us in the similarly problematic position of selectively advertising/endorsing some unaffiliated free-content wikis and not others. Limiting such boxes to sister projects (Wikimedia linking to itself) eliminates these issues.

3. Yes, I believe that these differences are highly relevant. —David Levy 13:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue I have is that the WM/non-WM distinction does not seem to me to necessarily be endorsed by the community. Wikinews, which we link to, has significantly different editorial standards than we do, and crosslinking there is an issue. Wikiquote has fairly poor editorial standards in some key regards. So the editorial standards claim seems to me untrue in practice. It also seems to me correctable - if we judge boxes individually based on the quality of the reference and treat "bad reference" as a good reason for deletion the situation can be policed adequately - and, in fact, probably better than the Wikimedia boxes can be, since those are utilized without reference to quality beyond deciding if it's WMF it must be good (which is odd, since WMF takes a very minimal editorial role in their projects). Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. By the "significantly different editorial standards" of Wikinews, are you referring to their allowance of original research? I'm referring to differences along the lines of many non-Wikimedia wikis not requiring editors to cite sources or maintain a neutral viewpoint when contributing encyclopedia-style information.

2. As I said, "applying additional criteria places us in the similarly problematic position of selectively advertising/endorsing some unaffiliated free-content wikis and not others. Limiting such boxes to sister projects (Wikimedia linking to itself) eliminates these issues." (It establishes an unambiguous boundary and removes the appearance of advertising/endorsing unaffiliated websites.)

3. In addition to all of the above, it's my opinion that the proposed setup (free-content icons next to otherwise normal external links) is far more practical, elegant and attractive. —David Levy 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the free-content icons in external links are in any way a replacement for these boxes. The original conception of these boxes was to better situate Wikipedia in the context of free-content resources. Much like a WikiQuote box says "If you have quotations, add them here," a TARDIS Index File box helps say "if you have lengthy amounts of in-universe information, add it here." It helps eliminate the problem of information loss from deletion and removal of content by putting Wikipedia in a larger context. This is the key thing - promoting free content isn't just about making it more prominent. It's about contributing to it, and about being a good neighbor. We should not make Wikipedia a walled garden. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"1. What is the purpose of the existing sister project boxes?"

I'm not sure what the purpose of sister project boxes are. They're highly used, so I assume there is consensus behind them.

"2. In what way are the FCM boxes different from the sister project boxes?"

The consensus on FCM boxes is much more muddled. There have been a few "no consensus" votes on its deletion, and they are not very highly used ({{sww}} has hundreds of transclusions, {{Wookieepedia box}} has 10). The standard way of linking to Wikimedia sites is with boxes, and the standard way of linking to everything else is with a line of text. FCM boxes break this standard. Additionally, since the sites linked to are, without exception, for-profit ventures supported by advertising, this box is inappropriate promotion for the linked sites.

"3. Are those differences relevant?"

WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV are very important policies, and they all forbid the promotion of anything on Wikipedia. The entire point of templates is standardization, so we should stick with the predominate external link style, a line of text. If editors want to call attention to the fact that content is free, then we should actually make the distinction by telling readers that content is free, instead of using a box, which just says "look at me". --Phirazo 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am, frankly, more concerned about limiting promotion to WMF sites, which seems the far more dire and problematic self-promotion. At least if we promote free content resources that a consensus has formed regarding the value of we're promoting an ideological position inherent to the project instead of promoting the work of a single non-profit organization. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been big "Donate to Wikimedia" banner ads in the past. I don't see the problem with self-promotion. --Phirazo 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Like for example the ad at the top of every Wikipedia page saying "Early registration for Wikimania 2008 is now open." --Phirazo 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not jumping too much into the debate, but it still looks like a big attention grab... Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this? just to throw it out there. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy, promotion, and claiming sisterhood of Wikia

See debate 1 and debate 2 on the deletion of {{wikia}}. Also see Template talk:Wikia#Why this template matches Template:imdb and not Template:wiktionary (I see there's some overlap in the contributors to both debates). This shouldn't have a box, and at that point it's little more than a minor variant of {{wikia}}.

Insomuch as the code doesn't seem to be in particularly wide use, or in very good shape for that matter, simply changing existing instances to use {{wikia}} as a base template and then getting rid of this would appear to be the best option. I had a go at doing this in some of the more obvious cases earlier today (the ones which doesn't use custom images etc), but was rolled back. So here we go with the debate. In box format it's inappropriate because it's pretending that Wikia wikis are sister sites, and in inline format it's just a clone of {{wikia}}. I'd rather see what I'm missing before taking this to its third TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer continually cites a lack of consensus that such boxes shouldn't be used for non-sister projects, which is accurate. However, there also is (and never has been) consensus that the boxes should be used for non-sister projects. I don't see why a lack of consensus in either direction should mean that we default to a controversial, nonstandard setup.

A reasonable compromise has been proposed above, and I see no valid reason (other than the likelihood that Phil would revert) not to implement it. —David Levy 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the number of objections I've raised. Which I'm happy to reiterate - the benefits of box-format cross-links are as follows:

1. A uniform style of expanded free content references is created, making Wikipedia a good neighbor in the free content community instead of treating Wikimedia content as a walled garden. This is an essential part of our mission, and to zealously restrict our cross referencing to WMF content is wrong.

2. Given the difficulties we have in garnering community consensus on what is and is not in Wikipedia's purview, a good neighbor policy is an effective way of not orphaning and deleting content that is accurate, useful, and not entirely in Wikipedia's purview. In-universe material regarding fictional texts is one of the most frequent problems here - we often get well-written, accurate material that is just too fannish to use in Wikipedia, and we often delete that material or blank it. Because we are a much more high profile site than many of the fandom-specific wikis this content, despite its quality, is simply lost. This is a direct result of our walled garden policies - we're the top dog, and because we don't set ourselves up to trickle down into the rest of the free content community it becomes an all or nothing game. The result is an appallingly high rate of lost content. The original concept of these boxes and their original goal was to try to prevent edit wars by providing a clear way to spin off in universe material - just as nobody objects to a list of quotes being moved to WikiQuote and linked prominently, the hope was that nobody would object to a lengthy plot summary being moved to a Wikia project. This goal depends on those links being prominent - de-emphasizing them in turn makes them less effective at networking Wikipedia's content.

3. The copyleft icon is unclear and is open advertising instead of careful and purposeful cross-referencing - it takes away all of the benefits of the boxes and leaves only the purpose of advertising which it is ostensibly trying to downplay. It is the rare compromise that is clearly worse than both of the existing proposals.

In short, these box links are useful and have uses, and if people would stop edit warring them and start implementing them we'd see those uses develop more fruitfully. No credible explanation of any problem caused by them has ever been presented, and the arguments against their use have repeatedly failed to gain consensus, while their use has steadily and quietly expanded, mostly without rancor except in occasional outcries of TfDs that have repeatedly and serially failed to gain consensus. To say "Oh, sorry, you haven't demonstrated positive consensus" when FCM has steadily been implemented in more and more cases is a silly bit of rules-lawyering maneuvering. The fact of the matter is, no consensus exists against this, and plenty of de facto consensus exists for it in the form of TfDs that have defaulted to keep and expanding use. The template has clearly demonstrable uses that are in line with our policies and goals. This is a manufactured controversy at best, and a shameful distraction from the actual task of improving the free content knowledge available to the world at worst. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The goals expressed above are laudable, but there is no consensus that your preferred method is the best means of accomplishing them.

2. I dispute the notion that it's somehow inappropriate for us to link to our own content in a different manner than we link to others' content. (Should we also add non-sister project links to the main page?)

I'm all for being a good neighbor, but that doesn't mean elevating all free wikis to the level of pseudo-sister project. I realize that isn't the intention here, but these boxes are likely to create either that impression or the impression that we're hosting flashy advertisements for these websites (which...we are). The latter concern isn't applicable to sister project boxes, as those link to Wikimedia sites (id est to ourselves).

3. You keep pointing out that the copyleft icon is unclear (in your opinion), ignoring the fact that we could use a different icon instead. If, as you claim, users will come to associate a colored box with free content, they certainly could learn to recognize a green "free" icon (or whatever) to mean the same thing. And I don't understand your argument that the use of an informative icon "leaves only the purpose of advertising" and that a large, colored box is somehow superior in this respect.

4. I'm afraid that the rules-lawyering is yours. You've consistently spun the lack of consensus to delete this template into a mandate for its use. You've claimed that this precedent automatically precludes the possibility of deleting any templates derived from this one, and you've even redirected other templates to them and reverted attempts to retain the old style (citing "no consensus" to do so). So after forcing the community to use this template (in a manner likely to convince many users that there really is no choice), you now are citing its use as evidence of "de facto consensus."

You've apparently decided that we aren't permitted to employ any other method until we establish consensus against using this one. Right now, we're discussing the possibility of restyling the template and its derivatives (not deleting them, but merely editing them...you know, like on a wiki?), and you're dismissing/condemning our concerns as either "a manufactured controversy" (ignoring the fact that people have complained about and attempted to change/remove these templates from the beginning) or "a shameful distraction" (which is a rather harsh assessment of a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if you happen to disagree with it). —David Levy 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to employ any methods you want, but deprecating something with no consensus to do so is inappropriate. As for the "ourselves" argument, I think it rather egregiously misunderstands the nature of this community. I have as little to do with Wikiquote as I do with the Muppet Wiki - from my perspective, both are different projects from this one, and both clearly have very different communities. So to draw the "us vs them" distinction is simply erroneous, unless you have recently become a Foundation member and are expressing an official viewpoint. As for the difference between highlighting something on a list of external links and using a format that has already been established as linking to related projects (and that explicitly says "X has more information about Y" (which is more than just advertising), I think this is fairly obvious - the point of the copyleft icon is merely to highlight. The point of a sister project box is to do more than highlight - it's to establish the article in a particular type of relationship with other reference works. That difference is material. As for rules-lawyering, I have done very little to implement these templates - I created the first one, put them on a few articles, and left it at that. I've defended them when attempts to delete them have taken place. But mostly they've stood on their own merits, and, notably, they've resisted efforts to deprecate them. Any attempt to say that their deprecation has consensus is materially false - their deprecation has repeatedly failed to gain consensus, both on the level of policy (where deprecation has failed TfD repeatedly) and on the level of implementation (where their use has grown, not shrunk). Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to employ any methods you want, but deprecating something with no consensus to do so is inappropriate.

Firstly, "deprecating something with no consensus to do so" is exactly what you did when you replaced the longstanding (consensus) linking method with this one (and reverted attempts to switch back). There has never been consensus to use these boxes (and there always have been strong objections from many users), but you cite the lack of consensus to not use them as an incontrovertible proof that we should.

So okay. Given the fact that you "deprecat[ed] something with no consensus to do so," I suppose that we should restore the only consensus style that we've ever had (the standard external linking) until another method (yours or someone else's) has consensus.

Of course, that isn't what I seriously advocate. I'm trying to discuss the proposed introduction of an alternative style (in the hope of establishing consensus, because I actually agree with the above sentiment). You've deemed said discussion "a manufactured controversy at best, and a shameful distraction from the actual task of improving the free content knowledge available to the world at worst."

I can only respectfully disagree with your argument that Wikipedia has as much relevant connection to non-Wikimedia wikis as it does to sister sites. When something carries the appearance of advertising, whether it pertains to a legally affiliated entity or an outside entity is of the utmost importance. The former is no different than the sister project links displayed on the main page, while the latter is preferential treatment for certain external websites (many of which are commercial) and not others. A "free content" icon, conversely, would convey the site's nature (just as our "PDF" and "secure" icons do) without coming across as an official (and potentially paid, as far as many readers know) endorsement.

Your statement that "the point of a sister project box is to do more than highlight - it's to establish the article in a particular type of relationship with other reference works" ignores the fact that the proposed format would accomplish the same goal. It merely incorporates an alternative visual style that some of us feel is more appropriate.

And again, you deployed these templates without consensus, reverted attempts to restore the longstanding format (claiming that this was procedurally improper), and now you're citing the resultant use (which you've forced) as evidence of "de facto consensus." —David Levy 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I deprecated nothing. The only two cross-links that I ever tried to replace with a new form were the Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha ones. When this met with resistance I dropped the effort to replace any links. So it's hardly accurate to say that I engaged in any sort of deprecation, or that existing links were replaced by me. If they were replaced in specific cases, you'd have to look at those cases - if they've survived significant periods without rancor then this suggests consensus, however. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. So...you didn't redirect {{hpw}} to {{HarryPotterWiki}} and quickly revert an attempt to restore it (noting that there didn't "seem to be consensus for that")? And you haven't been telling people that we must continue using these boxes because there's no consensus not to (effectively locking them in as the new default)?

2. This isn't even relevant, given the fact that I don't advocate abandoning these templates. As I stated above, I'm attempting to engage in discussion that I hope will lead to consensus for modifying them. For some reason, you've condemned this as either "a manufactured controversy" or "a shameful distraction." —David Levy 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for my imperfect memory of my year-old edits. *rolls eyes* Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That you misremembered is not what concerns me. —David Levy 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what does? We're still talking about three templates out of a list of over a dozen that were ever altered from a previous version, and, so far as I can tell, one that actually is an alteration as opposed to simply a different approach. You've at best got the Harry Potter template as deprecated, in which case this is a matter for the Harry Potter WikiProject, not a general policy issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My concerns:

1. You've continually claimed (thereby leading some to believe) that a lack of consensus for the template's deletion constitutes a mandate for its use, and you counter all attempts to stop using it.

2. You now cite said use as evidence of consensus that it should be used.

3. You've condemned a good-faith, consensus-seeking discussion regarding the possibility of modifying the template and its derivatives, deeming it either "a manufactured controversy" or "a shameful distraction." —David Levy 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No - I've said that the lack of any consensus to deprecate existing use means that expanded use is acceptable - there has never been a claim on my part for some "mandate" for use. I've never suggested that they must be implemented or that they are in demand. Quite the contrary, I've had a negligible role in the actual propagation of these templates. All I have ever said is that the position that these templates are unacceptable and can be removed on sight does not have consensus, and I have reverted attempts to forcibly deprecate them on the basis of the repeatedly demonstrated lack of consensus that forced deprecation has. In the meantime, and parallel to that, the template and its derivatives have steadily increased in use. Thus the position that the template should be deprecated exists as one that has an obvious lack of consensus, and the position that the templates are acceptable to use in specific circumstances has an equally obvious consensus given the total lack of edit wars on most articles that these templates are in use on. I make no claims whatsoever about the notion of an overall consensus for these templates because it's immaterial - there is no consensus that they should be forbidden, and a de facto consensus on a number of articles that they should be used. This is all that is actually required for their use. The idea that some sort of consensus needs to exist before it is permissible to use the templates is an egregious misrepresentation of policy.

So yes - I am inclined to vigorously resist an attempt to forcibly deprecate a template when there is obvious evidence that no consensus to do so exists. And I think that your blatant misrepresentation of this template's origin as being a deprecation of a previous format, combined with the fact that you are citing a non-existent requirement for an affirmative consensus when in fact all that is required is localized consensus on specific articles where the template is implemented is accurately described as a meaningless distraction or as an attempt to reduce the act of editing the encyclopedia to a game of nomic.

Given that, the idea that there is some consensus to deprecate the template in favor of a new model is absurd. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. You've never explicitly stated that the template's use is "mandated," but you've countered all attempts to stop using it. Even in the very beginning, when someone restored an older template that you redirected, you quickly reverted (noting that there didn't "seem to be consensus for that"). In your assessment, a lack of consensus always means that we default to using this template.

2. I haven't claimed that "the position that these templates are unacceptable and can be removed on sight" has consensus. I've plainly stated that there is no consensus for or against their use. I've also noted my personal opinion that they're flawed but not without merit. I'm certainly not arguing that these templates are terrible or grounds for edit-warring, but I believe that they can be improved. Some of us are attempting to discuss doing just that, and you've condemned this as either "a manufactured controversy" or "a shameful distraction." Now you're trying to use the lack of edit warring (because we've decided to discuss the matter instead of rushing to make changes) against us (by citing it as evidence of consensus).

3. The template has continued to increase in use because people some people like it and others copy what they see. The use of {{wikia}} also has continued to increase, but I wouldn't cite this as evidence that its format is superior. And again, I'm not even claiming that this template is devoid of merit. The format under discussion is a compromise between the two in use (including one that's used far more than this one). You've noted the benefit of consistency (which I agree with), and now you're saying that we should instead allow wikiprojects to pick their preferred styles (and possibly even adopt a third style).

4. I'm not claiming that "some sort of consensus needs to exist before it is permissible to use the templates." I'm saying that there would have to be consensus for their use before it would be appropriate to advise users that it's improper to not use them. And under no circumstance would it be appropriate to attack users for merely seeking to modify their format (which, even in the presence of overwhelming consensus, could never be impossible to improve).

5. I don't seek to deprecate the template, nor do I claim that there is consensus of any kind. I seek to build consensus for modifying the template. On what grounds, other than the fact that you don't want the template to change, do you object to that? —David Levy 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I co-administer This Might Be a Wiki (interwiki tmbw:), a free-content wiki about They Might Be Giants. I also occasionally edit Wikipedia. If I may add my two cents, I'd like to express support for the new design proposed above. To me, the current version seems a bit counterproductive, as it's likely to fuel the already rampant misconception that every MediaWiki-based wiki is affiliated with Wikipedia. At TMBW, we've gone out of our way to dispel this belief, but it still remains quite prevalent. We also don't want to make it appear as though we've come on Wikipedia and inserted ads for our wiki, because that obviously seems sleazy. It's for these reasons that I discouraged a few of our users who wanted to replace Wikipedia's regular TMBW links with such a box. If the proposed version were adopted, I'd feel much more comfortable using it. -CapitalQ (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Outdenting to avoid being drawn into particular arguments. As I see it, "no consensus" is being used here to mean "not unanimous", which isn't really how it works. The creator of a template doesn't get a veto, and most of the arguments for keeping on the TfDs appear to either be procedural or missing the existence of {{wikia}}. Anyway, the issue here is consistency above anything else, and none of the following seems to have happened:

1. Discussion regarding general boxification of Wikia resources, either at template talk:wikia or elsewhere.
2. Discussion with the maintainers of the sisterlinks templates in establishing how such a box might fit into Wikipedia's sisterlink box pool.
3. Discussion with the board and other parties regarding the special-casing of Wikia. In particular, from what I've gathered from past discussion, Wikia should explicitly not be promoted from within Wikipedia.

So I ask again: if none of this discussion has taken place, and there's already an existing template which covers this use case which is both in much wider project use and predates this one by over a year, why is the onus on those wishing to preserve the status quo to seek "consensus" rather than on those who apparently wish to change the way things are done without having first asked if this were appropriate? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can treat templates that have been in use for over a year and have survived multiple TfDs as some anomalous new idea that needs to pass an arbitrary milestone to achieve validity. The horses have left the barn on this one - rounding them all up and shooting them requires a level of consensus that has not been demonstrated. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me that {{FreeContentMeta}} exists (assuming that the above bullets will be worked on), but I do object to using rollback to enforce its use above an equally-valid and more widely-used alternative. You still haven't adequately demonstrated why it's more suitable, and the onus is on the creator to assert worthiness rather than the other way around (although try telling that to some of the more rabid inclusionists on XfD). Two TfDs in a year is a cause for concern, not affirmation of worth. On top of that, as you're the author, primary maintainer and advocate for said template I don't really think that you're the best person to be setting the criteria upon which its future is to be judged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the author of FCM. I have not created the majority of the sub-templates, nor have I done the majority of implementation of those sub templates. Don't misrepresent the situation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You used rollback on ~10 instances of tranclusion of said template yesterday, so you're demonstrably paying attention to its propagation. I'd appreciate not being accused of intellectual dishonesty in what is already an unnecessarily personal and procedure-based debate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There has never been consensus for the templates' use. There merely has been a lack of consensus as to whether they should be used. They've remained in use because you've countered all attempts to remove them, insisting (and likely convincing users who don't know better) that their use is mandated by the failed deletion attempts and the lack of consensus to not use them. —David Levy 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative consensus is not required to implement something like this! They have remained in use because other people have added them. My actions in creating sub-templates of FCM and putting those sub-templates on articles are negligible. When you pull up The Unicorn and the Wasp and see the FCM-derived template there, it was not me who put it there. When you see the box on Skystriker, it was neither me who put it there nor even me who created the sub-template. Until I saw thumperward mass-deprecating the templates I had no idea a G.I. Joe template even existed! So to suggest that the fact that over 100 articles have that template is somehow because of my forcible implementation is a lie. All I have done is revert attempts to undertake a course of action that has been explicitly rejected, namely forcibly deprecating these templates. Which is appropriate, since, well, doing that has been explicitly rejected.

You are making it very, very difficult to assume good faith here - between the flagrant lie that I have been the primary force implementing these templates and the absurd suggestion that some affirmative consent is necessary on a policy level (a policy that essentially back-doors the deletion policy by saying "Ah, but if it fails to garner consensus to keep it exists in a strange limbo position where we don't delete it but don't use it," which is transparently not what our deletion policy is) it is increasingly obvious that you're more committed to engaging in political maneuvering to get your way no matter what the policy actually is. If you wish to implement your so-called "compromise" (which is really a consensus-free deprecation of the template), feel free to create alternate templates and get local consensus on articles to implement them. Presenting an alternate style for links is fine, and it lets individual WikiProjects decide what is most appropriate for that subject area - which is as it should be, since those projects are the best suited to evaluating the specific wikis they're linking to. Creating the template proposed above and implementing it on articles requires no special consensus, so go for it.

If, on the other hand, you want to deprecate this template, well, deprecating an existing practice does require consensus. If you want to deprecate this, take it to TfD again, and convince the community that despite the repeated lack of consensus to delete the template it's somehow worth yet another debate. But stop with the games - while you may have sufficient time to play a vast game of nomic, I don't, and will not be participating further. Unless some evidence is actually presented that deprecation of this template has consensus, I will revert efforts to deprecate it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not claiming that "affirmative consensus [is] required to implement something like this." I'm saying that there would have to be consensus for their use before it would be appropriate to advise users that it's improper to not use them. And under no circumstance would it be appropriate to attack users for merely seeking to modify their format (which, even in the presence of overwhelming consensus, could never be impossible to improve).

2. I'm also not claiming that the templates are devoid of merit or that you're the only one who wants to use them. I'm noting that opinions are mixed and expressing my belief that the templates can be improved via the introduction of a compromise format (which also would establish uniformity across all articles). You're entitled to oppose this idea, but I don't understand why you've condemned an attempt to discuss it.

3. At no point have I argued that the template and its derivatives are "in a strange limbo position" where they can't be used, nor have I radically altered one or removed one from a single article. I'm merely disputing your argument that a lack of consensus for its deletion is tantamount to consensus for its use. There is no consensus in either direction, and I'm attempting to rectify that.

4. Are you seriously suggesting that we should maintain multiple redundant templates and leave it up to each individual wikiproject to determine which one to use (instead of seeking consistency, a goal that you just argued in favor of)?

5. No, I don't want to deprecate this template. I want to improve it. —David Levy 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're putting the cart before the horse, and refusing to argue the case I originally put forward. This template is a nonstandard replication of the demonstrably widely adopted {{wikia}} template which has additional problems in that it is explicitly intended to promote Wikia properties as affiliates. That it has seen some use (less than 20 transclusions over an eighteen-month period, compared to ~450 for {{wikia}}) does not imply widespread community acceptance, nor does its survival through two TfDs. The onus is on you, as the individual currently reverting {{FreeContentMeta}} -> {{wikia}} migrations, to explain why the nonstandard template is the better choice in that case. If you're not prepared to argue that case then I assume that's fine with David and me, because silence implies consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have argued the case - FCM templates are in sufficient use that calling them "non-standard" is clearly inaccurate. You are trying to deprecate them in favor of another template despite a lack of consensus to forcibly deprecate them. Barring any evidence that such a consensus exists, reverting such deprecations is appropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you condemn an attempt to establish consensus? —David Levy 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they really aren't - 20 into 450 makes for less than 5% of existing Wikia links. I've been taking half-cooked clones of {{wikia}} to TfD as and when I've been able to replace them for some time now, with little individual resistance from the individuals involved in implementing said instances. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to repeat that I'm happy with the template's continued existence, but until such point as the bullets I started this thread with have been addressed I don't see any reason for using it in lieu of {{wikia}}, which has much broader adoption and lacks the question marks over its implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason the templates cannot exist in parallel and be left to individual WikiProjects. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency is highly preferable (both for the readers and for the editors who wouldn't need to debate which template to use).

Additionally, the current mixed use create the appearance that certain wikis have been granted a higher status than others. For this reason, I'd actually prefer the consistent use of your format over the status quo (but I obviously believe that better options exist). —David Levy 21:51/22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#T3 implies that templates shouldn't substantially duplicate each other. Minus Phil's rollbacks yesterday, this template saw only a handful of transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what T3 means at all. T3 is a criteria for deletion, not a recommendation. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but the community has generally frowned upon the existence of multiple article templates that serve the same purpose.

I strongly feel that we should adopt a single standard format. I favor the compromise proposed above, but settling on either of the two implemented styles would be preferable to the current mishmash. —David Levy 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me misleading to point to a CSD when repeated discussions have failed to find the template deletable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to address the above reply to Chris? —David Levy 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of duplication was brought up in both TfDs and never adequately addressed. I was just looking for a quick summary, and the one that I've used over the last few months while consolidating people's random templates to use {{wikia}} seemed appropriate. Again with the "misleading", as if this good-faith attempt to discuss the issue is surreptitious in some way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)