Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12

Template:RaisingtheBar

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:RaisingtheBar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this is inappropriate. We are dealing with: 2 articles (one of the TV series and 'one episode list, 2 creators and actors. Actors should not have nav boxes like that. They usually play in tenths of films, tv series, etc. Creators also. If simplified, this navbox will end up with 2 articles which are already good linked to each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed, navboxes for shows should not be in the articles of actors (unless perhaps the role was extremely significant in their career), only articles about characters themselves. The only place the template is used besides the actors (and creators) is the show's own article, where it duplicates links that are already there. Unnecessary and improperly used. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:Macbethchar

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete by WP:CSD#G7 Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Macbethchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsoleted by Template:Macbeth (both were used together in all instances), and this one is no longer in use. Xover (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I created this template and the new one has made it obsolete. Wrad (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:HWOF sentence

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Plastikspork (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:HWOF sentence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to substitute a sentence stating that the subject has a star on the HWOF. It is currently unused and is an unnecessary obfuscation the prose which it generates, in that, the generated prose cannot be reworded to better fit the paragraph or list in which it has been placed. Plastikspork (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:Twitter

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

The result of the discussion was keep for now. The consensus was that when the addition of a Twitter link is appropriate, achieving a uniform formatting through the use of a template is desirable (per {{YouTube}}, {{myspace}}, {{imdb}}, {{facebook}}, and others). If, in the future, it is determined that links to Twitter feeds should be banned then this template should be reconsidered for deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Twitter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(I had this all written up already, but Twinkle tool ate it.) In brief, Twitter is not a valid source, and the only way it ever qualifies as an external link per WP:EL is in some theoretical situation where a Twitter page is the only official web site of a person or group notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and of course anyone that notable would no doubt have a real website too. So not only does this template serve no valid purpose, but it interferes with XLinkBot's ability to remove links to Twitter. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. There is practically no reason to link to twitter, especially not using this template. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• I can think of a few instances in which we could use a twitter link, but those are all exceptions, and we don't need a template for that. Delete. --Conti|✉ 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'd argue that a person's twitter account could meet criterion #4 on the WP:ELMAYBE list, and I'm not entirely convinced that the assertion "of course anyone that notable would no doubt have a real website too" is correct, so, as I said: "weak keep". -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  "[R]eal website" here meaning more appropriate sources of information belonging to the subject, if there is an official website 'www.subject.com', then that is of course the best, but even 'only having a myspace page' would win easily from 'only having a twitter account'. There will be exceptions, subjects that have only a twitter and still are notable, but this is not the blacklist, they can be linked in the normal way, using * [http://www.twitter.com/subject subject's official Twitter] (that would only be prohibited by blacklisting, and then there always is the whitelist for such rare cases). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete no way to validate that a twitter page belongs to the actual celebrity and as DreamGuy said, if they are a notable enough person, they should have their own website anyway. CTJF83Talk 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually, this is not true. See Twitter's Verified accounts page. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep If you're going to dump this, there are also similar templates that link to Myspace and Facebook pages that are used on celebrity bio pages as external links. Seems like the same argument applies. As for whether a given Twitter account is actually that person, that's best handled on a case-by-case basis. (A link to "official web site" could just as easily be incorrectly linked to a fan site, editors can easily fix). Personally I think if its valid to link to a celebs official web site, its valid to link directly to their Twitter too. --Krelnik (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Twitter is, just like MySpace and Facebook discouraged per our external link guideline, and that is just why they often do not meet the reason for inclusion. For official webpages, that is much less the case. However, a myspace, as an official page, contains sufficient information, and subjects with a only a myspace may easily pass our notability guidelines. For 'only a twitter' those will be significantly less. To put it in an order, official webpages should be linked before Myspace and Facebook (actually, when there is an official homepage, MySpace and Facebook should often not be included), when there is no official webpage, the MySpace or Facebook become the official pages, and one or two of those are chosen. If there are no official Myspace or Facebook, then Twitter may in the end become the official page, but I wonder in how many cases subjects with only a Twitter feed are notable enough for a Wiki article. Moreover, deleting this template does not disable the link, one has to link to it in the normal way of linking, and in quite some cases, the twitter-template is not used in accordance with the external links guideline (Britney Spears has an official webpage, and a probably a whole set of others, like MySpace and Facebook, yet, Twitter is linked in her external links section, I would say that that is not in line with 'links to be avoided in the the external links guideline). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Point taken on being able link anyway as needs arise. Here's an example of where I've linked to Twitter recently that I think is valid, an article I wrote about a music venue in my town: The Tabernacle (external links). The official site for this venue is a Flash site, which is a problem for some users. The operators of the venue post announcements on Twitter and Facebook, and somewhat less often on Myspace. As far as I can determine, all three are official. For some reason (probably newness) I can find none of them via the official website, and the info posted is not duplicated in any way on the official site. (I.e. the official site is more of a static brochure about the building). Now Facebook, of course, requires you to join to see content which is a problem under other guidelines, so Twitter is the only publicly available HTML way to get the latest news on this site. I think listing all three is valid simply because a given user might have a preference in what service they want to use to best find the latest news from this venue (i.e. they like Twitter but dislike Facebook, or vice versa). I admit to being relatively new, so correct me if I'm insane here. --Krelnik (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Just to mention, that when I loaded the Britney Spears Twitter yesterday afternoon, she just told her father on the site that she was coming to eat dessert with him. Quite an addition to Wikipedia, that part of information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Krelnik, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is explicitly named as an invalid argument in deletion discussions. Do you have any reason for keeping this template (which is different from keeping the links, an issue that is not at all affected by the decision about the template)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Frankly I'm tired of arguing at this point. I said "weak" keep, didn't I? I always assumed that templates like these existed for two reasons: (1) insulating Wikipedia against changes in the URL structure of the external site. I.e. if twitter changes user pages to be twitter.com/user/foo instead of twitter.com/foo, then this one template changes and 160+ pages are fixed; and (2) it standardizes the "look" of these external links so they are consistent from article to article, and with the other links like Myspace and Facebook. In this case "krelnik on Twitter". Again if someone says it should say "at" instead of "on", this can be altered in the template. That's all. It's just a consistency timesaver. --Krelnik (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  "Templates like these exist" because it is possible for anyone to make any spammy piece of crap template they want. The process is fully backwards. External link templates should only be allowed if there is a broad consensus for one, not becomes somebody decided to make one someday. This is a rogue template that goes against a broad, longstanding consensus. The Myspace and Facebook templates likewise have no consensus, but the consensus that Twitter is a lame external links is more broad. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Much of the discussion here about avoiding Twitter, Facebook, etc., goes beyond anything stated in the external links guidelines. There is no rule saying that a subject's official pages on social networking sites are to be avoided if the subject also has an official regular website. The guidelines say to avoid such links unless they are official pages. The guidelines don't say that a subject can only have one official page or that only one of them can be linked, nor is there any hierarchy saying that, for example, Facebook is to be preferred over Twitter. So there should be plenty of opportunities to use this template. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per previous voters. I would like to remind users that it is not only people that hold Twitter accounts, organisations do too. See ITV, ITV2, GMTV, Big Brother (UK), This Morning (TV series), Britain's Got Talent... DJ 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And do any of them not have official websites to link to instead? No, so your argument has no bearing on this discussion. Wikipedia is not a web directory or all official sites of a topic. We link to *the* official site, and that site no doubt links to the official Twitter page, if there is one, so we have no reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I see this as similar to {{Imdb name}} or {{MySpace}}—it's useful information and a place for readers to get further information. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep unless Facebook and Myspace are also up for deletion! These are all interesting primary sources (very changeable and useless as references but) a place that users can find out more about people they are interested in, often worth including in the external links section. As myspace and facebook are walled in if you are not willing to log in then what twitter shows publically can be quite a lot more than the others.

  Would actually be a good plan, though they at least provide some stable information about notable people, as I mention above, the Britney Spears Twitter informed me yesterday that she was going to have dessert with her father. Quite interesting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - A lot of the accounts are verified, and there are ways to verify them in other ways. This is a ridiculous nomination.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they are verified or not, they still fail [[WP:EL] rules quite dramatically. What's ridiculous is that anyone who claims to be working on an encyclopedia would even for a moment think a Twitter link makes any sense at all. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy "quite dramatically" at all. Read the links to be avoided section of WP:EL very carefully. The very first line says Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject and item 10 specifically mentions Twitter. Note in particular the footnote on item 10, which says: Note that under WP:External links#What should be linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is an official website for a business, organization, or person. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website, and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. I read this to mean that if the Twitter feed is officially associated with the person, organization, business, etc. it can be linked as long as it provides useful content not otherwise accessible in other external links provided. I think my use of Twitter in The Tabernacle (which I talked about above) is an excellent example of exactly this. (I'm not using this template there right now because of this discussion) --Krelnik (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you read the External links page more carefully, because there's no justification for crap links like this under any criteria. We are not a web directory. We cannot link to every site on the long list of sites a person or group can have an official presence on. This has been very clear for ages. Trying to read that very clear language you even quoted that directly contradicts your argument as if it supports your side is just ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The language he quoted would allow for a Twitter link if it is to a subject's own official page that is "not prominently linked" from another official site that is already linked, assuming the Twitter feed provides "unique content" rather than duplicating stuff available from the other links. So it is not at all ridiculous to quote it. It's not likely that this will create some "long list of sites" because most of the time I expect the subject will either 1) link to their Twitter page from another site already linked, or 2) the Twitter feed will mostly be links to stuff the subject has posted elsewhere and thus not unique content. Either of those situations would "fail" the Twitter link. But if it passes both those tests and is verifiable as the subject's own Twitter feed, then it should be just fine under WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, why do we ignore the intro. The twitter can indeed be linked, if it really adds to the page. As I quoted Britney Spears above, I am really enlightened that Britney is going to have dessert with her dad. That is really the information I was waiting to hear. I am sorry, twitter does not add often to a page, and certainly not to the extend that it needs an own template, it can just be added as a link (IMHO, that also goes for myspace and facebook, they do not need an own template. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep at least for now, depending on how this RFC turns out. Personally, I do know that Twitter is starting to authenticate some of these celebrities' accounts; to what extent so far I don't know. If there is a way to verify that the account indeed belongs to said celebrity and not to some Joe Schmoe Fanboy out there, then I think it could possibly be included, which would facilitate the need for this template. MuZemike 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Verification of Twitter accounts is a non-issue, as if they are authenticated they are still not at all in line with WP:EL rules.DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There are times when Twitter should be linked (completely ignoring the obvious "official website" issue, it's used as a ref on occasion), but these links simply do not require the overhead of transcluding a template. This is a (small, but real) waste of resources. I hope that the template is deleted, and that someone sets a bot to convert all of the template uses to just plain links. For the supporters of the template, please note that "deleting the template" is not the same thing as "removing the links". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

While you are telling the supporters of the template to note this, you should also say the same thing to all those who oppose the template specifically on the stated grounds that there should be no (or virtually no) Twitter links to begin with. It's the justification given in the original TfD proposal! Moreover, it is clear from both the TfD proposal and the discussion here that this TfD was motivated by complaints that the template interferes with a bot that allows for mass removal of Twitter links without giving any prior regard to whether they meet the WP:EL guidelines or not. Not much point in creating a bot to change the templates into links if there will be another bot right behind to delete them, which is rather obviously the end result that should be expected. --RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please point me at a bot that is deleting external links? The only bot that I know is one that reverting the edits after addition by an unestablished or IP account. It would not even see a bot changing the template into links, as a bot is, almost by definition, an established account. The deletion of the links would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• 'Please answer the specific question: This is not a referendum on whether Twitter feeds should be used in this or that situation. The question at Templates for Deletion is not whether Twitter should be linked in a given situation. The only question that the closing admin cares about is, "Is it better for valid links to Twitter feeds to be wrapped up in a template (which adds the processing overhead inherent in transcluding anything, and makes them invisible to XLinkBot), or should editors use plain URLs for the same, already assumed-to-be desirable link?" If plain URLs are better, then the template should be deleted. If plain URLs are not better, then the template should be kept. At the moment, there are at least five plain URLs to Twitter feeds for every version that's wrapped up in the template, so most editors are picking the plain URL, but someone might have an idea about why a template is better than a plain URL. If you have an opinion on whether plain URLs are better than the template, already assuming the feed should be linked, then please share your thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's how I see it. If consensus determines that Twitter shouldn't be allowed at all as external links, then there would obviously be no need for the template, making the TFD far less controversial. Even if we do allow said external links with the strictest of restrictions, then I feel that's a cause to discuss here (I personally happen to learn towards inclusion at this point). Perhaps this TFD as ill-timed and probably could have waited until the RFC brings some sort of closure to the general Twitter debate. MuZemike 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I am afraid that the RfC was filed as a result of this deletion debate. My personal opinion: these external-links-templates are all superfluous, why not use normal links anyway? What do the templates add? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Templates add consistent formatting if nothing else. Until the template became widely used IMDB links were formatted in wildly inconsistent ways and were often given terrible link text (not quite as bad as "click here" but almost). -- Horkana (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        • IMDb links are acceptable links. Formatting them consistently is valuable. Twitter links are prohibited links. They will never be "widely" used. Not only should they not be uniform, they should be anti-uniform links because each one that does exist should be individually justified on the talk page of the article. Having templates for prohibited links is weird even by Wiki standards. 2005 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well put. I trust that the closing admin will take account of your comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Links to Twitter feeds are not a useful external link as per WP:EL and even if it were, this is not a useful template just making a link to twitter.com/{{{1}}}. If there is a particular status link that is a good source, then it can be linked directly. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for use as a primary source since some people WP considers notable have well-publicized Twitter accounts. 68.167.191.17 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am tempted to strike out your !vote, because you clearly misunderstood the purpose of this template. --Conti|✉ 08:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Twitter links are prohibited by the external links guideline and should be removed on sight, so having a template for them is ludicrous. 2005 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Twitter links are pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement that rarely contain any WP:RS information. Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{19:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)}
  • Additional comment – Having a template for Twitter legitimizes the links, i.e., it gives the impression that they are "approved" by the community … the existence of a template simply encourages their use. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The external links guideline is a style guideline, not policy. It includes Twitter under Links normally to be avoided but they are not banned or forbidden. I would have no issues with someone linking to the twitter feed of a well known notable individual in the external links section of their BLP article and I think it might be worth considering moving Twitter feeds from item 10 to 11 in Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Considering that Twitter is effectively a micro-blog, it seems sensible that it should be included in item 11 anyway since it specifically deals with blogs of notable individuals. The issue of XLinkBot and templates is something that should be taken up with the bot operator and is not something for TfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As noted above, this is not a question if twitter links should be kept, the question is if such external links need an own template. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on the reason that information can - and has - been posted on Twitter before anywhere else (see here, here). --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Funny, you cite here two reliable sources to state 'the information was first published on Twitter', but a) that still does not make Twitter itself a reliable source (but we are talking about external links), neither is this proof that Twitter is actually, generally providing information which is adding to a page. Such specific posts on Twitter might actually be an, albeit weak, source for something, not the whole feed. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I admit it's WP:WAXy, but we have {{YouTube}}, {{official}}, etc. in the same vein as this template for an acceptable reason - to reduce boilerplate slightly and make linking a bit easier. Also, in the future semantic wiki, this template would provide a way to make it easy for programs to pick out a subject's Twitter account (and possibly more; use your imagination). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh, is this saying 'we should link to as many as possible off-wiki sites of (subject), so that later with semantics we can programmatically find the subjects (site) account'. Thus that would mean that (subject) should have linked here all of {{BlogSpot}}, {{Facebook}}, {{MySpace}}, {{Twitter}}, {{YouTube}}-channel, {{Digg}}, {{Delicious}}, {{NewsVine}}, {{CiteULike}}, &c.? Don't we have {{Persondata}} for that semantic work? (I must say here, yes, that is good, and I am actually doing that botwise, but .. I don't think that this is the way to go on with that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WhatamIdoing's comment, above, this is not about whether or not we should link to Twitter (though not linking to the Twitter stream of people like Stephen Fry or Jonathon Ross would be ludicrous), but how such links should be constructed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep In special cases, even twitter can be a valid link--it is increasingly being used for serious purposes, and if it is the best link for a particular person instead of the more conventional blog, it may be the right one to use. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a useful template, I don't see how it violates WP:EL, for people (as said) like Stephen Fry or Ashton Kutcher a link to their twitter is a good external link in my opinion -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the template. This does not mean that all links to twitter should be deleted, just that they need to be justified per WP:EL. The template makes it easy to add inappropriate links that cannot be found in any reasonable way. An argument for keeping the template could be made if it added an admin category so its use could be monitored, otherwise the template will be abused to move Wikipedia further from an encyclopedia and closer to a social networking forum. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, it is easy to find out what articles have links created using this template. Just go to the template page and use the "What links here" feature to find transclusions of the template on articles. Like this. However, adding an admin category would make it easier to monitor additions/removals. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If a Twitter feed is notable, then it can be noted in the article but a twitter stream is not a reliable source where one would go for further information on the subject of the article as required by WP:EL. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that virtually every use of this template would be to link to an article subject's own official feed. Use of Twitter as a secondary source would be very dubious, and even as an external link a Twitter feed from anyone other than the subject is very unlikely to meet the guidelines. Doesn't mean the template itself is bad, just that it should only be used when the link itself is appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A link to a person's twitter feed is simply a list of the most recent 140-character updates posted. It is not in any way a useful link as per WP:EL for further reliable information on the subject of the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete This makes spamming very, very easy and these links add little benefit to most articles that they appear on. On the rare occasion that our guidelines would accept a twitter link it can be added just as any other external link, which isn't any harder than having a template. Link templates should be for links that are generally considered useful, such as dmoz. We should not be encouraging the linkage of sites such as twitter. ThemFromSpace 02:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now, per DGG, RL0919, and MuZemike. Milo 10:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Snicket element

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Snicket element (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely useless. The article using it can do without it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. If an infobox is really necessary, another can be used. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Entirely replaceable with image thumbnails with captions and other extant infoboxes. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Too useful to delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.191.236 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

"Charmed" templates

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

The result of the discussion was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Charmedcharsub1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Charmedcharsub2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CharmedSeeAlso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chrmd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ChrmdBeing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chrmdchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ChrmdMchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chrmdsect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cseason (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Andy Trudeau (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Book of Shadows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All these templates are used to make linking to various articles and sections "easier", by using horribly complicated templates. So instead of typing "[[List of Charmed characters#St. Claire, Leslie|Leslie St. Claire]]", you type "{{Chrmdchar|Leslie|l=1}}" and so on, which saves a few keystrokes while being quite confusing, especially to newbies. I'm pretty sure templates aren't supposed to be used like this. --Conti|✉ 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Good grief. I fully suspect that more keystrokes were spent building these templates than they can possibly have saved. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete All per WP:CSD#1632. This is a known mess and is highly inappropriate. The crux of this mechanism is cementing franchise spam into the project by making pruning difficult. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have joined Andy Trudeau and Book of Shadows (both orphaned in article space, just like the rest of them). Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's fine by me. --Conti|✉ 08:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per om.nom Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Having inline navigational templates that depend on the structure of specific articles is a bad idea. As suggested by Jack Merridew above, these will make it difficult for editors to cut or restructure the related articles without breaking a lot of template-based references. --RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:Simpsons character

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Simpsons character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox character, bar the crass colour scheme. Other cartoon characters manage just fine- see Fred Flintstone. DJ 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep per the reasons given here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Per above. The Flash ^{talk} 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep half of the templates in Category:Fictional character infobox templates should be deleted before this one. Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You have to start somewhere. --Conti|✉ 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - per Scorpion. Gran² 06:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above CTJF83Talk 07:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Scorpion. Very useful template, especially the Tracy Ullman shorts part. Template:Infobox character has too many parameters (such as age, date of birth/death, and religion) that will lead to unnecessary edits wars. Theleftorium 14:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above Rhino131 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I've updated it to use {{Infobox}} as a Meta template, {{Infobox Character}} just didn't seem to fit the purpose for this one without changing the template layout. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Unbelievably Over-The-Top High Keep (Keep) Come on, who would ever want to have probably one of the most popular cartoon of America's template destroyed? It's useful, and I don't get a single speck why this template was put up for deletion. Jeremjay24 _msg 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There is obviously an overlap with Infobox Character, and a lot of the concerns about the additional fields in that other template are overblown, since all the fields are optional. But this template does have some fields that aren't available in Infobox Character, including 'voiceactor' and the specialized first appearance fields. If/when the generic template is expanded to include these, then deletion could be reconsidered. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - ludicrous nomination. McJEFF ^(talk) 07:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• SNOW Keep? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above Dvferret (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode

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

The result of the discussion was speedy/snow keep - This was a unanimous "keep" three weeks ago; this discussion appears to be headed down a similar path. Although consensus can change, it hasn't done so yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox Television episode. The "Chalkboard" and "Couch gag" fields should be added into the articles through prose - their inclusion alone shouldn't mean we have a seperate template. Most shows have motifs, but they don't have their own templates. DJ 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep The template is custom made so that the various episode lists can be included at the bottom (As far as I can tell, that parameter is not available in the generic template. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean that this show should get its own template. Other shows seem to manange this way... DJ 02:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this a WP:POINT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom then? Whether or not the show "deserves" it is irrelevant, the infobox includes a number of unique entries and features, so it is useful and helpful. Personally, I find the various season lists (like this one) very useful and I think every series inbfobox should use them. I'd like to point out that if this one is deleted, every template in this category would have to be too, so I suggest you list them here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those reasons (as a matter of fact, I like the show). My reason for nomination is that the generic template is there; why is The Simpsons any different? It's WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that The Simpsons is not the only series with an individual template. See Category:Television episode infobox templates. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid point here. DJ 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You said "My reason for nomination is that the generic template is there; why is The Simpsons any different?" I was just pointing out that you were incorrect in your assumption that The Simpsons is alone in having a sole template. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Not only is this used on 400-something articles (most of which are GAs) but it has barely anything included in the Television infobox, only writers, directors, prod. code and airdate/guest stars. Read the previous VFD on this to see everyone's reason. The Flash ^{talk} 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a sensible way to summarize information about Simpsons episodes. The chalkboard gag and the couch gag don't really fit anywhere in the body of these articles. And the main TV episode template doesn't contain space for show runners. The Simpsons has had several show runners over the years, each of whom fostered a distinct influence on the overall feel of the show. (Compare the David Mirkin era with the Mike Scully era, for example.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The template is not only used by The Simpsons, but it is an inspiration for the templates for other shows. So if you want to delete it, why not delete Family Guy's, South Park's and Malcolm in the Middle's episode template along with this???? It'll take a long and painstaking process that can take weeks, maybe months to acomplish. Think of the time that'll be used, wasted just to delete a template used over 400 articles. Bottom line: The template should NOT be deleted at all costs. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and let's stop nominating templates with the apparent scope of bulking up the wp:*fd edits. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Couch gag and chalkboard make sense in the box and the seasons are incredibly useful. Wouldn't mind them in more shows. — JediRogue (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, however, I do prefer to see the episodes listed in an infobox on the bottom. Its where I look for it first and then have to think about finding it at the top. However its still keep for me. — JediRogue (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Per the consensus reached in the deletion discussion, when was it? Last week?... Gran² 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above - The template was nominated for deletion less than a month ago. See here. Theleftorium 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• (EC) Strong and snowball Keep Why are we doing this just weeks after the last one??? CTJF83Talk 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm sympathetic to the argument given in the nomination, but the last TfD for this less than a month ago and was an overwhelming "keep." It is silly to even have it nominated again so soon, absent any concerns about how the last TfD was conducted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep per the arguments given above. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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