Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:46, 8 November 2007

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

Template:International Mister Gay

Delete - there's only a single article linked to it so it serves no navigational purpose. — Otto4711 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Personality rights

This is intended as disclaimer template to be used on images of living and recently deceased individuals. It is currently transcluded on 26 images, although its scope extends to all images that include a living person, regardless of whether the person is the primary subject of the image. There are at least three issues with this template. First, the WP:BLP policy extends to all material involving living persons, including images, thus making the disclaimer redundant. Second, particular laws related to personality rights vary across jurisdictions (although I would think we would need to worry primarily about the jurisdiction in which Wikimedia's servers are located) and a general notice is not especially informative. Third, the template is transcluded only on 26 images, and the "lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits" (per WP:NDA). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Commons has a similar template at commons:Template:Personality rights. --Iamunknown 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons Mini Stories

It's an unnecessary template with an ill-defined criteria for inclusion. It says "mini stories", but what does that mean? The "trilogy episodes" of the later seasons? The Treehouse of Horror episodes? Or special episodes that involve several mini plots like 22 Short Films About Springfield? I think generally we should avoid making too many templates for episodes or else eventually you'll have one for every character and every type of episode. — Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this amounts to original research because it collects a series of vaguely related articles under a never-used moniker. Now, if there were a Simpsons DVD box set or something to collect them, that would be a different story (although a template probably wouldn't be the best way to connect them anyway). Axem Titanium 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler

This template is totally unencyclopaedic (how many other encyclopaedias actually have "Spoiler Warning" notices?), and is superseded by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which explicitly states "Wikipedia contains spoilers." This template is no longer in frequent mainspace usage, appearing only on 10 mainspace pages. I don't see how it could be considered "useful" if that many actual articles are going to use it. I'll try to avoid POV-pushing this TfD, it was horrific looking at how the last nominator had to respond to every keep vote.

I am aware that the last TfD resulted in a keep, however that was a year and a half ago. As I said before, it's summed up in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, only 10 mainspace pages have the template now, and you don't expect a spoiler warning in an encyclopaedia.

Note: if the result here is Delete, then Template:Endspoiler should be deleted as well, as it would then be useless. L337 kybldmstr 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and revert the spoiler guideline to this version (which describes the actual practice of no spoiler warnings). For a huge amount of related discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive index. {{current fiction}} is enough to satisfy the needs of the spoiler-averse on recent releases, and there was never a consensus even among generally pro-spoiler tag editors when exactly {{spoiler}} should be used. Kusma (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the current mainspace links: [1]. Kusma (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last TfD was actually six months ago, but it was irregularly and arbitarily closed by Tony Sidaway, probably because it was going the wrong way.
'Unencyclopedic' is a just a coded way of saying 'I don't like it'. The claim, offered by the anti-spoiler people, that encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, is unsupported by any known definition of encyclopedia, and seems to just have been made up by them. It's rather like a medieval shipwright insisting that all ships must be made of wood, and a metal ship is fundamentally 'unshiplike'. The reason (most) other encyclopedias don't have them is technical limitations or niche audiences.
Spoiler warnings help people find information they want, or avoid information they don't want. They're no different from punctuation, tables or headings. People use Wikipedia to research fiction they haven't seen yet, but the anti-spoiler faction views this as illegitimate and undesireable behaviour, even in the context of differing release dates around the world. Phil Sandifer has expressed the patronising view that non-Americans on the Internet should be used to avoiding spoilers, and CBM thinks that if you want to avoid spoilers, you should never read Wikipedia fiction articles.
Spoiler warnings are a useful tool for ensuring neutrality, accessibility and a worldwide view. The fact that they have been removed is down to a lack of respect for these on the part of a tiny number of admins. This is down to their fan-centric worldview; Phil Sandifer thinks some articles are 'fans-only', though it remains a mystery how this is determined. Hilariously, Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia were cited in the early stages of the debate as 'examples' to follow. The number of people that have added at least one spoiler warning dwarfs the number of those who have removed more than one, probably by a factor of a thousand to one. Their usage will recover in the event of normal editing patterns taking over from centralised spoiler patrol.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The world's two largest encyclopedias, the English and German Wikipedia, do not have spoiler warnings. Most large online fiction encyclopedias have a single warning on the main page and no specific content warnings further on. I don't think anyone who hasn't been listening to you for months even understands what you mean by the strawman arguments where you take single quotes by Phil Sandifer and CBM out of context. That spoiler warnings interfere with neutrality was amply demonstrated by Phil Sandifer at the RFC. Kusma (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amply demonstrated? You mean taking the Crying Game and Valen and generalising wildly? The latter is arguably fancruft, and the former still doesn't have any references for its alleged importance within the LGBT community. What about all the featured articles that had them? Should be trivial to point to problems there.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm puzzled by something - on the one hand, you think Valen is fancruft. On the other, you reject the idea that the article is "fan only" (which remains a misrepresentation of my view - it would be more accurate to say that Valen is an advanced topic in Babylon 5, much like Hydrohalogenation is an advanced topic in chemistry - it's not an article that is designed to give basic information on the larger topic.) As for Crying Game, which of the 100+ academic articles about the queer politics of the film would you like me to cite? Because 100 footnotes for one line seems excessive, but one doesn't really capture the breadth of it. Phil Sandifer 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all the argument that the template is unencycloaedic is completely fallacious: there has never been a general encyclopaedia with Wikipedia's breadth and depth; other encyclopedias simply don't have the space to go into the details of a work of fiction's plot so have never had to deal with the spoiler issue. Second, the only reason that there are currently under 10 tags is that a tiny group of 4 or 5 editors are consistently reverting then everywhere, holding back the floodgates; if these 4 or 5 editors were to stop then we would soon be back to the genuine consensus on the issue and have some hundereds/thousands of tags. Tomgreeny 10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most spoiler tags are added in a violation of the guideline and in places where there is a consensus against having them (for example, right under a ==Plot== header). Of course these are removed immediately. There is also no way for a handful of editors to force this issue if there truly is general consensus that these tags are useful. Kusma (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, the guideline says "a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible..." yet that keeps getting conveniently ignored. --Pixelface 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Detailed plot details considered 'spoilers' are unencyclopedic. Martin B 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful template and aids in organizing information, and the attempt to delete the template seems to be yet another attempt at the completely anti-spoiler-warning side to try to get their way when the discussion of the policy itself seems to be going in the other diretion. As other mentioned, there is a determined spoiler patrol who delete pretty well all spoiler warnings without real regard to the policy, and there's a technical imbalance where it's impossible for people who want spoilers to keep up to the same degree. In any event, the number of people who remove spoilers is outweighed by the number of people who add them, which indicates that consensus is in favour of using them. Wandering Ghost 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we REALLY need to rehash the thousands of K of arguments back and forth than have been going on for months (and hell, years)? I can already see it turning into that. I don't know what else can be said, really, but anything said here will undoubtetdley have been said at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Though, this should be about the TEMPLATE'S existence, which, oddly enough, consensus seems to be favored toward keeping even by the "anti crowd", at the very least as some sort of compramise measure. No idea what else to write that I haven't already said... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template:Current fiction is superior in every regard to this template. Phil Sandifer 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The {{current fiction}} template is prone to arguments over when exactly a piece of fiction stops being "current" or "recently released" — although I do like that it usually appears at the top of articles. Spoiler warnings are unrelated to release dates. If a secondary source uses a spoiler warning, some arbitrary time period does not make that warning invalid. It means the author has created a narrative climex in their story. The {{current fiction}} template is a spoiler tag with an expiration date. I object to the idea that people must consume a fictional work within a certain period of days/weeks/months/years after a release date. And speaking of worldwide releases, which release date do you measure from to tell if it's "current" or "recent"? The film Rescue Dawn premiered September 9, 2006 at the Toronto Film Festival.[2] Its first wide release was July 27, 2007 in the United States. It won't be released in Russia until February 21, 2008. So which release date does the {{current fiction}} template measure from? We should be presenting a worldwide view of a subject, so release dates in any given country should not factor into the use of the spoiler template. Rather, sources that use spoiler warnings is what should factor into the use of the spoiler template. --Pixelface 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Systemic bias seems to me to deeply be the wrong issue to bring up here. And the idea of using sources to decide the use of spoiler warnings seems to me to violate NPOV, in that the views of particular people suddenly get adopted as Wikipedia's views. Phil Sandifer 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well delete; the edit warriors won't let it be used. —Cryptic 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In the first place, it's an awful template, which doesn't even clearly express its purported meaning (that spoilers are ahead). In the second place, despite months of feverish debate, there has been no consensus clearly articulating when it should be used. As a result, it is practically never used. Whenever it appears on a page, another editor promptly deletes it. Whether or not Wikipedia should have spoiler warnings, this template has proved useless. Marc Shepherd 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a secondary source uses a spoiler warning, the use of the template is justified. The template clarifies for the reader the level of detail that follows. I really don't know how many other encyclopedias have spoiler warnings, but I also don't know how many other encyclopedias describe the entire plotlines of films/books/videogames/etc. There is plenty of evidence in the edit summaries of articles of fictional works that many readers do not expect spoilers in articles. I doubt that most readers find out that Wikipedia contains spoilers by reading the content disclaimer. I would bet that most readers read an article about a fictional work, they find out the ending, the narrative climax the author created is ruined. I don't think it's necessary to burn every reader once so they'll learn their lesson. The template presents readers with a choice: they can choose to keep reading or choose to avoid reading a narrative climax. The template has been removed from all articles by a small group of editors who love to cite WP:SPOILER yet keep ignoring this portion of that guideline: "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise)." You can be sure that the spoiler template will be in a few articles one day and zero articles a day or so later. I really don't know why they didn't nominate the template for deletion themselves. Personally, I think it would be easier to delete a template I dislike instead of constantly removing it from every article whenever it gets used. --Pixelface 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why it wasn't just nominated for deletion - why have a discussion where you have to show consensus for your proposal, when you can just orphan it directly with bot tools? —Cryptic 14:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there was a discussion, at least on the spoiler guidelines, that was running overwhelmingly against the guidelines. It then got shut down because "MfD wasn't an appropriate place to discuss that," so the discussion moved to the larger wiki, and went, once again, overwhelmingly against spoilers. Phil Sandifer 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obselete. Regardless of how you feel about spoiler policy, {{currentfiction}} is the better template. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The {{current fiction}} template suggests that spoiler warnings published by secondary sources have an expiration date — but they don't. Fiction is experienced in the present, it is described in the present. Fiction is always current. --Pixelface 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary, because we shouldn't be giving plot summaries anyway. It's not just these two templates that are unencyclopedic, everything that comes between them is unencyclopedic as well and ought to be deleted. —An gr 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the content disclaimer and current fiction template both cover this magnificently. Obsolete, indeed. Axem Titanium 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spoilers appear on far more than pages about current fiction. This is an important warning to readers. AaronSw 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this template is not being used for that purpose. Marc Shepherd 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First they are arbitrarily mass-removed from articles by people who do not know the books in question, and now we have arrived at the stage where that mass removal is quoted as justification for the deletion of the template itself. The next step (see An gr, above) will be to delete plot summaries as well as "we shouldn't be giving plot summaries anyway. It's not just these two templates that are unencyclopedic, everything that comes between them is unencyclopedic as well and ought to be deleted". In a dictionary of scientific terms maybe, but in an encyclopaedia? As Nydas^(Talk) suggests, "unencyclopedic" is a just a coded way of saying "I don't like it". <K F> 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Current fiction has absolutely nothing to do with spoilers, and vice versa. A current fiction article can be written in such a way to avoid needing a spoiler warning. Think about the back covers of books. And a summary of a book would require a spoiler warning, because it summarizes the book. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WarcraftBCharacter

Template now loaded with lots of redlinks because of a recent AFD discussion, the few that are blue links are currently in AFD Delete This is a Secret ^account 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, I'll wait and see how those AfDs go before making a decision. L337 kybldmstr 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see If all the articles get deleted, then sure, it has no further use. But if a few remain, then it simply needs to have the red links pruned. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandrep

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:JzG per CSD G7 (author request). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per precedent. Discussed extensively, and consequences of using the template followed by no admin action to incite further bad behavior outweigh value of notice. — Bsherr 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine by me if this has been discussed and will be deleted on that basis. Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind reading the discussion to which you refer. The link you provided, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Non-admin_fwarn, appears only to link to the top of this page. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication on the history page of the template that it was previously nominated - cant' find any evidence... better link? SkierRMH 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the link is now fixed. Just to clarity, this discussion not for this particular template, but for a similar one, to establish precedent. Bsherr 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reading that discussion was enlightening and I'm going to db-author the thing, if that's all right. What motivated me to write it was that I found it somewhat strange to see a whole succession of vand4s on a page. I suppose I and, from what I can see, a whole bunch of other editors, feel some compunction about letting a revert go unwarned, as it were, while waiting for admin action. I can see now that I need to chill a bit and just let the universe unfold as it should. :-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct was just like yours. See Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#"User reported" templates. If you're not already a member, please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. You'd be welcome! — Bsherr 17:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 *:Yes, but ''this template'' is not being used for that purpose. [[User:Marc Shepherd|Marc Shepherd]] 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. First they are arbitrarily mass-removed from articles by people who do not know the books in question, and now we have arrived at the stage where that mass removal is quoted as justification for the deletion of the template itself. The next step (see [[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']], above) will be to delete plot summaries as well as "we shouldn't be giving plot summaries anyway. It's not just these two templates that are unencyclopedic, everything that comes between them is unencyclopedic as well and ought to be deleted". In a dictionary of scientific terms maybe, but in an encyclopaedia? As <strong>[[User:Nydas|Nydas]]</strong>[[User talk:Nydas|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] suggests, "unencyclopedic" is a just a coded way of saying "I don't like it". [[User:KF|<span style="color:#006600">&lt;K</span>]][[User talk:KF|<span style="color:#006600">F&gt;</span>]] 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] and [[WP:IDONTKNOWIT]]. Current fiction has absolutely nothing to do with spoilers, and vice versa. A current fiction article can be written in such a way to avoid needing a spoiler warning. Think about the back covers of books. And a summary of a book would require a spoiler warning, because it summarizes the book. [[User:132.205.99.122|132.205.99.122]] 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:WarcraftBCharacter]] ====