Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

Template:Welcomeip

WP:BITE (starts with whining about having no username, then jumps straight to complicated policies, and then finally one link to a tutorial), and redundant to Template:Welcome-anon.. Sala Skan 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Both seem to have a long history and linked from many pages. The wording of Welcomeip may be questionable. But that's not something a merge-redirect can't solve. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no problems with using this template, and the only possibly bad wording I see is in bullet point 4. This can be changed. Just because the wording is not effusive and bubbly does not make it a bad welcome template. Gracenotes^T § 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problems with this. It is not a violation of WP:BITE.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is the advantage of this template to {{Welcome-anon}}? Why not just redirect it? Sala Skan 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are very similar. But the difference between these two templates is as slight as the difference between {{uw-v2}} and {{uw-t2}}. I disagree with your criticisms of the template, but would not cry buckets if it were redirected. Gracenotes^T § 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Welcome-anon}}. I tend to use {{Welcomeip}} when reverting vandalism, because of its harsher language. But I admit that both serve the same purpose, albeit with different language. There is no need for two different templates. The question is which template should survive, and in retrospect, I would prefer {{Welcome-anon}} since it assumes good faith in editing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I don't really care about the wording, but I use the template for welcoming IPs all the time because I can never remember any of the other ones (so at least leave a redirect). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is a bit biteish, and redirects are cheap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Welcome-anon. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to the above Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London stations live

Unusued and superseded by Template:Infobox London station. — Regan123 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is unused and redundant. Pit-yacker 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete housekeeping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish per nom Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 05:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Surreal Life series

basically a redundant list of cast members who appeared on the series that is already served by the main page and categories. This template has been copied over to all former cast members, despite the show being limited run and for the most part, a small/lesser-important part of their careers and the template makes it seem that it is the most important project they've ever done. — Biggspowd 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.--James, La gloria è a dio 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove transclusion from actors Precedence: {{Matrix}}. IMHO, I believe the general rule for template like these should follow these rules:

Articles that cannot exist without the series transclude the template (e.g. the movies, the main articles about each series, the characters)
Articles that can exist without the series do not transclude the template (e.g. the actors)

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of templates that follow the exact same template design. -The Real One Returns 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most reality series templates list the participants, and links on the articles of the various cast members. IMO, this is a rather silly reason to delete an otherwise practical templant.NineElevenSevenNine 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-about

Redundant to Template:Spoiler and functionality should be merged there as well. We don't need all of these variations. --Farix (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be so controversial? Can't you just Prod them and be done and over in five days. Evilclown93 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Templates aren't subject to the Prod process. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, I just feel all these spoiler template debates with ones like these three are more of a waste of time. Evilclown93 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Herostratus 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge extra functionality to Template:Spoiler, then either delete or redirect this one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What extra functionality? An article should ideally only contain spoilers about its own subject. 81.104.175.145 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, that's true, but there may be occasional scenarios where more specificity is desired, and there's no reason the extra function need interfere with normal use.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more specificity is required, then either the article needs work or we fall back to our default position of "there are things in Wikipedia that may eat your babies or cause your head to explode". Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of weak, fragile minds who haven't seen the last week's Battlestar yet. Currently, it is used on 1 article (and lots of userpages, where perhaps it can be subst'd), Silent Hill 2. In this instance, it refers forward to allusions made in Silent Hill 4. This information shouldn't be in the former article in the form it's in now, but it certainly should be in the latter. Of course, there will be people who have played SH4 but not SH2, but that's another matter. 81.104.175.145 16:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and add functionality per my comments at Template talk:Spoiler#Merging spoiler-about. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I originally reviewed the use of {{spoiler-about}}, in every case, it was either redundant to the section heading or {{spoiler}} could have easily been used in its place. I would say that the functionality isn't really needed in the long run. --Farix (Talk) 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Template:Spoiler-about has 3 transcluding pages. Template:Spoiler has 2896. Nothing wrong with adding this optional parameter to Template:Spoiler. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might as well clean up others. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'll have more work templates to sort through. --Farix (Talk) 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge functionality into {{spoiler}} (something made possible by the introduction of conditional syntax). I created this template for situations in which the material being "spoiled" otherwise isn't obvious. For example, an article about an author might "spoil" one of his/her works. As another example, this tag replaced one called {{whedon-spoiler}} (which warned that an article contained "plot details or endings of some or all of the Whedonverse productions Buffy, Angel, Fray, etc.").
FYI, this template was used in numerous articles, so I suspect that someone went around orphaning it as part of the controversial spoiler warning purge. Ah, it appears that TheFarix did that earlier in the week. It would have been nice if he/she had mentioned this in the nomination.
Here is a link to the deletion debate from June 2005. —David Levy 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the use of {{spoiler-about}} on the Buffy articles was just ridicules boiler plating. In every case, the template was redundant, but {{spoiler}} would have worked just as well in those articles. --Farix (Talk) 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, other editors disagreed, so this is a matter that might warrant further discussion. (I'm not a fan of these programs, and I have no personal opinion.) My point is that the tag was used in many articles (some since 2005) until you virtually orphaned it less than a week ago. You then nominated it for deletion without disclosing this fact (thereby creating the appearance that the template had gone almost unused for the past two years). —David Levy 01:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with added functionality, which should be used very seldom (only if there's something really surprising from another work). Gracenotes^T § 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-other

Unused and redundant to Template:Spoiler. We don't need all of these variations. --Farix (Talk) 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be so controversial? Can't you just Prod them and be done and over in five days. Evilclown93 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Templates aren't subject to the Prod process. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, I just feel all these spoiler template debates with ones like these three are more of a waste of time. Evilclown93 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Herostratus 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much text replacement. -- Ned Scott 19:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, unused by main space. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this template, but it ended up going largely unused (in favor of the more versatile {{spoiler-about}}). —David Levy 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original comments and nom. Evilclown93 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom is exactly right. We only need one spoiler temp. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-ending

Unused and redundant to Template:Spoiler. We don't need all of these variations. --Farix (Talk) 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be so controversial? Can't you just Prod them and be done and over in five days. Evilclown93 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Templates aren't subject to the Prod process. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, I just feel all these spoiler template debates with ones like these three are more of a waste of time. Evilclown93 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Herostratus 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. redundant and apparently unused. -- Ned Scott 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and unused by main space. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original comments and nom. Evilclown93 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Derby

Seemingly-meaningless collection of links, which includes a couple of villages, one or two suburbs, and some London links. 81.104.175.145 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Suburbs of Derby. I have tidied it up a bit but there appears to be a lot of duplication with the suburbs of Derby template. Pit-yacker 17:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Regan123 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Template:Suburbs of Derby per above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Settlements on the A38

Somewhat indiscriminate collection, not well-defined, doesn't suggest whether it deals with settlements directly on the road, settlements near the road, settlements bypassed by the road, etc. Generally, not a useful unifying characteristic for a navbox. — 81.104.175.145 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the same reasons, but also redundancy:

Delete all as random collection of information. Regan123 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from article then delete indiscriminate collection of information. Imagine what would London or New York City have if we allow a template for each highway/expressway.

In addition, I would vote for deleting all that start with "Settlements on":

Template:Settlements on the River Stour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Settlements on the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Settlements on the Staffordshore and Worcestershire Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per nomination. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable type of template. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yearcat1

Unused. Was one use. Replaced by {{Decade category header}} — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This TFD is related to the one below. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category1900sheader

Delete totally per nom. I also replaced all instances of the templates in question with the generic one. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This TFD is related to the one above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with replacement, a.k.a. delete. Delete speedily if possible (WP:CSD#G6) Gracenotes^T § 04:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Squad 1992 Summer Olympics

Significant consensus against all national squad templates except for World Cups. Neier 07:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Also adding:[reply]

Delete all - Some other recent TFD results can be seen at this page - Neier 07:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Will these things never go away! Daemonic Kangaroo 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from articles then delete I happen to agree with the consensus and the precedence. A player often participate multiple games. If we were to have a template for each game x country pair, we would have thousands of templates with much overlaps. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChoChoPK. This type of template is unmaintainable. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — consenses from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is clear that only World Cup squads should be used in these style of templates, but no other tournaments. Andrwsc 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amazon.com item

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (G7 - Author Request). I brought this template into this world, and I can take it out. :) Considering the fact that community consensus confirms my own doubts about it, I'll just go ahead and delete it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds a link to the page at amazon.com where an item can be purchased. Per WP's policy on links normally to be avoided links to sites which primarily exist to sell products or services are disfavored. Amazon.com is not a reliable source, and people are generally aware of it, so there's no need to link it from articles. Additionally, this template is only used in 9 articles despite being 9 months old, indicating that it would not be missed if it were deleted.-— Butseriouslyfolks 06:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is also spamming products which is a violation of WP:SPAM. I also agree that it certainly wouldn't be missed! Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Isn't Wikipedia:ISBN good enough? Neier 08:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from articles then delete Wikipedia:ISBN is enough. And if you really want, you can follow the google link there, which can lead you to multiple online bookstores. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and WP:SPAMy. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh Can't say as I'm surprised about this... I only created it due to a request for it, but even then, I had some doubts... [1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge all instances - definitely spammy in nature, not useful as a template. EVula, I understand, don't worry about it. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and purge, basically spam. Enhancing one's purchasing experience is not what we are about. Herostratus 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox London

Delete or redirect Was one use. Properly replaced. Possibly turning into a redirect due to a large number of links into it. (user talk pages mostly) ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ¿Weak? keep - While it is a one use template, it also keeps a massive amount of code from the wikitext of a high-profile page when used. As such, it's probably useful. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 06:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time I checked, "hides ugly code" was not a valid reason for single-use templates. 81.104.175.145 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that sections of an article are often spun off into their own articles to keep the article size down, in this case it could be considered a valid rationale. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This deletion will not change how the London article is viewed. Just where the parameter names are. It is better to actually have the parameter field names (which are not really code; the code is at {{Infobox Settlement}}) inside of the article itself. It is easier for an novice editor to edit to that way. —MJCdetroit 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a job for the table namespace. -- Ned Scott 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote that specification with templates more complex than this in mind. But the table namespace does not technically exist; if code needs to be simplified, just remove the blank parameters, and delete. Gracenotes^T § 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moby developer

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Templates used for the sole purposes of systematic COI spamming. See WT:WPSPAM#mobygames.com and WP:COIN#MobyGames/ Flipkin for more discussion, which explains it better than I can. The latter has had a prior TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Template:Moby game. WP:CVG's endorsement of this template does not override WP:EL and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. MER-C 06:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a soapbox.--James, La gloria è a dio 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as to game, Delete as to developer. As to both, mobygames.com is a wiki-type site, so it fails WP:RS. I'm sure people looking for games or game developers will stumble across mobygames through google, so there's no need to link articles here to their counterparts on mobygames. I am particularly troubled by the game links, as they not only direct users to ad-laden pages, but they also have links to purchase the items. While mobygame users may not consider the site one that "primarily exist to sell products or services", I bet its owner does, and I would think there's a huge amount of revenue going into his pocket generated by these spammy links. So these links fit criteria #4 in the list of links normally to be avoided. The fact that the owner of the mobygames site is involved in propagating the template is just icing on the cake. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is irrelevant whether one is making money through MobyGames. What matters is that the site might be useful for our purposes. Wikipedia itself is also used to generate revenue by some third parties, as we all know. We will have to tolerate such things. Instead, we should be worrying about writing a complete and comprehensive encyclopedia; the question should be: is this template useful to us? —msikma (user, talk) 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually very relevant whether one is making money through the link, because WP:EL instructs us to avoid links to primarily commercial websites. If you think WP:EL should be changed, this is not the proper for that discussion. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Although some links to MobyGames are ok, these templates have been used to spam thousands of WP pages by a few individuals including with strong COI. Deleting these templates and allowing existing edits to link where appropriate is the best way forward for everyone. --BozMo talk 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's not used solely for CoI spam. Excuse me, I don't quite follow. The links to MobyGames are okay but a convenience template isn't? How exactly, then, will deleting a template help get rid of the spam? How exactly does it not inconvenience people who use the template legitimately? I feel this is a wrong solution to a problem that could only be solved by adding a new checkbox to the edit form that says "I solemnly swear these external links don't violate CoI and are absolutely not spam" Get mobygames.com to the spam blacklist first, then we can discuss deleting this template. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these templates definitely lights up WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. They need to be deleted. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These URLs are rather redundant as the content (platform, release info etc.) within these links is readily available from our video game infobox (see {{Infobox CVG}}). Combination 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very useful/informative site, due to relational database backend, and extensive references and screenshots for most games (see http://www.mobygames.com/game/doom/ vs Doom). Template/site is equivalent to {{imdb}} or {{amg}} or {{KLOV game}}. Deleting all uses seems to be incredibly muddleheaded, and the members of WP:WPSPAM (who initially suggested this nom) didn't bring the issue up with WP:VG first as they probably should. Barely any advertising on the site, so even the CoI issue is small: interlinking of sites for the purposes of sharing useful information is why we have external links. --Quiddity 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not familiar with KLOV, but neither imdb.com nor allmusic.com are wikis. Allmusic in particular retains complete editorial control over its entries. (I know this because I've tried unsuccessfully to get things changed.) So both of those websites are inherently more reliable and linkworthy than mobygames. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, MobyGames is not a wiki either. MobyGames is a database based on user-contributed information, exactly like IMDB. MobyGames likewise maintains the ultimate editorial control over the user-submitted content; I know because I've tried submitting cover scans and screenshots and they're very picky. And, being based on user submissions, both sites have factual quality issues (Ye gods, lock me in a mental institution if I ever wander anywhere near the trivia sections in IMDB) - but you can usually trust Moby cover scans and screenshots to not be doctored. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not a wiki. That would explain why the copyediting is so tight.

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=freind&p=-1

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=moyb&p=-1

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=qoutes&x=19&y=7

Actually, it is a wiki, it just requires an "approver" (i.e., an admin) to approve all changes.[2]

--Butseriouslyfolks 07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The majority of our Wikipedia:Featured articles#Computers and video games link to mobygames, from either the external links section using this template and/or from their references section. The nomination doesn't fit any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD), and no attempt was made at the template's talkpage to discuss 'misuse', or to contact the related wikiprojects. --Quiddity 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the users here wouldn't mind, I'm going to do an FA count, for interest's sake.
    - Articles with the template: Chrono Trigger, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 2, Donkey Kong (video game), Doom, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, F-Zero GX, Final Fantasy X-2, Half-Life 2, Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Iridion 3D, Katamari Damacy, Metal Gear Solid, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee, Perfect Dark, StarCraft, System Shock (20 Count)
    - Articles without the template: 3D Monster Maze, Chrono Cross, Devil May Cry 3, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XII, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, Shadow of the Colossus (15 Count) Geuiwogbil 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And 4 of the articles without the template refer to mobygames in their refs. Of the ones that don't, most could be improved with the addition of mobygames as a reference. Look at the credits section of shadow of the colossus or better yet the complete credits list.... --Quiddity 06:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Really? Which ones? Geuiwogbil 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can click 15 links and do a text search as fast as I can, if you don't believe me... --Quiddity 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just thought you'd have them on hand, since you gave them a number...What do they use them for? Cast links, like your Shadow of the Colossus example? Geuiwogbil 06:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because I actually use it. --HanzoHattori 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both templates. There are 6490 mobygames.com external links on Wikipedia and there is strong evidence to suggest that more than 4000 of those were added by the MobyGames cofounder. This is a serious WP:COI abuse that was allowed to happen because of the stealth nature of the template and the WP:AGF of the WP:VG community. The blanket spamming of mobygames.com is also a violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. Deletion of these templates will prevent future abuse. (Requestion 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I don't see why we really need such a tiny template. Why can't it just be typed out? The Ohio Townships wikiproject recommends that a section with specific wording (seen here) be placed on virtually every township article, but we don't need a template for that, even though it's a lot longer. Delete because it's such a small bit of text that can easily be copied and pasted in. Nyttend 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, these templates are handy in maintaining consistent external linking appearance: "Game Name in MobyGames" instead of "Game Name in Moby!!!!!!1!" in every other article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be 5000 MobyGames links in Wikipedia article space? This is just funnel spam to a website article of questionable notability. If you tried to add MobyGames links to the See also section of 5000 articles they would be quickly deleted. Besides, Atari and Sega don't have this level of exposure and they are far more significant. (Requestion 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For the same reason there are thousands of links to IMDB, one from every single movie/actor/director/etc article.

I don't understand why you brought up the See also section, it has nothing to do with that. --Quiddity 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a problem if the owner of the IMDB personally added 80% of all the imdb.com external links on Wikipedia? Seems like a straight forward WP:COI to me. (Requestion 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The problem in this case is not how the links were added but why, and this template is the how part. The problem also has nothing to do wither the links should be kept. If the owner of IMDB would come here and add tons of links, I'd just bring that to the people's attention, ask the person to Not Do That Again Or Else, then keep whatever links are deemed necessary. This is ultimately an user conduct problem, not a content problem, and there's absolutely no reason to punish people who use this template legitimately. You don't quit eating apples forever and ever, just because this year's batch is mostly rotten. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is that the moby template has been horribly abused. The MobyGames founder has ignored multiple requests to stop. The WP:VG project has been unable to control proper usage of this template. We are now in the "Or Else" stage. Template deletion is a viable solution that can control this self-promotional spamming. (Requestion 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That founder is no longer with the organization, but that's all moot because the template was created by a *user* with no official ties to MobyGames. It was created because the community wanted it. I agree with Gerry later in this discussion, who wrote "Deleting the article and then saying the links are okay is basically inconveniencing hundreds of editors for the sake of posturing." I still haven't seen a legitimate reason for deleting the template. --Trixter 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... let me phrase this other way: Why are we debating here a giant big mess that would be better left on better venues? So far, I've seen links to a few random spam board discussions. Where's the RFCs? If you could point us to a dispute resolution discussion that even hints that it's not just the user who's causing problems here, and the template is evil, that would be swell. We're discussing too many things: foremost of which is a question of user conduct, second is appropriateness of MobyGames links at all, third of which is whether or not we need a template to link to MobyGames. This is the venue for the third part and nothing else. As it stands, from a template point of view, there's little wrong with it compared to other such templates. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template has an external link to mobygames.com and an internal link to the MobyGames article. I brought up the See also section because that's a place where an internal link would typically go. My point was that 5000 internal MobyGames links seems to violate the spirit of undue weight. That many MobyGames links would never be allowed under normal circumstances. (Requestion 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's not a good reason to bring something to TfD. Maybe you could discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:External links or the village pump, because there are dozens and dozens of other templates that use this convention (e.g. {{amg}}, {{imdb title}}, {{last.fm}}, {{musicbrainz}}, {{Memoryalpha}}, {{Rotten-tomatoes}}, {{Mojo title}}, {{Sww}}, etc etc etc) --Quiddity 06:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I forgot to mention, these kinds of templates are useful in case the site's internal linking changes. Consider the case of IMDB, which has had, uh, at least four or five different URI schemes over the past 10 years or so. MobyGames has had two. Instead of needing to change n+5 bazillion external links to the brand new format, you mess with the template. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been discussed over at WPVG, and the general consensus if I remember correctly was to only link to MobyGames if the MobyGames page contained more information than the game's page here, or contained information that is informative but can't be in Wiki articles (such as credits, etc.). Unless you have a problem with that, I vote keep, for my reasons above and Wolf's convenience argument. Green451 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you're going to link for the reasons of having more screenshots or credits or so on, shouldn't the link be to GamerWiki, which is a Wikimedia project and therefore more directly linked to Wikipedia? Tim (Xevious) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GamerWiki is not a Wikimedia project, it just uses Mediawiki software. --Quiddity 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Well, it was 1am ... Tim (Xevious) 10:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps a bot could be used to strip all the existing uses, and then concerned individuals could monitor the template's re-addition. This would mean the template could still be used, but its current spam use would be eliminated. While some MobyGames entries are very detailed, a large number (especially concerning older and/or obscure games) have even less information than the equivalent stubs on Wikipedia. Garrett^Talk 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the situations in which Mobygames is actually more informative than us is rare at best, and more often than not it's simply a waste of space in the external links section. Nifboy 23:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sometimes the link is useless, but if the moby page contains credits (as many do), then that would count as "informative" in my book. Green451 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; as informative(?) as full credits are(?), the remainder of most MobyGames pages consist either of noise or redundancy, and credits don't strike me as any justification for thousands of links. Nifboy 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A very usful template and widely used? why would it need to be deleted? Jonesy702 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then reinstate if links to MG are decided to be better than any other site through a discussion on the CVG project page. Tim (Xevious) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no reason why MG's reviews should be linked to for so many games and not other reviews. There is no proof that MG's reviews are "superior". Also, I'm not exactly sure how much advertising is "too much" for a site to be linked to from Wikipedia, but there is a link to eBay and amazon on each game's page there, as well as google ad links on half of their left nav bar - more advertising than on most sites with similar content. Miles Blues 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not debating policy, just the helpfulness of the template. But if we were, I would like to point out that the links aren't to "reviews", they're to the main page for a particular game. There's a hell of a lot more information at MobyGames than just a "review". --Trixter 23:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template formalizes a common link from the video game pages, and Moby games is not a spam site. Judgesurreal777 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is a bit complicated. Remove the template from all articles in which it appears, and then reinclude the template from the ground up, and only where appropriate. External link templates are common and simplify things (with all due respect, I disagree with the "we don't need a template to link to sites" argument, and it is also contrary to practice). Linking to this site does not seem harmful. Only reinstating the links where useful should take care of any spam allegations that have made the template appear unattractive to several delete voters. Gracenotes^T § 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. I guess we have hit an issue four or five time above about whether given the majority of links are spammed the best way is to delete all the links and then allow bottom up addition. Deleting the templates of course is one way of effectively achieving this. Agreeing on removal by a bot is another. --BozMo talk 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is standard procedure for a template's transclusions to be removed before it is deleted, and almost always by a bot. So I am suggesting doing the same thing, but not deleting it. Gracenotes^T § 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mobygames is a pretty consistent spammer of Wikipedia; the site isn't great, and the fact that the owner of the site spams most of these links himself is suspicious. Neil ╦ 11:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note - the thought of linking 5000+ times to mobygames, a for-profit ad site, when mobygames has less than 25 links in return, is worrying. IMDB is a recongised authority on movies. Mobygames is not even that - I would suggest GameFAQs, Gamestop, allgame.com and IGN all have better video game coverage (if not all necessarily as broad). Neil ╦ 11:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. GameFAQs, Gamestop, AllGame and IGN do not have the same encyclopedic scope of coverage as MobyGames does. The only thing allmedia guides are good for is music, and yet I have idea why an AMG link exists in Template:Infobox film. - hahnch e n 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MobyGames is a recognized authority on Video Games. Also, there are more than 25 links back to wikipedia. Additionally, anyone can add links back to wikipedia if they want. If someone wants to go add 10,000 links back to Wikipedia we wouldn't reject them or consider it spam. --Bhirt 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense Brian, but inviting us to your birthday party doesn't mean we'll invite you to ours. You're guidelines for linking are probably much different than Wikipedia's. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take offense. First, I was replying to the original comment that somehow our linking back to wikipedia was relevant to the discussion. "the thought of linking 5000+ times to mobygames, a for-profit ad site, when mobygames has less than 25 links in return, is worrying" That quote certainly implies that it is important, but now I know it has nothing to do with the argument to remove. Second, and more importantly I want to point out that we are a very widely recognized authority on Video Games in the Video Games industry. Bhirt 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've not seen any strong arguments why removing this template would improve Wikipedia. I've clicked on the "mobygames" link from several CVG articles on this site and found it useful. Any spamming by Mobygames promoters should not detract from legitimate use of the links. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Zagrebo 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many reasons why one would want to have a template for certain content, and this doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary. Quiddity put it nicely: interlinking of sites for the purposes of sharing useful information is why we have external links. MobyGames is a good website that contains lots of relevant information that may be used either by the reader of the Wikipedia article, for purposes such as assessing whether the information he read on Wikipedia is correct, or simply for reading more about the game in contexts that would not be appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion (such as reviews). To the editors, it's useful to point to MobyGames because it contains a lot raw material with which to write articles (after verification, of course). The template itself encourages good and consistent formatting of the links; using a template to prevent writing things multiple times is always a good idea. —msikma (user, talk) 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A hell of a lot of useful relevant information is found at MobyGames. Even though I initiated one of the conversations linked from the Wikiproject Spam page, my problem isn't with the links themselves in many cases, but with the nature of the editing (SPAs etc.) - hahnch e n 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MobyGames has quite a bit of good information. Sure, it probably is a COI and a bit spammy for the co-founder of the site to have added this to a significant percentage of our game articles, but we should have many of these links. --- RockMFR 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I will agree that quite a few of the linked MobyGames pages have hardly any content at all. I generally remove these on sight. --- RockMFR 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Deleting the article and then saying the links are okay is basically inconveniencing hundreds of editors for the sake of posturing. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is Brian Hirt, I started MobyGames back in 1999 along with Trixter as a community driven collaborative documentation project. The goals and aims of MobyGames are very similiar to Wikipedia. To document knowledge and share it with the world for free. I disagree that these links are spam. Lots of people who participale on MobyGames are also wikipedia contributors. We provide a very valuable resource in the Video Games space, and are the only site with comprehensive credits. As to complaints that we don't meet the notoriety requirement, I would like to point out are very well known and respected in the game industry and have also been nominated for a Webby award. In response to reliable sources, MobyGames is a very reliable source. We also have many professionals that work in the game industry who volunteer to make sure information contributed is accurate and reliable before it is published on our site. If there is confusion about what MobyGames is, I'm happy to answer these questions -- Brian June 10th 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhirt (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep: I agree with Green451, this has already been discussed and resolved over at WPVG. It is assumed that a link to MobyGames was done only if the MobyGames page contained more information than the game's page here. This was already kept via Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Template:Moby game so why is this being brought up again? The only thing up for debate is whether or not the template is useful. It is, simply because deletion of the template will require hundreds if not thousands of edits to turn the links back into "regular" links. I can't see how deleting the template would somehow make things easier for editors. --Trixter 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already commented above, and I often link to Mobygames in my articles. But it would be great if you could be up front about such blatant spammers such as User:Ravimakkar. Every single edit of his is a mobylink, until he got blocked. Is he an employee? - hahnch e n 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wwwwolf: Whether someone with a Conflict of Interest is using the template to spam Wikipedia is totally irrelevant to whether the template is useful. MobyGames is the IMDB.com of the computer gaming world, so editors will often add MobyGames links to articles, so we might as well have a template to help them do so easily and neatly. CWC 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages of template redirect

Orpahed, unsued template subpages, which the parents now redirect to Template:Infobox Settlement, except the last two, which the parents don't exist. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - artifacts of a less efficient system. Gracenotes^T § 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]