Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.66.194.220 (talk) at 07:00, 20 December 2009 (→Template:Wikia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 16 December 18 >

December 17

Template:My bloody valentine film

Template:My bloody valentine film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film Music

Template:Film Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for inactive wikiproject. No use anymore. Used only on a small handful of articles, all of which are already tagged for more relevant (and active) projects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reaper (TV series)

Template:Reaper (TV series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Riches

Template:The Riches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Three Rivers

Template:Three Rivers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncategorized template

Template:Uncategorized template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominated for deletion: the corresponding category, Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates, a redirect category Category:Uncategorized Wikipedia Templates and a CNS redirect CAT:UNCAT/T.
Less than 30 uses, most of them old; this template and the corresponding category are scarcely used and there are better, much more efficient, ways to detect and compile uncategorized templates (such as Wikipedia:Database reports). Unlike for articles, marking templates as uncategorized is demonstrably unmaintainable and instead listing them is more appropriate and actually useful. Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Uncategorized_redirects. Cenarium (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, time has moved on, and this template hasn't been picked up and used a lot by anyone. I've now lost interest in template categorization. It's also probably been superseded by Template:Uncategorized, or if not it should be. So, do what you like with it. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template actually causes problems because it places the templates in a category like "Category:Uncategorized Wikipedia templates" or whatever and actually harms database reports that look for uncategorized templates. It's rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced WP

Template:Unreferenced WP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template without any clearly defined use case--substantially redundant to "essay" tag. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I note (as neither support or opposition) that this template was created and briefly applied in relation to a dispute over the content and uses of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs to be developed further to clearly define uses as the nom notes, and could use versions for application only to sections or individual claims. I have fairly substantial comments on the talk page of the template. I don't believe it is "single-purpose" if what is meant by that is that it is for use on a single project page. If that were the case, I don't know that there is a need for it, but I would be surprised if WP:OUTCOMES is the only one for which it would ever be appropriate. It may overlap with essay to a degree, but I see it as distinct in at least two ways: (1) "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established" WP:ESSAYS; there are some pages in Wikipedia: namespace that as a whole or in part are put forth as statements of fact without verification and even if the language were tempered by qualification would still not appear to quite fit the essay category either by the nature of the content or the form of the writing, and as such Template:Essay would not be completely appropriate for them. An essay is not something that requires help; people may contribute or not as they like. I don't know, but perhaps WP:OWN may be more lax with essays even when they are in the Wikipedia: namespace and not userspace? There are some Wikipedia: namespace project pages which do in fact require help and handling and noting that and responding to that on the model of how it is handled in article space should come quite naturally to editors. (2) Redundant tags can serve a purpose, if they are in fact not completely redundant. For example, Template:Who is specific variation or subset of Template:Citation needed which indicates not just where a citation is needed but specifically for what purpose it is needed. There is no limit on how many templates there can be. Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) WP:OUTCOMES lists "common outcomes" of AfDs. These "Common Outcomes" are presented as facts, while in reality they are the subjective impressions of various editors. In the past, there have been errors (such as this one) and even outright contradiction of existing Wikipedia guidelines. These problems have occurred specifically because the statements made were not supported with evidence or sourced in any way. The template was created to call attention to the fact that although the page appears to be authoritatively descriptive of a facet of Wikipedia, in fact it is not. Please see the template talk page for a more in-depth treatment of this issue. 2) The template may be appropriate for other pages which exist to report on an aspect of the state of the wiki, but in fact do not source their pronouncements/verify their facts, and therefore this template is not single purpose. Further, it can be used for sections (as per the template documentation). 3) I agree that the template would benefit from further development, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete it. That's how Wikipedia works: editors build on each other's contributions. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikia

Template:Wikia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template was previously nominated for deletion: 1st nomination, 2nd nomination.

This template encourages links to Wikia.

  1. Wikia is a for-profit commercial site.
  2. Wikia is not connected to Wikipedia - and it is vital not to give the impression it is
  3. Wikia is NOT EVER a reliable source
  4. Wikia is fanboy stuff - and not a good source of information for readers to be given in an external links section.

Scott Mac (Doc) Flagged Now! 18:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep None of these four reasons, nor all of them together, are sufficient reason to remove links to Wikia. If we're going to move fancruft to Wikia, it's perfectly fine for us to point there for "fanboy" stuff. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't follow. We remove fancruft because it is unencyclopedic. We don't "move it to wikia" since wikia is not a WMF project. If Wiki want to take our trash, that's their affair. There's no need to advertise them.--Scott Mac (Doc) Flagged Now! 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's fine if Wikia editors want to come haul fanish material out of here; I'm all for that. There's no reason, however, to promote that site and and drive traffic there. It's about putting ads in front of eyeballs, putting money in a few pockets, and allowing littluns to have fun with their obsessions. External links are for for citing sources, official sites, &c. They are not about integrating an encyclopaedia and the mother of all fansites. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept as it's reliable for giving more information on the subject although should only be used to link to wikis which have a good community and not in a mess and sticks to a specific style. --VitasV (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis are never reliable sources. We don't even recommend wikipedia as a reliable source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In a similar fashion that we don't allow fansites as external links as they are unofficial and user created, wikias follow the same ideas. Although they seem to be worse about attracting wrong info/fancruft. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    1. Irrelevant, we link to lots of commercial sites. The content of Wikia however is predominantly freely licenced.
    2. While Wikia is also set up by Jimbo, this template does not indicate any such connection.
    3. This template is not used to provide a "source", it is there to point readers to more information.
    4. On the contrary; Wikia allows the "fanboy stuff" that cannot be placed on Wikipedia, which makes for a perfect complement to Wikipedia. I believe this nomination stems from a personal dislike for Wikia. Linking to Wikia wiki's on popular subjects has always been common and accepted practice. Why should it stop now? — Edokter • Talk • 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template doesn't suggest that Wikia is connected to Wikipedia. Remove the template from the articles if it is being used inappropriately. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - External links are for further reading, and don't have to be a source of info for the article. The idea that it draws traffic from Wikipedia is absurd - Wikipedia is the place to get information, only in special niche situations such as major franchises like Star Wars do folks go elsewhere for information that is considered fancruft here anyways. Wikia should be used on a case-by-case basis per WP:ELMAYBE, but serves the reader well when used appropriately. --Teancum (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agreed that Wikia could be used for EL in some cases (Wikipedia stub < Wikia article), but disagree with the decision to use for it a template. — Al3xil ✉ 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I remember the case, when was created a template for one film critic. Subsequently, it was added to each film, which had his review. Later the template was removed, because kind of these resources should be used in a references section, if they are useful. Wikia articles duplicate information, so they should be used situationally, when objectively have more complete information, than Wikipedia articles. The template is designed for mass insertion in articles by default and could ignore the selectivity criteria. — Al3xil ✉ 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edokter as the reasons stated per nom are irrelevant for deletion. Likely we got {{YouTube}} to link to the YouTube website, as keeping the template is a suggested option. However the editors should use that with caution which only links to the apporiate wiki sites. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edokter. Wikia is a good fancruft sink: my experience shows that novice editors are much less likely to submit "fanboy stuff" here if they have a whole wiki for fancruft on the Wikia. I am sorry if I understood the original incorrectly, but to me, it sounded like an attempt to crusade against all links to Wikia rather than this particular template. Let us not decide what sources other readers should consider reliable or unreliable for them, OK? It's their decision to follow or not follow any of the ELs and to believe or not believe what they read. The issue here is IMO whether or not a template is helpful for the editors, and I say, yes, it is, in two ways. One, the links to Wikia are often very unwieldy, so this template simplifies the editing process. Two, as I mentioned earlier, a well-placed Wikia link sifts off a large portion of the fancruft, increasing the quality of the article considerably. --Koveras ☭ 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not being corrupt is not good enough. One has to be seen to be not corrupt. GTD 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an easy way to locate Wikia links so they can be removed. Then, once they're all gone, revisit this. --NE2 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the reasons listed in the nom are good reasons to delete a template. Commercial sites and non-reliable sources are allowed for external links, and most external links are normally to sites with no connection to Wikipedia. Links to wikis with a substantial history and lots of editors are allowed, so while every Wikia wiki might not qualify, they aren't automatically excluded. One of the ideas of providing external links is to give readers a way to find additional detail that goes beyond what is appropriate for Wikipedia, which includes "fanboy stuff" that we routinely cull out of our own articles. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to see how the Wikia template is different to the templates for linking to sites such as IMDB. Esteffect (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per above. Gage (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – 1) Per Koveras; the "let the readers decide" argument. 2) Per Edokter argument number 3; the "quantitative" argument. 3) Per Jclemens; the "perfectly harmless" argument. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikia is not a reliable source. We need more sources and footnotes, not external links of the general sort which is what these are. This template gives the appearance to some of a Wikipedia endorsement of Wikia. I've cleaned up 10s of 1000s of inappropriate external links[1][2][3][4][5] and I don't see that innocently added Wikia links have much more editorial merit to justify an official template than all those spam links I deleted. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has been already said, we must be seen not to be entangled with Wikia, so we shouldn't have a special template for linking to Wikia. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Teancum who said it perfectly above. This template is not "encouraging" anything and there's nothing wrong with using it to link to relevant and related external links. This is a template, if there's a problem with users linking inappropriately to Wikia then bring that issue up at WP:ELN, not via TfD taking it out on a harmless template. -- œ™ 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Strong Keep. Not gonna bother commenting on the obvious condescending tone in reason #4. Also, the other reasons you have put forth are not really all that good either. At least maintain links to in-depth coverage on a subject on other sites now that WP has gone all minimalistic. This is one of the most groundless deletion causes I've seen. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I agree that most of the reasons are weak, and without evidence to the contrary.
  1. As pointed out, we link to commercial sites anyway.
  2. I think we can each discern that Wikia is not connected. I never got the impression that it was, and I believe not many other users have.
  3. There is no evidence to support this argument.
  4. Many wikias merely expand on what is here on Wikipedia (much of which has been taken down by Wikipedia, not because it's unencyclopedic, but because it seems that one of the goals of Wikipedia regarding articles is to keep articles as short as possible). Ggctuk (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far as the template goes, it is doing its job - allowing consistency and easy in including repetitive information. As far as the information goes... as best as I can tell Wikia as a whole, as well as the various wikis housed there, has yet to be black listed as an external link. If that has changed, or changes in the future, then the template does become a bit useless. But this is not the place for that discussion, just like the TfD last year or the year before. - J Greb (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "#1" - seriously? We link to *alot* of for profit websites, many of them used for references! "#2" - seriously? We link to *alot* of websites with no connection to Wikipedia whatsoever, alot of them used for references! We even have templates for IMDB! That's a non-Wikipedia for-profit website. "#3" - seriously? Since when do external links have to be reliable sources? That's why they're external links and not references. "#4" - why not? If they're going to look for more info, they're likely to be fanboys themselves. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tnmoccol-begin

Template:Tnmoccol-begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tnmoccol-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tnmoccol-beginwide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tnmoccol-end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tnmocheadinga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tnmocheadingb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates, functionality certainly provided by other templates. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is the functionality of these supposed to be? And what templates succeeded them? Perhaps we can use {{Tdeprecated}} here.. -- Ϫ 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator used them in an article [6] but shortly afterwards removed them [7]. It seems to be for creating boxes, but there are plenty of templates for boxes [8] [9]. Since it's never been used besides this, it can hardly be deprecated. Cenarium (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rz

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

Now blanked and orphaned template which used to transclude category:redirects. Redirects shouldn't actually be added to category:redirects, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_68#Category:Redirects. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and apparently abandoned, with no edits between the moment of creation in August 2008 and this week, and the editor who created it has retired from Wikipedia. Previous content was nothing except the redirect category, which could be added without using a template, if it were even appropriate to do so. --RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing Persons (TV series)

Template:Missing Persons (TV series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation box contains only red links. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Navbox with all redlinks since 2008. Likely to remain redlinks forever, because it is doubtful that the characters will ever be considered notable enough to have their own articles, given that the show only ran for one season over 15 years ago. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crossroads

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

The navigation box contains exclusively cast members against consensus and production companies. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reasons I give in the discussion immediately below, and confirmed in the link provided by the nom and in numerous other TFD discussions, some of them in the past month. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amigas y Rivales

Template:Amigas y Rivales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navigation box contains exclusively cast members against consensus, red links, and links to countries/television stations, which shouldn't be in the navbox in the first place. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a standing consensus against placing this type of navigation template on the pages for actors, because of the number of templates that would be on their articles if the practice went unchecked. For example, the very first actor on this template, Joana Benedek, has been in 13 telenovelas. So we could have 13 navboxes on her brief article. Similarly, we do not want to clutter the articles on television networks with navboxes for every single show they air (which could be many dozens). So essentially this navbox is not usable on any of the articles that it is supposed to help users navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Two Pints

Template:Two Pints (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bewitched

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 Withdrawn Cenarium (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I don't think using a non-concluded discussion about whether to remove cast members names from all templates is a valid reason for deleting them everywhere without discussion, and subsequently declaring that the now meager-appearing templates must be removed. IF a different standard does develop in these templates, discussion needs to take place about what is now considered acceptable. You changed the rules in one respect, but are still going by the old rules in another. This is an inappropriate use of what one person perceived as "consensus." Just leave the template for now. Njsustain (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17&oldid=332815615"