Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 3

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 103.6.159.91 (talk) at 15:07, 5 May 2016 (→‎Template:Find a Grave: k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

Template:B Flow

Navigation box with only one article. Doesn't aid in navigation between the main article and the song article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not delete. I have some unfinished work that will be added to Template:B Flow. Icem4k (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should finish the work first then create the template. You can always recreate the template when you get it done. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Find a Grave

Template is designed to be placed in the external links sections, however, since it's been repeatedly rejected at WP:RSN as a reliable source, including it runs contrary to WP:ELNO. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the nominator. Moreover, to keep the template adds legitimacy to the website, particularly for new editors, and causes more experienced editors to revert the addition based on RS.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not make it easier to link to unreliable sources. I agree with Bbb23 that this template gives the appearance, especially to new users, that this is an acceptable source. HighInBC 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adds no value; information is almost always available from a more reliable source.Glendoremus (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion needs to be advertised widely. The template has over 21,000 transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Provided that Find A Grave memorials include useful information not found elsewhere, such as gravestone photos. Billmckern (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is eseentially a Wiki. It's user contributed material. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than just a wiki. The site exercises editorial control over copyrighted material, especially with the photographs. The gravestone data is literally written in stone, hardly wiki material. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Find A Grave provides information not found elsewhere. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could that be because they don't have editorial oversight? This isn't a discussion about blacklisting them. It's only about deleting a template that doesn't belong in the external links sections. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Just yesterday, I had to revert a citation to Find A Grave because it wasn't a reliable source but I still think we should keep the template for one important reason, Find A Grave has photographs of grave sites and a lot of people are interested in them. Photographs of graves also can go on Wikipedia but to do so, copyright holders have to release their rights to share those photos. Copyright holders who upload their photos to Find A Grave only release those rights to Find A Grave and its parent company, Ancestry. According to Find A Grave's terms of service other websites, books, etc. are not supposed to copy images from the website without the copyright holder/uploader's permission. See here. Libertybison (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's a resource that can provide information readers may want/need to know (images of grave sites) that may not be able to be provided by Wikipedia. Libertybison (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So could a lot of other sites that are blacklisted.(and no, I'm not suggesting blacklisting it) Which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Please keep the template. Users that follow the link know what find-a-grave is usually-(user-edited), it is a great asset to have it right there on pages. I almost always click-through if it is in an article. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that some of IMDB is actually done by staff and the site can be used for items like cast, crew, producers, dates etc. So IMDB isn't the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then, once the FindaGrave staff exercises editorial control (as does IMDB), this concern is resolved for the particular webpages maintained by them. Correct? – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I think some users may be getting a little pedantic. It is hardly a trivial site. Some of the imagery and information available at Find a Grave has been invaluable in my opinion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part is pedantic? Following content guidelines, like ELNO? Following policies like RS? I realized some of you like it, but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason. I've yet to hear a policy based reason for keeping it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift36 and others are mistaken to form a nexus between RS and EL. Nothing in EL demands the standards of RS. Quite the opposite is stated at WP:ELMAYBE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete It provides useful and important information that often cannot be found elsewhere. However, since there is limited oversight and cross-checking of the information that may not be up to Wikipedia standards, there should be Wikipedia guidelines on how to utilize Find-A-Grave information, for example, restricting it to "External links" and not permitting it as an in line reference.Ira Leviton (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. Almost invariably, that is how I use Find a Grave (extremely scarce exceptions are direct link to headstone imagery to prove passing dates).--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a start? It is not the 1st instance of utilization for a reference, but is/can still be a valid alternative.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on Earth does NOTMEMORIAL apply here? That tells us what Wikipedia is not....and nothing in that section looks like it would support keeping this template. BTW, this discussion is about deleting the template, not whether you can use it somewhere.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I both know and agree. But F.A.G. usage isn't "promoting" any form of website, and isn't "promoting" any form of sale or redirect. Also, "photographs, of gravestones provide useful information, the biographical and other additional details may not be reliable". External link passage is valid - to my mind - but not a primary reference. I won't lose sleep if consensus goes against myself (and others), but pedantic does spring to mind. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. External links sections allow some links that would not hold up as reliable sources, for example, IMDb film information. I've used Findagrave in the past and found it helpful and interesting. Although I would definitely look for a better source to support info in an article, the Findagrave site has often pointed me in the correct direction. In the nineteen points listed at WP:ELNO, I really don't see anything that would apply to Findagrave, so I would like to hear the nominator's detail on this "charge". This is a useful template that should remain in place.  Stick to sources! Paine  01:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, IMDB has been held as a RS for some parts, like cast. It isn't for user added content, such as trivia. That's why IMDB is a different case. As for what part of ELNO, 12 is a good start. Since FindaGrave is user generated content, it's nothing more than a Wiki. I'd also say that 1 also applies. Regardless, it's not a Reliable Source, which means it shouldn't be used, much less given it's own template.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. It provides useful and important information (photos as primary sources) that often cannot be found elsewhere. Doremo (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator and Bbb23. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael Bednarek and Paine Ellsworth. ‑‑YodinT 08:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the original creator of the template, I would prefer to import the Find-a-grave IDs from the template uses into Wikidata (using P535), then remove the template here. We could then automatically add the link to the infobox, the authority control template, or some other "useful Wikidata stuff" template that will undoubtedly come along. Failing that, I would vote "keep". --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sources can be reliable for some things and not for others. Agreed find-a-grave is user generated content but it can be a reliable source, for example for photos of grave markers. Yes it's a primary source for that and using it borders on OR, so it must be used carefully. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. It's a nice amenity, and does no harm. I'm sure the readership likes it. Wahrmund (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Paine Ellsworth. Additionally, as a longtime contributor to IMDB, cast lists and other info frequently IS user-added content. I add and edit cast lists all the time. So the distinction between IMDB and FindAGrave isn't correct. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Gravestone photos are of great use in documenting disputes or uncertainty over historical birth and death dates, an unfortunately common situation. I have corrected many biographical articles on Wikipedia with wrong dates. Findagrave is surely the world's largest collection of such photos. In millions of cases, the photo on Findagrave is the only one available anywhere. If deleting the template means that 21,000 articles lose links to the corresponding FAG page, that would be add a lot of inconvenience, requiring the user to individually look up the person on FAG instead of simply following the link. Yes, the other user-supplied material on Findagrave is not reliable. Perhaps use of the template should be limited to cases where a gravestone photo is included on FAG, and unavailable elsewhere? Kestenbaum (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bbb23, we should not be promoting the use of unreliable sources. Lizard (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep excellent source for what cemetery buried in and images of the tombstone. FAG has a mechanism for making corrections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's no "worse" than IMDB, as others have noted. Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with modifications – Find a Grave pages with photos of gravestones are generally considered reliable for their genealogical data and the template aids in listing such pages. The FindaGrave listings 'maintained' by the Find a Grave webmasters can be considered reliable as well, but the data on such pages is generally available via other sources. The modifications needed are simple – remove the 'author', 'access date', and 'work' parameters. The 'author' parameter is inherently unreliable because FindaGrave relies on the usernames supplied by FindaGrave members; the 'access date' parameter does not add any useful info to the reader unless the link is broken; and, the 'work' parameter simply paraphrases what the author (who may not be RS) has supplied. Also, clarifications on the template usage guidance can be modified and strengthened to say rather explicitly that Find a Grave is considered RS only in limited circumstances. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a EL, Find a grave is fine. When it's used us a reference for anything other than where someone is buried, I edit it out of articles on a regular basis. If I had $1 for every time I've done that I'd probably have $100 or more by now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template is used in external links. And there's no problem in using this site for external links.

Template:Australian free to air television channels

WP:TFD #3: Template is not used anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:TFD #2: This template is redundant as its information is found in the article List of digital television channels in Australia and in the navbox Template:Free-to-air television channels in Australia. Before recent editing to keep information relevant, template went unedited for four years. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 05:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culdcept series

Navigates only 3 articles. Izno (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CT Special Forces series

Navigates between only 3 articles. Izno (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_3&oldid=718775220"