Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:09, 31 October 2007

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

Template:Colorado Avalanche seasons

Already transcluded in {{Colorado Avalanche}}; no reason for this template to exist.. Jmlk 1 7 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. Its colours are horrendous also, just like the obsoletor. They should be colorblind compliant, and they're far from that. --linca linca 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{Colorado Avalanche}} - and not being colourblind, I had problems reading the black on maroon! SkierRMH 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nndb name

Having a template is an endorsement of this website. The website lists no references in its articles and is in my opinion not a reliable source. There is no workable system of correcting errors as I have found on submitting numerous corrections which were ignored. The template has been previously nominated for deletion here and here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Previous discussions: [reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Nndb name Result, no consensus, keep
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13#Template:Nndb name Result: keep.

Keep An external link doesn't have to be a reliable source to be a valid external link. All it has to do is to demonstrate that it is useful to the article per the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. However, the nominator has not made any arguments that linking to this particular site is not useful or that the inclusion of the link was linkspam. --Farix (Talk) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe a template is an endorsement to some degree, of the reliability of that website. Linking to a site is in my opinion not useful if it is not a site comes from an established organization, or, if it isn't an established organization, it allows corrections and discussions about inaccuracies that are viewable to all readers as they are on Wikipedia. There is no indication on looking at a notable names database article that anything may not be correct as there are no talkpages where corrections can be publicly posted or tags that can be placed marking inaccuracies that can be seen by others. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others have already stated, an external link does not constitute an endorsement of the website. Also, Wikipedia cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy of the contents of external links. The main guidelines on external links is found at Wikipedia:External links. To sum it up, so long as the link adds meaningful value—which should be determined on an article by article bases and not Wikipedia-wide—and does not fall into one of the "Links normally to be avoided" or "Restrictions on linking" criteria, it is permitted. However, you have yet to point out how the external links created by this particular template would never conform with Wikipedia:External links. The only argument that you have managed is that it is potentially unreliable and unsourced, which isn't enough to prohibit the link under Wikipedia:External links. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an external link isn't an endorsement and even though they don't cite reliable sources doesn't mean they don't have them. I'm sure if you contacted them, they'

d be able to provide their references, but some people and organisations prefer to keep their sources and resources private unless requested, as a matter of prudent business practice. They're not an encyclopedia as Wikipedia is and, as such, isn't required to report on their secondary resources. Also, an external link may provide original research. We don't have to provide a disclaimer for this, as there's a "disclaimers" link on the footnote of every article and page in the whole place, one of which relates to external links. This inclusion is no different to having the {{youtube}} template, linking to a commonly used webresource. --linca linca 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked at the site and to update the info, you use the link http://commentary.nndb.com/submit/feedback/?id= which is located at the bottom of the page. There's nothing immediate like here, but it's not a Wikia, so its immediacy can't be expected. It's just like IMDB, which is also not a watertight resource, but is broadly considered to be as reliable, and sometime smore reliable, than Wikipedia. --linca linca 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination is misjudged. A template is not an endorsement. The info from a random sample of articles seemed reliable enough to me. Being ignored is not proof that "there is no workable system of correcting errors"; and, besides, plenty of sites have no way to correct errors—that doesn't mean linking to them is forbidden—and there are disclaimers here about external links. Having previous deletion nominations adds no weight to this one—especially when the result in both cases was Keep.

The nominator, to me, seems to have confused justification for linking to the site on specific articles with the justification for a template. While many links to nndb may be superfluous, on others they provide extra information that is unsuitable for direct inclusion here but is, nonetheless, useful to readers. In those latter cases, a template is useful in providing uniformity; the former kind will be added anyway, regardless of whether a template exists. ObfuscatePenguin 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, noting the previous nominations is encouraged so that details for and against the article can be reviewed by the voting/discussing parties, though you're right in that it doesn't serve the nominator any good to list them, but it's fairer to the article to list them. --linca linca 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous TfDs discussed the matter about whether the template was linkspam, which isn't exactly related to the current discussion. --Farix (Talk) 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A reliable source for me.--Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 12:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, a template is a mild endorsement of the site and nndb is not reliable (as per WP:RS) and in no cases I have ever seen on a page I watchlist does it add meaningfully to the article. I have over 13,000 pages (not 13,000 articles) on my watchlist. That said, nndb may be appropriate to link to in some articles despite not being a reliable source. Lincalinca states that nndb is similar to imdb and that imdb is broadly considered to be as reliable as Wikipedia. Note that neither Wikipedia nor imdb meet WP:RS. Anyway, I freely admit that my grounds for getting rid of the template is that I consider nndb to be generally inappropriate and always unreliable (as per WP:RS) and that the template mildly endorses the site. You may not consider this sufficient grounds for removal of the template, though, only grounds for removing that template from 99% of the articles it is currently used in. Or you may disagree on that point, too. --Yamla 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with the identical situation with the IMDB and similar templates, a template standardizes the link format across various pages for which the links are going to appear on anyway, template or no template extant. This is not an issue with sourcing (where NNDB should not appear) but with external links sections. Quatloo 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying you wouldn't mind people removing nndb links as we consider it to be unverifiable (no refs) and unreliable? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should be removing external links on the bases of verifiability or reliability. Instead, you have to argue that the external links are either not relevant to the article or does not add any meaningful value. --Farix (Talk) 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that -- nobody should be bulk adding or removing external links to anything based on agenda. If links are to be added or removed, they should be done so by existing editors of the articles in question. Quatloo 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is useful for linking (which is not an endorsement), and does not mean all NNDB information is reliable. It's another source/POV to make available to our readers, per WP:NPOV. Obviously, we would also link to other sources, and explain where they differ. Superm401 - Talk 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the web site should be completely removed from all external links. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not think the template is helpful, noteworthy, or encyclopedic. Category:External link templates says "Generally, templates should only be made for links to sites that are...Extremely well-known and covering the subject better than Wikipedia does (e.g. IMDB)" and I don't think NNDB qualifies. Also, WP:EL says external links should be meritable, with accurate research. I think there's a tendency for editors to see templates in external links sections and then think that every similar article needs that template as well. So this template may be an endorsement to add NNDB links to every biographical article on Wikipedia. NNDB has over 27,000 profiles and I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles on Wikipedia. At WP:EL, in the Links normally to be avoided section, it lists: 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 4) Links mainly intended to promote a website. I have no idea if the information at NNDB is accurate, and without knowing that, I can't endorse 27,000 articles potentially linking to it. NNDB links to dailyrotten.com on the mainpage, so I'm a bit wary. NNDB has an Alexa rank of 7,243[1]. The Alexa profile lists Sites with registration info similar to nndb.com and it lists rotten.com, shockumentary.com, gapingmaw.com, ratemyboobies.com, and fcks.com. Soylent Communications runs shockumentary.com (which sells shock DVDs) and also nndb.com. Soylent Communications is a webhost as far as I know, but glancing at the sites it hosts also makes me wary. I don't want to judge a site based on what its webhost also hosts, but I'm not sure if Soylent Communications is the webhost or if they are the people who add the information to NNDB. The NNDB Wikipedia article says it is "produced by Soylent Communications." The profile for Marilyn Manson on NNDB may be useful if the information is accurate, but it also links to the Rotten Library page. I see you can submit information to NNDB. On film articles like Beetlejuice it contains a link to Amazon.com with a referrer tag of "namesdatabase-20." Other than that, NNDB contains no advertising as far as I can tell. I know that IMDB accepts submissions although they are moderated. I also know that IMDB links to Amazon.com (since Amazon acquired IMDB). I suppose I put more faith in IMDB because it's run by Amazon.com, which is a publicly traded company. There is a long discussion at Talk:NNDB about whether NNDB is acceptable as an external link. The NNDB profile for Laura Schlessinger is not one I think Wikipedia can recommend. The first sentence reads "On Laura Schlessinger's popular train wreck of a radio show, listeners can hear strangers' lives ruined by bad advice for three hours daily." Apparently Soylent Communications also hosts (or runs, I don't know) Pornopolis.com which states "This is the best way to support Rotten, The Rotten Library, Daily Rotten, and NNDB." I can understand the need for a template so external links will look consistent, but I don't think NNDB links "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contains if it became a Featured article", I'm not sure where the information comes from, and I think the template can be seen as promotion of a website. NNDB appears to contain no advertisements, but it does link to Rotten.com, another Soylent Communications site. The Rotten.com article says Rotten.com launched NNDB in mid-2004 (although that sentence has no citation). I don't know if nndb.com urls should be blacklisted, but I think the template encourages spamming nndb.com urls across biographical articles and should be deleted. --Pixelface 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of this is Straw man argument, and irrelevant to the discussion, e.g., "I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles." Nobody is proposing that, nor has anyone been bulk adding them. It should be noted, that Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, who paid for and ran the encyclopedia from the offices of his softcore porn site Bomis. Does that make you "wary"? Frankly, I have _less_ faith in sites run by large firms -- they must bow to political and shareholder pressures. The only question is, since NNDB links are going to be added to articles anyway, should they have a standard format. Quatloo 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardsproj

Redundant wikiproject banner. Is now part of the awards task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I propose it is deleted. — RWardy 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it no longer has its own project, there is no point in this template. TheBlazikenMaster 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Is there any particular reason why this shouldn't be redirected? --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected to where? TheBlazikenMaster 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the Project was subsumed into the WP:FILMS, most likely there... SkierRMH 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but... The project has been changed into a task force within WP Films, so in order for a redirect to be effective, it would have to include the task force parameter as well. Furthermore, virtually all transclusions and links to the template have been changed or deleted now, so there is little point to bothering. Girolamo Savonarola 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Crossname redirects make no sense. Template redirect to a Wikipedia site makes less sense than mainspace redirect to a Wikipedia site. I think that's what you're planning to do. TheBlazikenMaster 09:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it has been deprecated totally at this point, no need to redirect, so deletion would be the answer at this point. SkierRMH 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link GA

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 under G4. Carlosguitar 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a test page - I cant CSD templates though!. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a test page. This template needs to be create ! Hourslimit 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the user is still editing the page. On the other hand, its purpose seems to be to mark interwiki links to "good articles" (correct me if I am wrong) - wasn't a similar template deleted previously? - Mike Rosoft 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Recreation of a deleted template that was deleted through a previous TfD earlier this month. --Farix (Talk) 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. SkierRMH 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsensical and unencyclopedic. Perhaps the user who created the template (twice now) should be notified in order to cease creating it? I suspect with another deletion s/he will simply create it again. Can a template be protected from creation? --linca linca 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, nominated for deletion per G4 - asking closing admin to "salt" as well.SkierRMH 20:36, 30 October 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:Mike Gravel

The template is overkill. Only three of the entries are intrinsically linked to Gravel (Political positions of Mike Gravel, Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 and National Initiative), and these are amply linked to from his page or his campaign's page. The rest is just filler and without it, we are left with a very thin template that serves no real useful navigational purpose. I feel similarly about Template:Ron Paul and Template:Dennis Kucinich, should anyone wish to nominate those. — Biruitorul 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Rail

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 under G4. Carlosguitar 06:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted. On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. - Che Nuevara 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-g4}} SkierRMH 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --linca linca 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are about 13 other similar templates listed on Wikipedia:MTR templates. Shouldn't these all be grouped together into one discussion? Slambo (Speak) 10:44, 30 October 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:West Rail

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily replacable with some colour tweaking in the tables where it's used. SkierRMH 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --linca linca 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Rail Line

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page as a redirect. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily replacable with some colour tweaking in the tables where it's used. SkierRMH 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --linca linca 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KCR Light Rail

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily replacable with some colour tweaking in the tables where it's used. SkierRMH 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --linca linca 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *:So you are saying you wouldn't mind people removing nndb links as we consider it to be unverifiable (no refs) and unreliable? [[User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel|Gustav von Humpelschmumpel]] 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 *::Nobody should be removing external links on the bases of verifiability or reliability. Instead, you have to argue that the external links are either not relevant to the article or does not add any meaningful value. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+*::I never said that -- nobody should be bulk adding or removing external links to anything based on agenda. If links are to be added or removed, they should be done so by existing editors of the articles in question. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - The template is useful for linking (which is not an endorsement), and does not mean all NNDB information is reliable.  It's another source/POV to make available to our readers, per [[WP:NPOV]].  Obviously, we would also link to other sources, and explain where they differ. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] - [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 45: / Line 46: @@
 *'''Delete'''. I do not think the template is helpful, noteworthy, or encyclopedic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:External_link_templates Category:External link templates] says "Generally, templates should only be made for links to sites that are...Extremely well-known and covering the subject better than Wikipedia does (e.g. IMDB)" and I don't think NNDB qualifies. Also, [[WP:EL]] says external links should be meritable, with accurate research. I think there's a tendency for editors to see templates in external links sections and then think that every similar article needs that template as well. So this template may be an endorsement to add NNDB links to every biographical article on Wikipedia. NNDB has over 27,000 profiles and I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles on Wikipedia. At [[WP:EL]], in the '''Links normally to be avoided''' section, it lists: 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 4) Links mainly intended to promote a website. I have no idea if the information at NNDB is accurate, and without knowing that, I can't endorse 27,000 articles potentially linking to it. NNDB links to dailyrotten.com on the mainpage, so I'm a bit wary. NNDB has an Alexa rank of 7,243[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?url=nndb.com]. The Alexa profile lists '''Sites with registration info similar to nndb.com''' and it lists rotten.com, shockumentary.com, gapingmaw.com, ratemyboobies.com, and fcks.com. Soylent Communications runs shockumentary.com (which sells shock DVDs) and also nndb.com. [[Soylent Communications]] is a webhost as far as I know, but glancing at the sites it hosts also makes me wary. I don't want to judge a site based on what its webhost also hosts, but I'm not sure if Soylent Communications is the webhost or if they are the people who add the information to NNDB. The [[NNDB]] Wikipedia article says it is "produced by Soylent Communications." The profile for [http://www.nndb.com/people/596/000022530/ Marilyn Manson] on [[NNDB]] may be useful if the information is accurate, but it also links to the Rotten Library page. I see you can submit information to NNDB. On film articles like [http://www.nndb.com/films/592/000032496/ Beetlejuice] it contains a link to [[Amazon.com]] with a referrer tag of "namesdatabase-20." Other than that, NNDB contains no advertising as far as I can tell. I know that [[IMDB]] accepts submissions although they are moderated. I also know that [[IMDB]] links to [[Amazon.com]] (since Amazon acquired IMDB). I suppose I put more faith in IMDB because it's run by Amazon.com, which is a publicly traded company. There is a long discussion at [[Talk:NNDB]] about whether NNDB is acceptable as an external link. The NNDB profile for [http://www.nndb.com/people/427/000022361/ Laura Schlessinger] is not one I think Wikipedia can recommend. The first sentence reads "On Laura Schlessinger's popular train wreck of a radio show, listeners can hear strangers' lives ruined by bad advice for three hours daily." Apparently [[Soylent Communications]] also hosts (or runs, I don't know) Pornopolis.com which states "This is the best way to support Rotten, The Rotten Library, Daily Rotten, and NNDB." I can understand the need for a template so external links will look consistent, but I don't think NNDB links "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contains if it became a Featured article", I'm not sure where the information comes from, and I think the template can be seen as [[WP:SOAPBOX|promotion]] of a website. NNDB appears to contain no advertisements, but it does link to [[Rotten.com]], another [[Soylent Communications]] site. The [[Rotten.com]] article says Rotten.com launched NNDB in mid-2004 (although that sentence has no citation). I don't know if nndb.com urls should be blacklisted, but I think the template encourages spamming nndb.com urls across biographical articles and should be deleted. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+::Almost all of this is [[Straw man]] argument, and irrelevant to the discussion, e.g., "I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles." Nobody is proposing that, nor has anyone been bulk adding them. It should be noted, that Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, who paid for and ran the encyclopedia from the offices of his softcore porn site Bomis. Does that make you "wary"? Frankly, I have _less_ faith in sites run by large firms -- they must bow to political and shareholder pressures. The only question is, since NNDB links are going to be added to articles anyway, should they have a standard format. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:AcademyAwardsproj]] ====