Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Template:Periodic table (vertical)[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table (vertical) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The content page, with this vertical pt only, was deleted by AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (vertical). Since there is no reason for this format/layout, we should delete the template too. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:ELEMENTS [1] -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2013 (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:Periodic table (wide)[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table (wide) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Last week this content was deleted from article space, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (wide). I now propose consequently to delete this template. The AfD concluded that there is no additional value for this PT form. Between formats {{Periodic table (large version)}} and {{compact}}/{{standard}}, we do not need a semi-width PT form. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:ELEMENTS: [2] -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very reluctant to see this version of the table go. Especially given that several people expressed the wish that this article table would be converted into a template. I personally find this table very valuable, and greatly prefer it to the scrunched up version with the lanthanides and actinides on seperate lines, which I find rather confusing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F-block in line. ~~Two~~ One of the three linked alternatives ~~have~~ has f-block in line (and within regular screen width). For the the third alternative, large cells, there is another variant available: {{large cells, f-block inline}}. The wide form here for TfD compromises on data per element cell. -DePiep (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the point of a template that isn't transcluded or substituted onto anything?

You can see this format on the compact table already (the footer you see on the element pages, {{Compact periodic table}}). I don't see what this particular template adds. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (and my comment above). Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2013 (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:JSW Bangalore FC[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JSW Bangalore FC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:JSW Bangalore FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate to [3]. Alex (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to avoid recreation. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (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 former regency[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former regency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only 1 page. I am not convinced we really need this infobox. Magioladitis (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be replaced by Template:Infobox officeholder.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- would be closer to Template:Infobox political post, since it is about the position and not the person. Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, replaced here with no issues. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (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 ITS[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ITS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{infobox organization}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, redundant, and poorly designed. As far as I can see, it has only ever been used in one article, and in that one it has been replaced by {{infobox organization}}, which does exactly the same job, but looks neater. (The template was created on 13 October 2011 by an editor whose entire Wikipedia editing career was restricted to that one day, and as far as I can tell, nobody else has ever used it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2013 (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:Universities in Northern Germany[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universities in Northern Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purely random collection of articles. "Northern Germany" is not defined (either legally or for purposes of this template), making it unclear why, say, the University of Göttingen and the Clausthal University of Technology are included while Bielefeld University and the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg are excluded, even though Bielefeld and Magdeburg are further north than Göttingen and Clausthal. But even if there were a clear definition of Northern Germany, there's no reason to have a template for universities there; there's nothing unique about universities in the north of Germany to distinguish them from universities in the rest of Germany. So this is nothing more than a template for universities in 6 of the 16 states of Germany that have nothing in common setting them apart from the other 10 states. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, Northern Germany is not well-defined, and we already have a very nice category for all German universities. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2013 (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:Centro Escolar University[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Centro Escolar University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

contains very little actual (nor notable entries). Malalos link is just a redirect to the main university article. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the two articles are already well connected. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2013 (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:Translit[edit]

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 delete, after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Text expansion (contraction). Subst all and delete. — Lfdder (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seems like many of these should be replaced with {{transl}} instead. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this about {{transl}}. — Lfdder (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Ultimately {{transl}} cases should remedied with the use of {{lang}}. However, this template should be substituted and an alternative to deleting would be to substitute where used and convert to a subst only template. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a completely pointless template, and could be deleted if someone is willing to volunteer to replace or subst all 473 transclusions. If not, then it will have to stay. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (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:Competition[edit]

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 Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not useful as a navigational template: only links three articles, which are already easily accessible from one another. Too few links to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -PC-XT+ 05:17, 17 September 2013 (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:Call of Duty chronology[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Call of Duty chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per a Video Games WikiProject discussion concerning chronology templates; this template lists games in a semi-chronological fashion, which is unnecessary to put in a template for articles (probably WP:OR), because chronology isn't important for the series' as a whole, with several story arcs listed, which in turn don't have anything to do with each other. Template is redundant then, with an infobox on the bottom with every CoD article, which of course lists the games. Soetermans. T / C 20:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ It's pretty clear that this is redundant. --Izno (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the redundancies the nominee suggested. The template provides the same information as Template:Call of Duty series, albeit in a more confusing way. CR4ZE (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hi. It is a template-based method of disseminating unreferenced contents. The WP:OR probability is strong here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is useful for putting the different games in the series in context in an easy-to-read format. They shed light on the fictional chronology of the different games so the reader can get a better sense of where they fit in. Most people do not scroll to the bottom of the page to read the navigation box at the bottom, and the nav boxes are usually so massive anyways that it's near-impossible to find meaningful information in a timely manner. I support small templates with clearly defined purposes and actual navigational utility to the reader - all of which this template is. Some additional sourcing would help and would greatly reduce WP:SYN concerns. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaseyPenk. Also disagree with it being OR. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 06:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly agree with CaseyPenk's argument. Seeking info on CoD series, the 'fictional chronology' table on wiki really helped me make a quick sense of the CoD series' chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britsin (talk) • contribs) 20:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CaseyPenk (talk · contribs), isn't Template: Call of Duty series also easy-to-read? Games are listed first, with subgroups for the different story arcs. If you feel navboxes are "massive", why do you consider this template to be "small"? Also, could you please explain how you know that the average reader doesn't scroll down? --Soetermans. T / C 07:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Template: Call of Duty series is reasonably easy to read. However, I still think it is too bulky for the very specific purpose for which Template:Call of Duty chronology is designed. In other words, it is not nimble enough to relay information about the chronology in a direct way. I have not conducted any research on this topic, other than speaking from personal experience. I almost never get down to the bottom of any page except for pure curiosity, because Wikipedia pages are usually quite long and the most pertinent information to the reader (i.e. the content) is at the top. All that's at the bottom is references, external links, and templates such as this one - none of which most people browse for fun. Besides, even if they did look at the bottom, why should the reader have to scroll all the way down there? It makes more sense to integrate the chronology template into the relevant section of the article, keeping the article "flowing" so they don't have to jump around the article.

The bigger template also lacks the specific year data (e.g. 1942, 2011) that would be useful when talking about chronology. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if this is needed, it is only needed in Call of Duty, since it otherwise provides redundant navigation. the point of a navigation template is for navigation, not for content. if the timeline is needed, it should be in the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 04:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the storyline of the series is so complicated that it requires a chrononlogy list. Series like Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania and Grand Theft Auto require chronology templates since the year in which they are set is often confusing and the games of MGS and Castlevania released are always set in a different era. But I don't think Call of Duty requires a chronology template. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2013 (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:Grand Theft Auto chronology[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Theft Auto chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per a Video Games WikiProject discussion concerning chronology templates; this template lists games in a semi-chronological fashion, which I guess is probably WP:OR, because chronology isn't important for the series' continuity, which it barely has at all. Three "eras" are listed, which in turn don't have much to do with each other either (except for the occasional cameo of a character), which are incorrect to begin with: HD games are also in 3D, while China Town isn't in high-definition. Template is redundant then, with an infobox on the bottom of every GTA article, which of course lists the games. Soetermans. T / C 16:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if this is important, then put it in the main article, but no need to duplicate the navigation already provided by the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the redundancies the nominee suggested. The template provides the same information as Template:Grand Theft Auto, albeit in a more confusing way. CR4ZE (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The eras are actually called "2D", "3D" and "HD" eras officially by Rockstar Games themselves, despite the redundancies. --Rhain1999 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the template does little to add to the content of the article, and anyway is made essentially redundant by the larger GTA template. Astonmartini (?) 06:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hi. This template disseminates unreferenced info. The WP:OR problem is a very big issue here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is useful for putting the different games in the series in context in an easy-to-read format. They shed light on the fictional chronology of the different games so the reader can get a better sense of where they fit in. Most people do not scroll to the bottom of the page to read the navigation box at the bottom, and the nav boxes are usually so massive anyways that it's near-impossible to find meaningful information in a timely manner. I support small templates with clearly defined purposes and actual navigational utility to the reader - all of which this template is. Some additional sourcing would help and would greatly reduce WP:SYN concerns. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Casey. There comes your sock-puppet below. (Joking! But all the same, damaging...) "Most people do not scroll to the bottom"? No, people just press End key to hop to the bottom because most of the times there is a navbox there. They don't scroll and don't see this box in the middle, so all the more reason to delete this. ;)

But joking aside, if you think there are any sources, you find them and add them. Only then, we can have a discussion in which keeping is a choice. Even then, merging is another choice. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.10.44 (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The infobox at the bottom only breaks down the games based on their types (Main series, Handhelds, Expansions etc.), while Rockstar Games officially breaks Grand Theft Auto franchise into three distinct universes. The 2D Universe encompass the original top down, 2D games in the franchise and have their own chronology. Beginning with Grand Theft Auto III, the primary games became more open-world 3D, which Rockstar recognizes as the 3D Universe. There are is a 2D game, Grand Theft Auto Advance in there, but it is set in the same universe as Grand Theft Auto III, and that's why its part of the 3D universe. All games in this universe have an interwoven storyline involving the Forelli family, and the Leone family, which goes a lot further than a few cameos and tie up all the games in this universe together. While each game has its own plotline, there is a significant overarching storyline which can only be explained with a chronological context starting with Vice City Stories and continuing with Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories, and culminating with Grand Theft Auto III. Finally, the HD Universe began with the HD consoles like the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and of course the games are 3D in this generation as well, but they are clearly different from the 3D Universe. Up till now, the only major console games released for this generation are Grand Theft Auto IV and its two parallel episodes, which have a complex interwoven storyline. While both episodes were originally released as expansions for the Xbox 360 version of the game, they were bundled together as a standalone release for the PC and PlayStation 3, and the Xbox 360. It remains to be seen how deeply, if at all, Grand Theft Auto V will be integrated to the storyline of IV, but according to Rockstar's statements, it does exist in the same HD Universe and chronology. The bottom template fails to communicate this relationship between the games and how they are grouped together between each generation. The timeline in the 3D Universe is also important to convey the overall narrative of the games. It appears that the OP may not have a clear grasp of the subject matter, hence the need for this discussion. UzEE 14:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me start by saying that I respect your opinion Uzee, but please do keep your assumptions about me to yourself. Whether or not I have any knowledge about GTA or about video games in general shouldn't matter at all, but it happens to be that I am a huge gamer. It is because of my love for the medium that the vast majority of my edits on Wikipedia are on video game related articles. So it wasn't like I stumbled upon this template and thought, 'hey, let's get rid of this'. Futher more, I explicitly stated that my nomination came after a discussion on WT:VG, where consensus was reached. Unlike video game series like Metal Gear or Assassin's Creed, GTA doesn't have a clear chronology, let alone continuity. If you want to break it down, sure, let's do that.

What I understand from the note on the template page, Rockstar said "The “universes” are the worlds interpreted at different definitions, 2d, 3d and high definition, so we felt brands and radio / background characters would exist in both, but three dimensional characters would not." (said here). Based upon technical abilities first, characters second. So why should Wikipedia follow suit what a developer intends with its franchise? This is an encyclopedia after all, not a detailed game guide. That we actually have to look up Rockstar's website (a forum, no less) also shows that the chronology of GTA isn't that obvious.

Could you please elaborate on the continuity of the original 2D universe? Grand Theft Auto states that "These three cities would later become the settings used in the Grand Theft Auto III and IV games to follow, but not in the Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969 and Grand Theft Auto: London, 1961 mission packs nor in Grand Theft Auto 2". Grand Theft Auto 2's setting: "GTA 2 is set in an unspecified time in a retrofuturistic metropolis referred to only as "Anywhere, USA"." To me, that sounds there isn't any kind of chronology.

I do not agree that the power struggle of the Forellis and Leones are somehow the 3D universe's greater story. If it would be, wouldn't the names Leone and Forelli appear more often in articles? Forelli is mentioned once in Vice City Stories, nine times in Vice City, Leone is mentioned sixteen times in Liberty City Stories and five times in Grand Theft Auto III. Neither is mentioned in San Andreas and GTA Advance states that "although it is not revealed which Mafia family it is; the game's place in the GTA timeline suggests it is either the Forellis, or more likely the Leones". I'm sure that in the games gangsters from different crime families pop up more than once. But apparently it isn't important enough to mention in articles. How should the average reader gather from this template the supposed relationship between all games and between its universes?

Sure, GTAIV, The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony are more involved than other games. But they are still different stories with different characters. That the stories are interwoven is something that the template can't communicate either, so the reader would always have to read the article body. Chronology isn't something that is crystal clear, so to me this template is redundant, with a GTA template on every article. --Soetermans. T / C 07:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point about continuity between universes can be argued in the Grand Theft Auto (series) page itself. There's no template for "GTA games set on the East coast" or "GTA games that feature an African-American protagonist". Besides, there's a case that could be made for a template such as the one we are debating here today being in-universe, and hence fancruft. The fact that the series is divided into different eras has not been shown to have an outstanding impact on the development of each game as a whole. The "universes" in question refer to the game's plot details and continuity with characters, which are unimportant details and stray into game guide territory. CR4ZE (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"game's plot details and continuity with characters, which are unimportant details and stray into game guide territory" The major outlines of the plot and characters are certainly notable. Niko Bellic has his own article, for one. Comparing the major outlines of different games makes very much sense. Saying that Game A has the same "look/feel/universe" as Game B is a defining characteristic that provides context for the reader.

Templates, in my view, are useful navigational/information aides for the reader, and this template does just that. It connects between different games in a meaningful way, and a reliably sourced (from Rockstar) way rather than in a speculate, Wikipedia-specific way. Who thought to categorize the games by handheld vs. main series? Did Rockstar state that handheld games deserve their own category, or is that speculation on our part? My point is that Rockstar is the definitive source for information about how their games should be categorized - and if information from the game make is fan cruft, that's really the only option we have here. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that main character Niko Bellic has it own article is no argument here, and I'm not arguing that having plot lines and characters in articles on Wikipedia is unnecessary, not at all. Neither do I think that anyone would disagree with you why templates are a great way to communicate information, that's why we have all these navboxes. Question remains whether or not to have one based upon chronology of this video game series is worth having. You say "meaningful", but how does the average reader know that it is "meaningful"? GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas mention they were all in 3D, but no word on a "3D universe". Like I said earlier, the games simply aren't that connected. Different protagonists, different antagonists, different minor characters -- except for the ocassional DJ (Lazlow) or cameo (Claude). No Nathan Drake, no Lara Croft, no Solid Snake to save the day. No GlaDOS, no M. Bison, no Bowser to stir things up. So what does this template say? The order in which games, no particularly connected, take place. That's it. Is that important for the series? My answer is no. Should we have that information in a template on every article? My answer, you've guessed it, is no.

Concerning video games articles, there have been other times with discussions like this: should Wikipedia copy what a developer/creator/publisher has to say? Usually the answer is no, because that would mean Wikipedia would rely on one source (which also can easily cross WP:NPOV). Magazines and websites are what matters in the end: from video game reviews to interviews, from in-depth analysis to the fall-out after a developer goes nuts on twitter. I don't think Sony wants to have "Giant Enemy Crab" listed. And Capcom actually wanted to call Resident Evil 6 a "dramatic horror". But that's not how Wikipedia works. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. --Soetermans. T / C 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the series, but the few points you mentioned - "the ocassional DJ (Lazlow) or cameo (Claude)" - are, in my view, enough "glue" to unite different titles together in a common theme, such as HD universe. Those minor characters may not define the game completely, but they give related games a similar "feel" - in the sense that, whenever you turn on a certain radio station, you know who to expect.

You're correct that we should not defer to developer/creator/publisher wishes when they disagree with the vast majority of reliable sources. However, in this case no reliable sources have presented a theory of how the games should be arranged (no sources except, sadly, us - dividing them up into main series, handhelds, etc.) In other words, the developer's view has gone unchallenged because no gaming websites have picked a bone with them over it or opposed that categorization scheme. Since the developers themselves are the only source on the matter of categorization, I think we should defer to them. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a gamer, I would like to know that story-wise, San Andreas actually fits between Vice City and Grand Theft Auto III. As for the crossovers, they aren't as minor as you say. For instance, Ken Rosenberg plays a prominent supporting character in Vice City and also appears as a significant character in San Andreas. Similarly, Salvatore Leone plays a major role in Grand Theft Auto III as well as San Andreas. Sure, Claude has a cameo in San Andreas, but having the protagonist of one title even play a couple of cameos in another game of the series is enough to warrant a connection. Similar is the case with Catalina, who plays a supporting character in San Andreas and is the primary antagonist of Grand Theft Auto III.

If we have to categorize the games, we should do so on a metric on which they are related, instead of coming up with our own explanations like Main Series and Handhelds etc. For instance, both Liberty City Stories, and Vice City Stories were released on the PSP before being released on the PlayStation 2 as well, so should they be considered Handheld or Console? Similarly, GTA III and Vice City are also available on iOS and Android despite being originally released on the consoles. This categorization is as much "confusing" as say, the chronological one.

Lastly, I did not mean to offend anyone, and I deeply apologize if I came off as insulting. I have great respect for everyone contributing here at Wikipedia and appreciate everyone's opinion and hard work. UzEE 21:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just the thing, you as a gamer would like to know what happens when and where in the series, but would the average reader would like to? And besides, with that information, would you decide to anything with it? I can't think that anyone would play VC first, SA second and III lastly, just because that's how they are chronologically set. Or if this was Metal Gear Solid, who would play MGS3: Snake Eater, set in the sixties, before MGS, set in early 2000. Just because their graphical improvements and gameplay capabilities are so different.

Concerning those characters, SA mentions CJ working with Catalina for a while and "Catalina and her new boyfriend". That she appeared in III isn't mentioned, and the cameo of Claude isn't explained. Neither Leon or Rosenberg are mentioned in the article also. Adding it would be too detailed and unnecessary, so how would the average reader know? With this template we are only serving those who really do know the games well, which I still think reeks of WP:GAMETRIVIA.

I would still like to see this template to go, but I wouldn't have a problem seeing the Rockstar "universe" classifaction appear in the Template: Grand Theft Auto, but not with San Andreas set before III. See Template: Assassin's Creed, the upcoming IV is set before III, but is released later.

And thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it. --Soetermans. T / C 06:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion A cursory glance at the main series article would tell you that the "2D", "3D" and "HD" groupings come from Rockstar themselves, and are sourced. In fact, they are the only terms we have been able to source (for a long time people kept throwing around "GTA III era" etc. which was a fan-made term). The years of the individual games do not need to be sourced, as that information is made clear in the games themselves. The OP has misinterpreted the meanings of those terms, as Rockstar has defined them as referring to the level of general detail they give the games, and not graphical fidelity.

I think the point that the navbox conveys the same information is an interesting one. It certainly used to show this in a clear and concise manner, but was changed for absolutely no reason. I recommend we revert back to the previous format. --Dorsal Axe 10:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed back the main GTA template, from the unsourced original research main series / handheld to the reliably sourced, Rockstar-provided methodology. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, mainly for the reasons that UzEE has made, in that I find it very useful to know how the plots of each story relate to each other chronologically. While it is true that for some of them, the actual year is OR, how they date relative to each other, at least within their own 2D/3D/HD universes is accurate. I find this very useful when I'm researching the plot of the game series as a whole, and I want to find out what comes where. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 08:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say it once more Imagine Wizard, the template does not explain anything about a connection between the games. It only says the way they are chronologically set, not how they relate to each other. It is a small difference, but in this case, pivotal. I also pointed out that the articles do not refer to other games. Only by playing and knowing the games would a person know that information, which would be WP:GAMETRIVIA to point out. Does the average reader have to guess how they are connected then? Because no matter how you look at it, without a clear and defined continuity there is no need for a template like this, especially since we've already come to the conclusion that the universe classification has been re-added to the actual Template: Grand Theft Auto. --Soetermans. T / C 12:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a template dedicated to a fictional chronology is divided into 2D, 3D and HD eras. --Enok (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really agree this continuity seems stupid but it is official. Here is the official source ( http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/19861/grand-theft-auto-iii-your-questions-answered-part-one-claude-dar.html ) that proves the fictional chronology is legit.

Here's a statement by Rockstar about the chronlogy of the GTA games :-

El Burro is referenced as he was also referenced in GTA 1, so it felt appropriate that he should cross “universes” – the “universes” are the worlds interpreted at different definitions, 2d, 3d and high definition, so we felt brands and radio / back ground characters would exist in both, but 3 dimensional characters would not. This is the logic (as far as it could be considered logical) behind it – so no, we don’t believe any GTA3 characters could exist in the GTA4 universe.

2D universes means all game released for fifth generation of consoles like PS One. 3D universe for the games released on sixth generation of consoles like PS2, Xbox. HD universe for seventh generation of consoles like PS3, Xbox 360. HD games have 3D graphics but 3D games do not have HD graphics thus the naming of the universes. An official statement is officiql. We have no say in it. Also just because the names seem stupid, it is no reason to delete the template.

The template is very important and significant. The fictional chronology of GTA games causes confusion among people. This template containing the official continuity will help everyone know about the true continuity of the series. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but again: the template does not communicate any relevant information. It makes clear how the games are chronologically set, not how they relate to each other. We already come to the conlusion that adding the "universe" layout is perfectly fine to add to Template: Grand Theft Auto. Every entry is more or less a stand-alone story, with its own protagonists and antagonists, which is explained in every single article, so can you back up your claim that it causes confusion among people? Also, again, Wikipedia doesn't blindly follow first-party sources, whether or not it is "official". --Soetermans. T / C 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears that Rockstar confirms this continuity, but it's not made clear on the template. It's definitely better served as prose in the History section of the GTA series article, which can be linked to instead of this template. People with only casual knowledge of these games and general audiences will just be confused by it. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point Jtalledo raises. Nobody can support the claim that the universal continuity is unimportant; we have third-party sources noting it. The issue is purely that the template isn't necessary. If the HD era is separate and unrelated from the 3D era of the series, why does the reader need a template on each game's page explaining that? If the point of the template is to get across that CJ isn't in GTA IV, then it's redundant because that information isn't mentioned or relevant in the first place, given that with each article we are assuming the reader is a non-gamer and unaware of previous entries in the series. Likewise, the fact that Johnny appears in both GTA IV and GTA V isn't particularly relevant because he's only a minor character in the second instance, and Rockstar Games have clearly implied with each game that while there may be nominal ties across games in each of the universes, they are deliberately insignificant as they start each game with a blank slate and a fresh cast of characters. Therefore, the template doesn't serve any significant purpose, but should instead communicate its intention in clear, well-sourced prose in the GTA series page. CR4ZE (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant per Frietjes, CR4ZE, and Jtalledo -PC-XT+ 04:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This series has no continuity, except for some random cameo appearances. Stuff like this is useless to the general reader and can be considered fancruft or trivia, so it should not belong to this encyclopedia. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2013 (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:Cue sports bios[edit]

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue sports bios (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No criteria of inclusion. NickSt (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't profess to understand either basis given for deletion, at least in the specific context. Maybe you can both explain better what you intend? But let me analyze the best I can make out by the words used. Navigation templates provide a facility to navigate between multiple related articles to help our readers who, if interested in the topic they are reading, may well be interested in related topics. Generally, navigation templates do not have stated "criteria for inclusion" because it is implicit in what they are, e.g., a navigation template on a film director lists that director's films. Here, this template's criteria might easily have just been discerned from its name as "biography articles in the cue sports arena". That's certainly "criteria", but in this case, the template actually states [further] criteria. It says in part (if you read it): This template is intended for relatively well developed and well written articles which are verified by citation to reliable sources..."
For context here, though, quite unlike what you might think this would be analogous to—say a template listing articles on "football bios", or even those of a particular team's members, where there might be hundreds or thousands of articles—the number of cue sports biographies on Wikipedia is sharply delimited, and most not listed in this template are unsourced or poorly sourced stubs. I say this because I think a valid basis for deletion of templates one might think are akin to this one, are on the basis of being indiscriminate in ambit, and I also thought the nom's text might be a shorthand to flag that, even if not spelled out. Anyway, in sum, "No criteria of inclusion" appears simply false.
Turning to the category basis immediately above, I can't imagine how this could be "'better' covered by a category". In the first place, although categories are displayed in articles and are thus in theory available to both readers and behind the scenes editors like you and me, in practice we know that most readers do not notice categories; many don't even know that they exist with the category links inconspicuously located at the bottom of the page and appearing outside the confines of the article proper, just as they ignore most of our technical interface. Simply stated, navboxes are easier to navigate and easier to notice than categories for everyone, and far fewer readers will get the same benefit even where a navbox's information is actually redundant with a category.
But even if the above was not the case, i.e., readers were just as likely to see and use a category as a navbox, this template is not remotely redundant with the categories in which its constituent articles belong. This can be seen from the fact that the majority of the 19 article within it are good articles (and one featured), whereas the approximately 200 articles in the main categories to which the articles belong are far, far from that, and thus most of those articles would not meet this template's "criteria". Moreover, you would have to cross-navigate at least 5 categories to find an intersection between all the articles listed in this navbox, e.g., American pool players, American carom billiards players, Austrian pool players etc., so it is not possible for the content to be duplicative of any category. I hope we can agree that there is quite a difference between wading through 200 articles in multiple categories most of which are pablum, verses being presented with 19 culled, well written articles. So the second stated basis appears, likewise, false on its face.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially thousands inclusions. I could add many items. No similar templates for other sports. "Well written articles" is a subjective criteria unused in Wikipedia for navboxes. "Relatively well developed" is a description for hundreds such articles. It's an only one navbox where inclusion depends on editor's work. WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles. NickSt (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that might be true at some potential point in the far distant future when those articles have been written and refined, but we are dealing with the facts on the ground. Over ten years about 200 articles have been written, total, and mostly poorly-sourced stubs in this area, which is not easily comparable to other sports. We can and do deal with realities as they arise. That is, at this point and likely for a very long time, this template will remain (non-potentially but actually) not subject to hundreds of additions and serves its navigation purpose perfectly. As for the criteria, this is a writing project and we make those types of judgement calls every day in numerous contexts and can here, through consensus, if a dispute arises about inclusion, which has yet to occur in 5 years.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonstandard navbox. I'm not sure if specifying a certain class of article in the selection criteria would help. Maybe it should be userfied or moved to a wikiproject subpage. I'll say weak keep for now, because it currently seems to be working, but something should be done in the future to avoid problems. -PC-XT+ 05:03, 17 September 2013 (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.