Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

November 25

[edit]

Template:TSA Leadership

[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TSA Leadership (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink (which is a dablink) except for heading - this info belongs more in the TSA article, not a navbox. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:41, 25 November 2010 (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:San Jose Radio

[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 keep Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Jose Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains dulplicate content from some Bay Area stations and it is no longer used. Geoffrey100 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the stations on the template do not overlap San Francisco, as the stations generally can't be received there. (I'm talking about FM mostly, and lower powered AMs). San Jose is the 10th largest city in the United States. A lot of templates in California as far as radio stations overlap. Your edits as well as the IP edits which I believe are also you, are disruptive to Wikipedia. It is only unused because you deleted the pages it was on, which will require restoring. The SF template doesn't contain every station in the Bay area. There is room for this template on Wikipedia. A lot of radio templates on Wikipedia overlap. If this template would include San Jose stations only and not stations from SFO that are on that template, it is fine. --milonica (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The SF Bay Area is so large that some stations, depending on their power output and position, do not reach from one end to the other. Sitting on the very south end of the bay, San Jose does not receive all the other stations. Conversely, its stations do not reach all the way north. This template should hold all the South Bay stations which can be heard from San Jose. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (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:WWII Scottish rugby fatalities

[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 Convert to a list Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWII Scottish rugby fatalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. This template gives undue weight to an intersection of two unrelated attributes of the biographical articles to which it is attached: playing Rugby and being killed in World War II. I encountered the template on Patrick Munro MP, who was nearly sixty when he was killed in 1942,more than 30 years after he had last played international rugby.

There is already a list at List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War#Scotland, which is quite sufficient. Transcluding the list into biographical articles via this template gives undue prominence to this trivial intersection. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been listed at WP:RU and WP:Scotland
The list referred to as "quite sufficient" refers to World War ONE not Two. I realise some people consider one a continuation of the other, but I think most agree there is a substantial difference.
Its importance is a subjective matter. There is a pretty large memorial in Edinburgh to them all (both World Wars, plus the single fatality of the Boer War).-MacRusgail (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The length of time after they finished playing rugby is not an issue. Mainly because where is the cut-off point when this fact is no longer an issue. While still a player; impossible as all international rugby was suspended with the outbreak of war, one month, two years, five years? We just can't put a quantity to it. Every player on that list is a former international as their death prevented any further caps. There is also a link between the wars and playing sport as it was used as a recruitment drive (See File:Rugby Conscripts.JPG), including sporting battalions in a similair way to Pals batallions.FruitMonkey (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2010 (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:Jessie J

[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jessie J (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overall completely unnecessary navigational template. Artist's page is a stub, the album doesn't have an article, none of the singles have an article, and the discography doesn't have an article. In fact, the only items with articles are the record labels and the artist herself, and the redirects the template do link to are easily accessible through her page. Yves (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2010 (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:US Heads of State

[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Heads of State (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template combines Presidents of the United States with the post-1776 Presidents of the Continental Congress to create a list of people who are alleged to be the "US Heads of State". As a primary author of the article on the Presidents of the Continental Congress, I have never encountered a reliable source that claims that the President of Congress was the "head of state" of what was then a confederation of states. Sure, the argument could be made, but I haven't seen it in a reliable source. A template that promotes such a view is original research or, perhaps, an endorsement of an unconventional idea. We already have templates for both {{US Presidents}} and {{Presidents of the Continental Congress}}. No need to force them into a shotgun marriage. —Kevin Myers 05:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a source, [[1]]. Other independent states have templates on their heads of state so why not the United States? Its not original research, if you look at the Articles of Confederation the President of the Continental Congress is given a status that in political science equates to a head of state. Heres another source [[2]]. I can provide more if nessesary. It should also be noted that not all of the presidents of congress listed in the {{Presidents of the Continental Congress}} where heads of state (no polity existed for them to administer before 1775).XavierGreen (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those your best sources? The first is a tertiary source, which is okay but not ideal; the second one is a school book from 1865! Neither are what we're really looking for when identifying reliable sources. The second source doesn't even agree with your assertion that "no polity existed for them to administer before 1775", since it includes the pre-1775 president. The first may not agree with you either; it seems to say that the first President of Congress to be a "head of state" was John Hanson, since he was president when the Articles were ratified. I've checked a number of modern, scholarly reliable sources and can find nothing to support your position. —Kevin Myers 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the Articles of Confederation are not a reliable source?XavierGreen (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which says "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." The Articles of Confederation is a primary source. The term "head of state" doesn't appear in the Articles. There's a brief mention of an officer whose job it was to "preside" over meetings of Congress. Interpreting this to mean that the presiding officer was therefore the "head of state" of the United States is something we leave to the reliable, secondary sources. —Kevin Myers 03:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The President of Congress was the highest official under the Articles of Confederation. The highest offical in the government of a state is the head of state. I have provided sources which say that the head of state at the time was the President of Congress. If we look at [[3]] the template is valid. If the President of Congress was not the head of state than who was? Can you provide sources stating otherwise? You yourself stated that the one source i listed was ok, yet than completly disregarded it in your argument.XavierGreen (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have one tertiary source that makes a passing (and literally parenthetical) reference that seems to support you on some points but not others. That's a weak argument when the scholarly reliable sources make no claim that the President of Congress was a head of state. You say, "The highest official in the government of a state is the head of state." That may be true, but it's not widely accepted that the United States were (not "was"; United States was a plural noun then) a "state" under the Articles of Confederation. As our article on confederation says, a "confederation is an association of sovereign member states" that does not create "a new state on top of the member states." You assert that the Confederation was a state, that it must have had a head of state, and that the presiding officer of Congress was the highest official. This is all interpretation, something we leave to the reliable sources. —Kevin Myers 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign powers recognized the United States of America, not any of its constituent states individually. The Articles of confederation gave all power in diplomatic relations to the confederal authority. If you like i can show you the documents of recognition from the various countries that recognized the US at the time, none of them provide recogntion to the individual states only to the United States of America.XavierGreen (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: the Treaty of Paris recognized twelve or thirteen independent sovereign states (Delaware got the shaft in some versions). But it doesn't matter: your interpretation of the documents matters when you get it published in a reliable source. Until then, you're just a guy ignoring WP:NOR and WP:RS. I can sympathize: it's sometimes disappointing not being able to have our personal interpretations endorsed by Wikipedia, but that's how it works. —Kevin Myers 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you think we should keep this template, don't forget to specify who you think the first name on the list should be. The first source listed above says it should be John Hanson; the second says Peyton Randolph. According to XavierGreen's interpretation, it should be John Hancock, though another amateur historian on the Internet has claimed that the correct answer is Samuel Huntington. You can decide, right here, who was the first US head of state. How exciting! —Kevin Myers 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that two sources were found on the internet within two hours of this AFD opening, I'd bet there are more out there clarifying this point. Or we could (relying on the secondary sources) make the ostensible heads of state gray up until the point that they're supported by both sources. Or we could continue being sarcastic, 'cause that's real helpful.--Chaser (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sarcasm was bad judgment on my part. Sorry about that XavierGreen. My point remains valid, i.e. that to keep this template is to engage in original research or to give undue weight to a minority (and possibly fringe) interpretation of the role of the President of Congress. Best to leave such muddled matters to articles, where the issues can be explained, instead of templates. —Kevin Myers 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue you speak of in the comment section above derives from the fact that there were actually 2 different offices, president of the continental congress (this position existed before the declaration of independence) and the president of the confederational congress.XavierGreen (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking to the guy who wrote the President of the Continental Congress article as it now exists, and so I know that the scholarly sources generally disagree with your statement. The idea that the President of the Continental Congress and the President of the Confederation Congress were two different offices was an idea promoted by John Hanson's grandson, part of his scheme to have his grandfather recognized as the first President of the United States! After Edward Cody Burnett wrote the first definitive scholarly history of the Continental Congress in 1941, historians no longer make a meaningful distinction between the Continental and Confederation Congresses. The idea has been given a second life through amateur history on the Internet, which is perhaps where you first learned of it. (That's how I heard of it.) When we stick to modern reliable sources, the oddities of amateur Internet history become easier to spot. —Kevin Myers 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say that that was the position i agreed with, you asked why the sourced differed and i told you. From what i understand as you have stated, the only thing that differed between the two positions was the name. I am fully aware of the John Hanson grandson debacle. But none the less the highest official in a government is the head of state.XavierGreen (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources: [4] ("The limited duties of the President of the Congress included the ceremonial tasks of a head of state.") [5] (Under the Articles of Confederation, "there was to be no president or head of state..."). "Ceremonial tasks" seems spartan compared to the powers of the American President under the Constitution. There is also this source, which may speak to the head of state issue (it speaks more to head of government in the article). I'll keep researching. No opinion yet.--Chaser (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems like we have several templates that display presidents. Perhaps this template is redundant and I don't claim to be a heads of state expert but I seem to recall the role of the President of the Continental congress being...well less than the head of state. With that said I think its useful to leave them in this template but I think the template should be modified to split the Presedents of the CC from the Presidents of the US. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting them into 2 or even 3 sections within the template would seem reasonable. A head of state by many definitions is merely the highest official within a government. Many heads of state today have even less power than the President of Congress did under the articles of confederation, for example the Emperor of Japan.XavierGreen (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also should merge it with this one {{US Presidents}} --Kumioko (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This ought to be deleted. To the extent it's not original research it's duplicative of two other templates. Coemgenus 22:25, 27 November 2010 (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:Warn, 3rd nomination

[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 and stale. No prejudice toward future nominations, though hopefully there will be a day of two before the next one... JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with Template:Uw-test1. Propose redirecting to the same. Bsherr (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redundant with a standard template, and also, when did we begin to "appreciate" people experimenting on the real articles? Bad wording, and I don't see a reason to fix it other than getting rid of the template outright. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, very obsolete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close we just discussed this; See #Template:Warn, 2nd nomination, which is still here on this XfD page (as of today, 25 Nov; look at 13 Nov nominations). It just closed on the same day which it was renominated. That certainly seems like excessive renomination speed to me. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the criteria at WP:Speedy Keep apply. The last discussion was closed as no consensus, so there's no prior consensus to which to defer. --Bsherr (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That a new discussion is opened on the same day as the old one closed, certainly seems like getting rid of the old opinions; it was not relisted, it was closed. The new discussion is without the previously lodged opinions, which certainly do not seem stale, since they were still fresh earlier in the day -- that is why I think it is excessive renomination speed. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's certainly a valid argument for !voting keep, though I disagree. --Bsherr (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the person who closed the last discussion, I don't see anything untoward about this renomination, though I was surprised to see how quickly it came back up. The arguments in the previous discussion were made prior to a relist done by another administrator, and then the relisted discussion, which generated no comments whatsoever, ran long. And there was no discernable result from the earlier discussion. So rather than relist a second time, I just cut it off. Were the old comments stale? Probably, as two weeks had passed between the last comment's placement and the closing. This new discussion, however, appears to be doing what the relist couldn't, and is generating new discussion to hopefully clearly determine the fate of this template. So enough on process - this is a perfectly cromulent nomination - and join us in weighing in on the substance of the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As deprecated and redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Joaquin008 (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Some of us like simple and memorable names; others dislike the wording of the uv series. There is no reason why those editors cannot be pleased, and storage is cheap (if indeed this deletion saves any; the text is still in memory although inaccessible). The sole purpose of any of these templates is to save a little trouble in warning vandals; if this one saves a little more trouble by not forcing a look-up of uv jargon, so much the better.
    • The template will be redirected, so you can continue to use {{warn}}. If someone dislkies the wording of the UW series, let them propose new wording (and none recently have), not make a redundant template. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And speedy close. Not only is this the second nomination in two weeks, the proposal, ill-reasoned though it is, is a merge proposal. Take it to the template talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge proposals (though that is not what I proposed) are within the scope of Templates for Discussion. None of the criteria at WP:Speedy Keep apply. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The continued presence of a redirect makes it a merge, whether the text is altered or not. No deletion is needed for that; no reason (no advantage to the encyclopedia) has been given for deletion by anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going by WP:MERGE, which says, "A merger is a non-automated process by which the content of two pages is united on one page." By that definition, redirecting is not merging. But if you're going by a different definition, I'm pleased to consider it and recharacterize the proposed action accordingly. But please be aware that Templates for Discussion considers template mergers, too. I did give a reason for the redirection, the template is redundant. Are you asking why redundant templates should be deleted? If so, I can address that. --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then do address it; recalling that this template is only used on user talk pages, and is therefore no part of the look and feel of the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed. Besides being resource inefficient (yes, resource efficiency is not an important motivator, but all else being equal, is still a factor), redundant templates are undesirable because they are consensus avoidant. Wikipedia practices and page content are decided by consensus. This is desirable because it requires users to come together to decide the best way to do things, which usually produces the best possible result. Reduntant pages interfere with the formation of consensus, because they allow users, deliberately or inadvertantly, to avoid this process because no consensus is required to go off and start a new, redundant page. Because many users expect Wikipedia as a unified project to have uniform practices, redundancy also confuses users (and this can only be treated, not cured, by documentation explaining the redundancy). This is why redundancy is explicitly forbidden for articles, why WP:MERGE directs that redundant pages be merged (if not redirected or deleted), and why redundancy is widely accepted as a valid reason for deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now, one may next assert, because this is a user talk template and users are free to communicate as they choose with other users, that users will want to vary how they communicate with other users, including by template. However, our practice, as it is for all content, is that templates in the Template-space are accepted by consensus. Templates that are not consensus are userfied, and there is no prohibition on having user warning templates in userspace. Many fine essays, userboxes, and user talk templates exist there, and this is an option for this template too. --Bsherr (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this nomination is based on two undocumented falsehoods:

  1. That it is "resource-inefficient" for you to use template A and me to use template B for similar purposes, as opposed to both of us using template A and template B being deleted. This is blithering nonsense. It uses the same amount of memory, since deleted material is not actually removed from memory (that's why deletions can be reversed), and it still uses two template calls. Indeed, if two templates tend to have fewer revisions each than one combined template, it may marginally save revision calls to use two.
  2. On the one hand because this is a user talk template and users are free to communicate as they choose with other users, that users will want to vary how they communicate with other users, including by template is mere reason. It is; others may indeed wish to use the same template as I do. But Bsherr goes on to say: templates in the Template-space are accepted by consensus. That is neither practice nor policy (I note that no actual policies are cited); changes in template space are made by consensus.

This template exists; it seems useful; this request is disruptive and irregular, and will not save the resources employed in discussing it. Keep immediately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages are edited in perpetuity, and each revision consumes capacity. It is mathematically probable that two pages, with associated talk pages, will generate more revisions than one, thus consume more resources. But like I said, this is a very minor consideration. As to the point that templates in the Template-space are there by consensus, this can be proved by its negation. Templates that do not have consensus to exist are deleted. Perhaps you'll soon see that here. --Bsherr (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(You may have noticed that I replied without labeling your arguments "blithering nonsense", as you did mine. Maybe you can extend me the same courtesy?) --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more courteous to better arguments. False conjectures deserve to be called out; that way there may be fewer of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would give better arguments if you were more courteous. --Bsherr (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Set me a good example; give them anyway. They might well persuade me, if they came to light. Until then, this is a pointless and out-of-place proposal, of no benefit to the encyclopedia, supported only by bafflegab and the sort of consistency Emerson decried. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 30 November 2010 (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.

Philippine TV block templates

[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABS-CBN Primetanghali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Primetime Bida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Saturday Afternoon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Saturday Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Sunday Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dramarama sa Hapon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GMA Linggo Bingo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GMA Sabado Star Power (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hapontastic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Linggo Bingo sa Gabi (GMA Telebabad Weekend) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LinggoBingo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pinoy Telenovelas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sabado Star Power sa Hapon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sabado Star Power sa Late Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sabado Star sa Hapon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TV5 Primetime Panalo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Telebabad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:UMAGANDA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bandila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Umagang Kay Ganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox. Not only most of these templates contains only 2-3 shows, it also clutters the articles that are linked on these templates. Most of these templates were also created by either fanboys or blocked sockpuppets of fanboys. WayKurat (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Mr/Ms WayKurat and other people concerned,

May I justify to you why I created a template for Bandila (TV program) and Umagang Kay Ganda. The main reason why I created such template is because I have received numerous requests to put up a template for the page similar to the TV Patrol page which shows the anchors current or former of the said program. This would also give an easier access to those people who are looking for the anchors of the said show or vice versa rather than browsing the whole body of the page.

P.S. Pls do not remove the said article immediately. If you want more justification about the matter, I am willing to give more justification so that the template will not be deleted and can be reconsidered.

Jeromesandilanico (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From where did you get those "requests"? I have nominated those templates for deletion since it can only clutter the articles on where they are associated with and can set trend on creating a template for every TV show from the major networks. Also, if you have noticed, TV Patrol has its own nav template since there are a lot regional versions for that newscast. Bandila has none. The template only contains five articles and all of them are the anchors. You don't see NBC Nightly News or CBS Evening News have its own template and list its current and former anchors. Even Saksi or 24 Oras has no similar template since it is already contained to the GMA News and Public Affairs template. -WayKurat (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Mr/Ms WayKurat and other people concerned,

I got these requests from different sources like blogs and groups inside and outside of wikipedia. And may I request that you please stop comparing these pages to other pages for your opinions. Wikipedia is made to help people in gaining credible knowledge in the easiest and convenient way possible and if the people wants to have such which will not create any conflict or misinformation about a topic then as contributors, we should give them what they want.

P.S. Pls do not remove the said article immediately. If you want more justification about the matter, I am willing to give more justification so that the template will not be deleted and can be reconsidered.

Jeromesandilanico (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2010 (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:Movieclips

[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 per WP:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 5. Ruslik_Zero 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As far as I can tell, this template is being used for the sole purpose of spamming film articles with links to the Movieclips page for those films. Movieclips is web startup that offers streaming video of movie clips from films from certain studios. Seems a blatant violation of WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM to me. The article on the company is new, as is the template, and as far as I can see there've only been 2 editors applying the template: the creator & 1 other, & based on their edit history I'm almost certain one's a sockpuppet of the other. Pretty clear-cut case of spamming here that we could nip in the bud. IllaZilla (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As the creator of the template, I can assure you it is not an advertisement. I closely followed the guidelines and tried to mimic what similar templates like imdb and allmovie had in place. This sole purpose of the template is to make the creation of links to Movieclips.com content simple, consistent, and in keeping with wikipedia standards.Donbrandoni (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator has tossed out some links to policies, but has failed to explain in any way how they apply. (1) WP:NOT#LINK states that articles should not be mere collections of external links. I presume this is to what the nominator refers. The nominator has not explained how this template causes articles to become mere collections of external links. This template links to relevant content, and, unless the nominator can identify other similar sites, isn't duplicative of anything else in the external links sections of these articles. (2) Regarding WP:EL, is the nominator claiming this is an WP:ELNO external link, or merely that it's promotional or a conflict of interest? (3) Regarding WP:SPAM, I presume the nominator is referring to WP:LINKSPAM? If the nominator is claiming the template is promotional, it's clearly not blatantly so from its plain content. Now, if the template is being applied to articles by a user with a conflict of interest, that's problematic, but it should result in action against the user, not deletion of the template. We don't delete permissible content as a sanction for user conduct. (4) If the nominator suspects that the users mentioned are involved in sockpuppetry, report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and then link us to the case here. Otherwise, it's just a personal attack. However, now, I would like to know from the template proponants: (1) Do you have a conflict of interest? (2) I see the site is labeled as beta. Doesn't that suggest that it is too soon to employ such a template here? --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't think a conflict alone means the template should exist or not, I do think it is relevant to the discussion and should be out in the open. It does appear that User:Donbrandoni may be an employee of Movieclips. I have added a discussion to the appropriate talk page indicating why I believe that to be the case, so feel free to check it out at Talk:Movieclips. My argument to delete is based on the fact that the site, while probably notable, is in beta - and adding a link to a site that is subject to changes in URLs or content at any time seems like a bad idea. I would also suggest that film pages usually have a lot of ELs, including IMDB, Allmovie, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, official sites, and any number of other review and official sites. I realize that shouldn't matter, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links - and we need to avoid turning these pages into that. -Addionne (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems obvious that this is being used for promotional purposes. Even if it weren't, I would ask what useful purpose this serves? Has the Wikipedia community been crying out for an easy way to link to the Movieclips page about a film? I don't think so and, indeed, if I saw these on a film page I would most likely remove them as irrelevent and indiscriminte. They simply do not add any useful information beyond a basic summary of the kind that can easily be found on many much more established and informative sites such as IMDB.--KorruskiTalk 15:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, external links may be added to articles without an outcry for the Wikipedia community being necessary. If you assert it's promotional, you have to ground that argument in WP:ADVERT. Otherwise, adding any external link could be construed as promoting its target. --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't 'have to' do anything of the sort. I am asserting that inserting these links into large numbers of articles is self-evidently promotional, per WP:DUCK. It is up to the closing administrator to judge the worth and validity of my argument, thanks. And yes, adding any external link could be construed as promoting its target, if you want to, but using a bit of common sense it's usually possible to balance the likely promotional nature of the link against its usefulness and come to a reasonable judgement.--KorruskiTalk 09:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ELNO#5: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." There is a distinction to be recognized between a site that offers information relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of entertainment productions, such as IMDB, and a site that markets entertainment productions, such as this one. This is essentially an advertising site that displays movie trailers and earns referral fees for viewers who go on to buy or rent the movies. (ref: Movieclips.com Launches With Studio Deals, Associated Press, 2 December 2009) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDB is owned by Amazon.com. What's the difference? --Bsherr (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDb provides a good deal of informative content that is beyond the scope of what Wikipedia itself provides. For example complete cast & crew credits, weekly and weekend by-country box office breakdowns, technical specifications, and full soundtrack listings. Movieclips offers only streaming clips of particular scenes, nothing else. IMDb's content has informative value, while Movieclips' is purely for entertainment. Who owns the companies is really less important than this. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the difference between information and entertainment is subjective. Arguably, a site that provides primary source material, like video clips, from movies described at Wikipedia, is informative. Would you say the same thing about a site that provides nothing but excerpts from Tolstoy short stories, or is it just movie excerpts that you deem purely entertaining? --Bsherr (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FILMS has, by longstanding consensus & precedent, permitted external links to IMDb on the basis that it provides a fair amount of detailed information on films that is more in-depth than the level of detail that WP seeks to provide (with respect to crew listings, tech specs, & other minutia previously mentioned). Ditto informational sites like Allmovie. Movieclips does not provide in-depth information about films, it merely provides clips from films for entertainment purposes. If all IMDb provided were still images & plot summaries, it probably wouldn't pass muster. Movieclips may have some ground to stand on re: WP:ELYES #2, but it isn't hosting complete copies of films, only brief clips. We generally don't link to "copies" of works that are only clips (ie. Google books excerpts); we typically only link to full copies. (BTW, Tolstoy's works are all in the public domain as they were published prior to 1/1/1923, so that comparison doesn't hold...full text copies of his works could/should be available within the Wikimedia project such as in Wikibooks.) --IllaZilla (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy or guideline that provides not to link to sites that provide clips, is there? --Bsherr (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, there is no blanket guideline against sites offering clips of movies. But there is also no blanket guideline against sites offering lists of words that rhyme with the article subject - that doesn't mean they are relevant or needed, just that they haven't been discussed. This is a good site. It does probably add value - especially to films with notable scenes which are discussed in the article itself and can be shown at Movieclips to add context. However, it has not been established as reliably functional, and so violates WP:ELNO #16, which suggests not adding links to sites that "are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. -Addionne (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I mentioned the site's beta status above, which is why I haven't voted keep. But the idea that a site that provides multimedia clips relevant to an article subject is prohibited as an external link because it's promotional or uninformative, and that it's proponents are spammers, should be disspelled as unsupported by the policies and guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If (as I suspect) the creator of this template is associated with movieclips, then his actions are clearly promotional in intent, and I do not need to point to a policy or guideline to determine that, although WP:DUCK will do, if I must. If he is not, then it merely looks like spam, and I will content myself with pointing out that the links add nothing to an article and, if they were put in manually, I would remove them as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is, therefore, hard to see what purpose this template serves.--KorruskiTalk 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There hasn't been any evidence of a conflict of interest brought up here. That's not to dismiss the possibility, just to point out that, so far, it's just an assertion. If there is a conflict of interest, the solution is action against the user, not the content, unless the content is itself in contravention. Nothing in this template falls under any of the sections of WP:LINKSPAM. If you're asserting that the mere addition of an external link is promoting the target of the link (which is not stated in the policy), when would adding an external link ever be permissible? --Bsherr (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in my earlier comment: 'yes, adding any external link could be construed as promoting its target, if you want to, but using a bit of common sense it's usually possible to balance the likely promotional nature of the link against its usefulness and come to a reasonable judgement'. Let me put it another way: I cannot see any valid reason for adding these links except to promote the site. They are not useful links. Do you actually want to keep them? You appear to be saying that in the absence of a policy-based reason to delete them, they should stay. Perhaps, but, as far as I am aware the burden of proof doesn't particularly rest with the delete !voters. So, if I could turn it round for a second - what is your policy-based reason for keeping the links?--KorruskiTalk 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. This is WP:ELYES #3. The site provides primary source material (film excerpts) relevant to an encyclopedia understanding of respective article subjects. This material (the film excerpts) cannot be incorporatied to Wikipedia for copyright reasons. --Bsherr (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification re. the extended responses to my post: "Prohibited as an external link because it's promotional" is very much the point of the pertinent policies and guidelines. Whether the links are intended to promote the site is moot, the site itself is commercial promotion.

    The above linked AP story clearly indicates the site's raison d'être is to feed viewers to retail sites by displaying teasers. A cursory examination reveals conspicuous retailer links that violate the letter of Wikipedia:Spam#Videos item 2, leaving no ambiguity about the nature of the site. This is exactly what WP:ELNO item 5 is about. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps WP:EL needs to be clarified. The purpose of this site to its users is to view excerpts of films. The business purpose of the site (to generate revenue through advertising) is irrelevant. Consider by analogy CNN Money, a news joint venture between news network CNN and Money magazine. It's a news site, and the purpose to its users is to read news. That's not the business purpose of the site, of course. It's owners aren't providing news as a benevolent service to the public; rather, the business purpose of the site is to earn revenue from advertisements on the site, to feed viewers to CNN TV, and to sell subscriptions to Money magazine. On article pages, there's the news story, but there are also advertisements, and links to subscribe to Money magazine. I could provide a similar description for nearly all reputable and reliable news sites. Is MovieClips any different? If so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that this site merely displays wares for sale. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an opinion reflecting the bias of one viewpoint, a quite cynical characterization of film. By the same view, Wikipedia articles about films are merely descriptions of wares for sale, no? I think many people take a different view, that film clips to them are not samples of a product, but excerpts of a creative work. Would you acknowledge that this alternative viewpoint is legitimizing? --Bsherr (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (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/2010_November_25&oldid=1136066949"