Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 14

< December 13	December 15 >

December 14

Template:PIDSCcontent

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) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2012 (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:Film ratings

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) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is a mimicry of {{Film reviews}}, which was deleted in January 2010. This template is problematic because it is simplistic in merely listing reviews, and this process also suffers from selection bias. The consensus at WikiProject Film is to convey in prose how a film has been received. Assuming that the correct balance of star numbers or letter grades can be struck, such items are easily interchangeable with other such reviews, reflecting the lack of value. Editors have twice expressed concern about the appropriateness of this template, as seen in discussions from July 2011 and June 2012. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template was previously deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Template:Film reviews, but was restarted a few months later. The Film project is against rating templates as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 36#Template: Film ratings, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 42#Film ratings template and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Film rating boxes.

The main point of contention against them is that they violate WP:DUE by placing too much focus on the opinions of individual critics. The aims of the critical reception sections are two fold:

To express the critical consensus
To summarise what critics actually think about the film.

To this end we use a combination of prose and aggregator scores. These film rating boxes do not fulfil the second aim, and in regards to the first they are a poor substitute for aggregator scores such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. In fact, these ratings boxes are essentially an editor based attempt at constructing their own aggregator, and since film articles are usually maintained by fans of the films, review selection is often biased towards the selection of postive reviews. As an example of the concerns editorial selection causes, please see Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Reviews. In short, this ratings template is redundant next to aggregator scores that offer a much more objective representation of critical consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the ratings template includes aggregator scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but presenting individual reviews by individual publications has merit for those who are interested in finding out – at one glance – which magazine/paper gave which review. Selecting such reviews for the Wikipedia article will always be subjective based on the editor's skills and preferences but so is the entire process of editing Wikipedia. And if anyone feels that a reviews section is lacking balance, there's always {{npov section}}. De728631 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this is that the critical reception section is not specifically the place to find out what a certain critic or publication thinks of a certain film; in fact we are not interested at all in what a critic thinks in an individual sense. A good critical reception section should generally tell you if the film reviewed well or poorly, and offer insight into the nature of the criticism. When we select critics to quote from, we should be using their comments in general terms i.e. covering the points that receive the most attention. Knowing what Roger Ebert thinks about a film may be interesting, but if he's out of sync with the general view then perhaps the critical reception would be better served by selecting comments that are more representative. By the same token aggregators tend to be an effective means of summing up the critical consensus for recent films, in a way that places no undue emphasis on the views of any individual critic. Through the use of aggregators and the choice of representative comments we can summarise what has been said about a film in a general sense, but this film ratings template compromises that since it elevates the opinions of individual critics. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the prior consensus. This is a re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the prior consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps delete {{Album ratings}}, {{Song ratings}}, and {{Video game reviews}} also. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{Video game reviews}} has been around a long time, and {{Album ratings}} has been around a couple years and was the result of a long consensus-building process at WT:ALBUMS. It has a great deal of support from the Albums project. Conversely, the Films project feels differently about such templates and has established consensus against their use in film articles. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why we should keep film ratings template. I'm going to turn the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF around and I say that for the sake of consistency we should also have rating templates for films while we have them for video games and albums. We're not only supposed to respect the preferences and dislikes of certain WikiProjects but we are most of all entitled to present a consistent set of styles and layouts to the general reader. It would be confusing for the general public who don't know about discussion like this one to find separate visual ratings for a set of topics but not for another one when the method is actually the same. De728631 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why it would be confusing. If readers visit video game and album articles and look at the source code, they'll see templates for these topics and not for film. It's possible that these topics' templates need to be reevaluated, but they may have different merits. For example, when it comes to film, we do not always have stars or letter grades when it comes to reviews. The standard approach for the reception section is to report the consensus, whether through Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic or retrospective coverage, then take a sample of reviews to illustrate different aspects of the film. To choose only reviews that have to fit in the template is limiting. And as I mentioned, if you can just replace one listed 3-star review with another 3-star review, that reflects the inherent lack of value in such a presentation. Individual measurements do not contribute on their own. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Betty Logan. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete facilitates lazy additions of scores and bare links. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike albums or games, think this is mostly superfluous on film. igordebraga ≠ 13:45, 19 December 2012 (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:Note-row

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) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Note-row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old unused table row template. Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have a purpose. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (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.