Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 15

< December 14	December 16 >

December 15

Template:RED

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 move to userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is being used by only one person, and based on the context, it's rather clear that it serves more as a personal message than a general community use template. As such, it would probably be better either 1) substituted and deleted or 2) userfy'd as User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/RED. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no issue taken if the user wishes to just transplant the wikicode onto his/her page, but it's not suitable for being put in the template namespace. Lazy Bastard Guy 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the one who created the actual template and I am aware of no policy-based reason why this should be deleted. We have plenty of joke templates such as Template:Trout. Presently it is only used on Kiefer's page, but maybe someone else will want to use it for its whimsical nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouting is practical, just a humorous way of letting someone know they made a mistake. This template, at the least, could be made a userbox because plenty of humorous userboxes exist ~~but not in template space~~. EDIT: My bad, thanks for the correction. Lazy Bastard Guy 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many humorous userboxes exist in templatespace.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think template space is mainly for templates that have a practical use on Wikipedia; for example, the template on which this is based, {{retired}}, has use in indicating whether a user is currently active. This template up for deletion, however, does not seem to have a clear purpose; plenty of userboxes, humorous or otherwise and regardless of which namespace they exist in, at least explain something about the user (e.g. interests which would indicate compatibility with other Wikipedians and what areas of WP they might devote their time to), but this one serves as little more than, in my view, a self-indulgent declaration of badassery. It really doesn't help people understand each other better, which is what userboxes are for. (And I apologize if my view of the template offends you; I used to like it but seeing it up here for deletion, I have no choice but to support it because I cannot conceive of a reason to keep it. It's not by any means a comment on you.) Lazy Bastard Guy 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

userfy Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{retired}} with a switch or Susbt and delete as a single instance template -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also {{Extremely Dangerous}}. Petty, antagonistic vanity like this is grudgingly tolerated in userspace; it doesn't need to stink up the other namespaces. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's a good idea to be making decisions about whether something belongs in the Wikipedia namespace based on its content (unless, of course, the content itself is cause for deletion under G10/G11/G12). My issue really isn't with the message, it is with that it is a single person's personal message item in a community namspace. I saw it linked in the see also on another retirement template page, and didn't even know it was KW's until I went looking at what links here. While KW's... umm... 'reputation' is going to color this discussion, it shouldn't. The community is rather disorganized on the matter of where to put userboxes and joke templates, with them occupying both the userspace and the Wikipedia namespace, but the consensus seems to be that if only one or only a tiny number of people are using a template, and it's a personal expression template rather than one that's used in articles, it gets userfyed or subst-deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents is that even joke templates tend to say something about the user so that others can get to know them better, especially with regard to where they might be devoting their time on Wikipedia. This template just doesn't seem to do that; it seems to tell us nothing of value about the person, other than they're some wikibadass or something (which could mean anything, really). We have templates for WikiFauna and Trouting, but both have a practical purpose even if they are mostly intended humorously. This template under discussion doesn't have a clear point. If someone wanted to use it to say they're a fan of the RED movies, then can't we just have a template that outright says, "This user watches the RED films because s/he is R.E.D."? Lazy Bastard Guy 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is very much that I would prefer for templatespace to be a safe zone which doesn't involve itself in the dramae of certain other namespaces. There are historical exceptions which have to be grandfathered in, but we shouldn't be making new ones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of the {{Extremely Dangerous}} template. My suggestion is that {{RED}} and {{Extremely Dangerous}} be merged into a single template (or into another existing template) since they are only used for humor. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one has more of a point... "taking out the trash" = "cleaning up around here (typos, factual errors, etc.)". But this one doesn't; this one kind of torpedoes itself by including "Retired" in it. It's kind of like saying, "I'm not active on Wikipedia anymore, but I am." What???? Lazy Bastard Guy 18:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. A fan of RED (2010 film) might like it but makes zero sense to those who haven't watched the film. Utility is the main factor in keeping templates. This one has no purpose, let alone use. It might even misguide a user into assuming bad faith. Fleet Command (talk) 12:56, 27 December 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:NGOLinks

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) 22:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template goes against WP:ELNO which instructs us to avoid adding external links which take the form of search results or search aggregates. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This claim of "search links" is of course untrue, and was explained to Binksternet earlier along with the long-used example of Template:CongLinks. Instead of engaging in discussion, he immediately reverted all uses of the Template and nominated it for deletion. Hardly in the Wikipedia spirit of W:Assume Good Faith, discussion and consensus. By definition, search results rely on searching for any combination of characters, as in the design of search engines. Hence the term. In contrast, database keys have specific, predefined values. If the value is not present on the website's list of keys, aka "tags", a 404 or equivalent is displayed. These are all specific deeplinks, NOT search results. As you can see, these links include the usual and useful non-partisan sources for fact-checking, charity watchdogs, FEC financial information, and major news media coverage, C-SPAN and IMDb along with profiles such as the respected VoteSmart and WorldCat id for books written by and about. These sources are constantly updated, which is why they belong in EL (or Further reading, although the use of that section has changed over the years). It's also the reason why we tend to get these sorts of arguments from strongly partisan Wikipedians who prefer Wikipedia articles to be little more than campaign brochures with a sprinkling of references to appear "encyclopedic". Reminds me why I previously retired. Note: See The Heritage Foundation#External links for an example showing most sources; most NGOs only have a few sources covering them. Flatterworld (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know my politics so you would be advised not to call me "strongly partisan" (and you guessed wrong, anyway.)

Regarding the template, its whole design goes against WP:ELPOINTS which instructs us that the external links section "should be kept to a minimum." Your template design greatly boosts the number of external links without justifying each one. The EL guideline says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Your template gives carte blanche to every link that it contains. The EL guideline also says "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." Again, the template violates this instruction by ushering a group of links into the article without subjecting them to stricter assessment. WP:ELMAYBE says "Long lists of links are not acceptable." This template is arguably a long list of links, depending on the interpretation of "long".

Finally, the point I was making about not having search results as an external link is still valid. The ELNO entry No. 9 says we should not link to "individual website searches". One example from today is the Tea Party Express article here which included searches of the Huffington Post website and the Washington Post website. These two searches list the HuffPo or WaPo articles which mention the Tea Party Express. Such searches change over time; they do not yield stable results. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are many values you could have tried in the HuffPo and WashPo sites which would have failed, because they weren't values established as database keys by those websites. That shows they aren't searches. And yes, the results will change as journalists apply these key values to future articles. That's how the links are kept current, which is of great value. These are EL, not refs. Separate articles should generally be used as references to specific material in the article. Collected information, whether financial details or news coverage, belongs in EL. As I explained in my first response, these are highly relevant, useful links for anyone interested in current, in-depth coverage beyond what is in the body of these articles. That is the point of EL, and that is what they were chosen to provide. Flatterworld (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: Please roll back all of Binksternet's changes from 18:59, 15 December 2013 through 19:48, 15 December 2013 It is impossible to have a serious discussion of this Template without entries in What links here to view. I see he not only deleted occurrences of this Template, but also deleted EL entries using other Templates. This is very unWikipedian behavior, clearly intended to intimidate and to make constructive discussion as difficult as possible. Flatterworld (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ELBURDEN, external links which are disputed should remain out of the article until the dispute is resolved. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about deleting an entire template, not links. The deletion request template provides a message at every occurrence where it's used, thereby encouraging input into this discussion. Deleting all the occurrences restricts the discussion to only a few people. That harms consensus-making. Flatterworld (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template can be used quite properly and the fact that it can also be misused is not a reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond everything else, the request does not meet W:TFD#REASONS. This appears to be a partisan attempt to remove important, relevant and current financial and filing information, fact-checking and news coverage from various perspectives. All in the guise of purported "search queries". (See "didn't go far enough" example.) Since when have C-SPAN, Open Secrets and Project Vote Smart been considered problems? This request is highly questionable, and reminds me of the Bell Pottinger discussions. Wikipedia is not for tarring or whitewashing, just providing important, relevant information. Flatterworld (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy spammy spam spam. "It can be misused" is a weak argument: "it is designed to be misused" is not. The author created this to spam advocacy links on our articles; we don't allow that. End of story. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create individual subtemplates for those which are not search entries, and are likely not a separate violation of WP:ELNO, where not already done. It's a massive list of links to unrelated websites, and it as likely that more than one link to the same website is appropriate than that exactly one is appropriate, even when any link is appropriate. I have not seen one place where it was used correctly; evidence that it could be used correctly (and would not quickly be changed to include incorrect usage) would need to be provided before I would change my !vote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few more uses, none of which is not a violation of WP:ELNO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, against MOS and obviously disruptive. Roccodrift (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with the OP that this is just one big violation of the external links guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2014 (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:Sundance Shows

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. (NAC) No consensus to delete. Fleet Command (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sundance Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template fails one of the main criteria of WP:NAVBOX ("The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent") not to mention another ("There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template") as the navbox title points towards a sub-paragraph of the main channel article. This seems to me to be a completely incorrect use of a template; they are meant to provide the user with useful navigation links, but none of the links in this one have any relation to the other, apart from the fact that they are all being shown on this minor channel. The fact that the shows are on this channel is already mentioned in text - which is where it should be. If we had templates like this for every TV channel, popular shows would end up with dozens, or even hundreds of them, many of which would no doubt be inaccurate as scheduling changes daily. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Being on the same network IS a link between the shows. There are viewers who may have watched Rectify and are reading through the article and start to wonder what other shows the network airs. Instead of doing multiple clicks, they can scroll to the navbox and see that say The Red Road is another scripted show on the network. Or they watched Dream School and were wondering what other unscripted shows aired on the network and can have access to that via the Dream School article. Encmetalhead (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - WP:NAVBOX says "the articles should refer to one another". And none of them do. The place for such navigation is in the Sundance article itself (which is of course linked from each of the template's articles because it's already mentioned that they're on Sundance. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does all the CBS shows refer to one another? FX? AMC? TNT? SYFY? MTV? To save you the research, nope none of those shows refer to each other yet they have navboxs thus Rhodoen is correct except directing to the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that all of those other templates are in violation of WP:NAVBOX as well. Perhaps they ought to be nominated as well. But as far as this discussion goes - I'd simply say - WP:WAX. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that this navbox is up to date and not disturbing anything, why nominate it? Encmetalhead (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite is under the impression that all templates must meet all 5 of the criteria on WP:NAVBOX, which few do. It's just not the case. The articles could refer to each other "to a reasonable extent." --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't refer to each other to any extent whatsoever. They're a random collection of programming. I mean, if we were referring to a channel that showed closely related shows then you might have a point. But ... no. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do the broadcast networks show closely related shows? Not sure where you are going with this failed argument... Encmetalhead (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your argument appears to boil down to "there are a lot of templates that fail WP:NAVBOX already, so another one won't matter". Please feel free to actually point out how this template passes the two guidelines I've pointed out above. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Ahem. Category:Lists of television series by network. You'll have a lot of nominating to do on that basis. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a category, not a template. And that's exactly what categories are for. And not what templates are for. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you didn't click the link because you missed the point. See all the templates in that list? They all do the same thing as this one. Hence, as above, your problem is with all of these. The WP:NAVBOX guidelines you keep mentioning don't actually require all the articles refer to each other. E.g. Template:US Presidents certainly don't all refer to each other but there's a single clear subject, the subject of the template is mentioned in every article, and there is a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. The Returned absolutely could refer to the others, since it would make sense in the context of a Reception section or elsewhere to talk about the deal the show has with Sundance and how it might relate to other shows. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The US Presidents one is clearly referential as they're all American Presidents. These shows have nothing to do with each other at all, except that a minor channel in one country of the world has chosen to show them. Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, as they can be removed once their run has completed. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Chosen"? More like the channel has developed the programming and chosen which projects to order as original programming. Only programming they haven't developed and are airing are Breaking Bad and The Returned (which is actually first-run in the states). Encmetalhead (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And still ... no answer as to how this template contains links that reference each other ... Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other networks have templates. Why can't Sundance? --charge2charge (talk) 23:39, 24 December 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:Letlive.

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. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Letlive. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN, due to linking to less than five articles not including the subject or "related articles." The main article provides any needed navigation. STATic message me! 09:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I oppose if we change the wording of "related articles" to "labels" as that would put it up to six articles. Encmetalhead (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labels do not count since the band's navigation box is not, and would not be placed on the page. That is why they are "related articles". STATic message me! 19:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent: I added the two links to both their Wikimedia Commons page and with the other two articles of Letlive.'s releases. However, they are stubs. They are all linked relevantly so it's not a great loss if the template is removed. Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a meticulous template at first sight but offers little navigation aid. Easier navigation is possible, even without it. This type of template is not necessary as the main hub is the main article itself. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 27 December 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:Light This City

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. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Light This City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A disbanded band that looks like will not recieve any new links anytime soon. Links to less than five articles outside of the subject and "related articles" so WP:NENAN applies. Main article can provide any needed navigation. STATic message me! 09:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Even if you change "related articles" to "labels" the band won't be getting back together and thus users will most likely start at the band page as opposed to one of the album pages. Encmetalhead (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only four links, all to albums, can be found numerous times on their main article. The band also disbanded five years ago, so it does not look like we will have any new links anytime soon. STATic message me! 19:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's right. This type of template is not necessary as the main hub is the main article itself. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 27 December 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:The Eyes of a Traitor

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. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Eyes of a Traitor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN, due to linking to less than five articles not including the subject or "related articles." The main article provides any needed navigation. STATic message me! 09:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: While changing "related articles" to "labels" will created five or more articles, the band is inactive and therefore would be stagnant. Encmetalhead (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a really useful template. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 27 December 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:Bury Tomorrow

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. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bury Tomorrow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN, due to linking to less than five articles not including the subject. The main article provides any needed navigation. STATic message me! 09:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent: I have edited the Bury Tomorrow based-articles extensively and adding that navbox doesn't enhance the reader's access since all three articles are wiki-linked to each other. However, is it just to cite an essay though? Wikipedia:NAVBOX doesn't say a policy on when a template is worth removing. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it only links to two albums and nothing else, there is no real need or use for the template. That is why everything does not need a navigation box.STATic message me! 09:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent: It can go either way, BUT if you rename "related articles" to "labels" you then have more than five articles. Encmetalhead (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labels would not count, because we are counting articles that contain the navigation box on the article. STATic message me! 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the labels are merely former labels for the band, and I don't recall seeing this sort of thing on band navboxes before (at least not without many other links that mandate the existence of a navbox for the group). I don't find it likely that the navbox is really all that helpful in listing every label this band have been on, since they have links on the album articles. Without those, there are three links - the band, and their two studio albums. Not at all necessary or helpful to have a navbox. Lazy Bastard Guy 16:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the articles are already well connected. Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really useful. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 27 December 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.