Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 17

< December 16	December 18 >

December 17

Template:Memory Alpha

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 debate was deletion. Not because we shouldn't link to other gree-content websites, that consensus has been shown elsewhere. There is an inline version which has widespread use, and we should continue to use that one. It makes no sense to keep this template when it is used only once comapred to thousands of times for another template which does the exact same thing. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I orphaned this from the outer reaches of Star Trek articles on December 4, and replaced it with a better template, {{Memoryalpha}} (note the space). This template violates the Manual of Style on external links, and vaguely implies Wikia (a for-profit corporation which hosts Memory Alpha) is a sister project of Wikipedia, which it is not. It also has a better formatted replacement at {{Memoryalpha}}. Delete Phirazo 02:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus on this and similar templates created using Template:FreeContentMeta has been reached several times previously (I believe this is something like the fourth TfD on this topic) - the long and short of it is that Wikipedia has a vested interest in promoting other free content projects, whether hosted by Wikia or another for-profit company, or hosted by a non-profit like the WMF. If it's under a free license, we should use our clout to promote it, because promoting free content is the mission of the site. The box has a secondary purpose of encouraging the spinning off of in-universe trivia to a more appropriate location. It's harder in the case of Memory Alpha as they don't have license compatibility with us, but these boxes do help make a clear place for information that is valuable to the subjects, but not appropriate for Wikipedia as such.

I further have to object to the decision to orphan this template without consulting with any of its creators or bringing it up at the relevant WikiProject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Sandifer. JPG-GR (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary in light of {{memoryalpha}}, which has over 2000 usages, takes up less space, and is stylistically in line with other WP:EL templates. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to inline version. (copy paste from previous discussion) All non-Foundation websites should be treated equally. Free content should not be a determining factor when all other factors are considered equal. Wikipedia's mission is to create a free encyclopedia, not promote the free-content movement. Boxes like this should be reserved for Foundation wikis, as that seems to be the only way we will be able to prevent promotion of certain websites over others. The mission statement of the Foundation, which if I recall correctly says something about pushing free-content, should not get in the way of preventing this sort of spam. --- RockMFR 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is strange to me, as the motivations of free content seem to me to be, in general, larger and more active motivations than support for the WMF, which seems to have a, shall we say, nuanced relationship with the en community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can anyone call this spam by any reasonable definition of the word spam? -- Ned Scott 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per User:Phil Sandifer. —scarecroe (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't need to get permission to orphan the template (WP:BOLD, WP:BURO), and I did it to match the hundreds of other articles with links to Memory Alpha. If you are interested, here is where it was transcluded prior to December 4, 2007: Liz Vassey, Lee Meriwether, Mudd's Women, Molly Hagan, Susan Denberg, Karen Steele, and Barbara Bouchet. All but one of the articles was a bio of actresses who only appeared in one episode of Star Trek each. The only article where the link was really relevant was the original series episode Mudd's Women. There should be only one external link template for a consistent presentation, and it should be in line with the Manual of Style on external links. --Phirazo 02:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS is a low-level guideline, and is clearly validly superceded by numerous TfDs failing to uphold its opposition to these templates. I'll go correct it to reflect that fact. That said, you're right that the use of this template on actresses is dodgy, simply because it's tangental. The solution seems to me to be to use it better in other places. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Sandifer. We certainly should not let piddling style issues get in the way of our greater mission to promote free content. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do so many people want to keep this template when no one uses it? Any promotion of free content is achieved with the existing {{Memoryalpha}} template. Besides, Wikipedia isn't in the business of promoting anything. --Phirazo 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new single-line template does this job perfectly well, and is less obtrusive than this box. I find it frankly alarming that several established users are supporting this template, on the grounds that we should be promoting fellow free-content websites - that seems to undermine Wikipedia's entire NPOV policy (not to mention WP:SOAP, raised above). Websites like Memory Alpha have no affiliation with Wikipedia or the Wikipedia Foundation, and templates like this one could mislead people into thinking otherwise. Terraxos (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment deeply misunderstands the importance of free content to Wikipedia, the importance of it to the Foundation, and the nature of NPOV and SOAP. To say that Wikipedia is not fundamentally invested in free content is to miss the entire point of the project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the nature of WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NPOV is pretty clear - editors should not promote anything on Wikipedia, even free content. We shouldn't raise Memory Alpha above StarTrek.com because one is licensed under Creative Commons and the other is copyrighted by CBS Studios Inc.
Keep per Phil Sandifer. If this is deleted, consider deleting for consistency all other templates in Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects. –Pomte 07:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. No new arguments, but I thought a delete argument from an ST fan might add some weight. I don't think free projects necessarily deserve boxes. Should we have a box for epiguide.com? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I am missing something, epiguide.com is not a free content project. It does not charge for its content, but all of its content appears to be controlled via copyright. So no. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems the box style is restricted to Wikia only, at least in practice. Free content sites not hosted by Wikia (Wikitravel, Citizendium, etc.) don't have boxes. --Phirazo 18:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is wholly a matter of happenstance - boxes of this sort can be trivially generated for any project on the interwiki map. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all FCM derived templates). No new arguments, but I stay with my opinion that we do not need to give special treatment to an arbitrarily selected group of free content wiki's (this includes several of our wikimedia linkboxes as far as I'm concerned) . The normal EL template more than suffices for these cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Phil Sandifer's assertions above: I find no discussion of this template at Template:FreeContentMeta, despite Sandifer's assertion to the contrary. I'm forced to reject as unsupported his contention that our project has a "vested interest in promoting other free content projects.". "Promoting free content is the mission of the site" while WP:ENC & the 5 pillars hold that the purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Providing a home for what he defines as "in-universe trivia". Lastly, there's the argument that the creators of the template should have been consulted first. While that's good wikiquette, to insist on it suggests ownership and tends to create a walled garden wherein changes within it must have the assent of the right people. This project isn't about people; it's about access to human knowledge. Delete this box and go with the simpler template. --SSB ohio 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Article reuse is a major objective of Wikipedia, as well as giving reasonable outlets to content that we get flooded with that need a home. Also, orphaning a template before TfD is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not an island. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the concern is about how it looks like a sister project, perhaps more can be done to help that. I remember there being a template for ELs on some anime articles that would note if a site was in English or Japanese that would go along side normal text links in the EL section. Maybe something like that, where it looks like a normal EL, but says "WIKI" beside it. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if we oppose giving pride of place to other free content projects, we should make a comprehensive guideline that would apply equally to the sister projects (what's the rationale for giving Wikinews a box and not Memory Alpha? Our mission has a lot more in common with the latter). However, I believe that promoting free content is well within the scope of this project. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for giving Wikinews a box is that it's part of the Wikimedia Foundation, whereas Memory Alpha and similar 'unofficial' wikis are not. See Wikipedia:Sister projects for more details. Essentially, Memory Alpha is just another Star Trek fansite (albeit one that uses free content) and there is no reason to give it a pride-of-place link that favours it other Star Trek fansites. Hence, as I argued above, this template is an open violation of the neutral point of view policy. Terraxos (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we give pride of place to our sister projects? It's because they are free content, and because advancing free content is one of the goals of this project. We have much more in common with Memory Alpha than with Wikinews, which has selected an incompatible license and rejects our core content policy on verifiability. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Memory Alpha is CC too. :( Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "place of pride" is because Wikinews et al. are all run by the same umbrella non-profit foundation that runs Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation. My original rationale I had was the principle of least disturbance - plain links are mostly used for Memory Alpha, boxes are used for sister projects. --Phirazo 21:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a reader care that these other sites are also run by the Wikimedia Foundation? Why would we want to drive traffic to those sites? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the rationales for these kinds of link is that they're not functioning as a traditional EL. Basically, they are a utility EL, made to note any wiki EL, and to do so easily and with context (being able to not just link to the general wiki, but to specific topics as they relate to the article currently being viewed). I understand that some of you view this as giving one link an unfair position, but myself and others view this as simply noting an EL that has a different function than other ELs (and, again, is open to any wiki EL that meets WP:EL). -- Ned Scott 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users interested in this discussion are also likely to be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 20#Template:Muppets. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of inline template, which does its job just fine in informing browsers of a source of additional information. BD2412 T 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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:Football squad fan

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 debate was speedy deleted by User:Od Mishehu as a test template. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been untouched since its creation in late-July 2006. It is not used anywhere on Wikipedia, and serves no visible purpose. — – Pee Jay 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and unencyclopedic. JPG-GR (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. –Pomte 08:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Speedy deletion tag placed on the article. Thundermaster^TRUC 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems to serve no use. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 10:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.