Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Template:UCMobileWeaponsRef

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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is present in a couple dozen entirely in-universe articles on mecha from the various Gundam series, giving the illusion that these pages are well-referenced. These articles, however, are not written based on these sources but instead mostly dubious fansites with translated excerpts of these books mixed in with random speculation or interpolation directly from fictional works, and nowhere are these sources actually cited in any of these articles. This template also has other, lesser problems, including commercial links, a horrible name, and non-standard reference formatting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have created this template for several pages that I have sourced from these, and to be clear, fans sites like MAHQ.net mainly source from these as well. I see no point in deleting a template just because it is being misused in some articles. Also, most of these are primary sources, and thus I don't think these can create any illusion that the article is well-ref, we need secondary sources anyway. For other lesser problems, please try to fix them instead. MythSearcher^talk 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite these works properly, for the claims present in these sources. Even when used as intended this isn't the way we reference articles any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please define properly. A template is good since most of the primary sources needed for Gundam articles (at least the UC series) are shared. By all means, I have no idea how to do that and would appreciate a lot of help. MythSearcher^talk 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources. In the meantime, this only encourages vague referencing to impressive-looking but oft-irrelevant sources. This list belongs on the Wikiproject page, not in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the link you provided, it seems like this template is more of the 5.1 General sources part. It might encourage vague referencing, yet I think the WP:AGF and template being sometimes misused is not a good excuse of deleting it. It is not secondary sources either, thus it would be useless to use it to fake notability. Most of the non-notable mechas are now being merged to lists as well, so this template would soon be more useful and easy to manage since it would only be used in fewer pages. MythSearcher^talk 15:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's better to cite specific sources for specific information. What information is coming from these sources? Are all of these sources being used by the individual article, or are only part of the sources being used? What information is not from one of these sources? Who much are these sources redundant to each other? It's for these reasons why inline referencing are the preferred method for citing sources. --Farix (Talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, yes. At least the ones I place the template in are using all of these sources, and if they are used in lists, it will be the same as well. These are basically all official guides and thus all Universal Century related mechas are mentioned in these refs.(the MS encyclopedias got all the other timelines as well.) I can understand your concern about other stuff being added to the articles that are not from these sources, yet most of the plot, background and spec sections would be sourced from these. It would be very silly to separately quote them inline since you will get like 10~20 ref [1] and 10 ref [3] in one list, and the same problem of having unsourced stuff added by others into the article that are faking to have been source from the inline sources anyway. MythSearcher^talk 14:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - templated references seem like a bad idea to me. This template goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's approach to referencing - that references should be associated with individual claims and sentences (where appropriate), not just added as a block at the end of an article. (In fact, we have another template specifically to discourage this: {{Nofootnotes}}.) This template discourages (or even makes impossible) inline referencing, and as such should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2008 (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.