Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16

Template:American film table separator

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American film table separator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is used as a "table separator" in 3 articles, and can easily be replaced by one line of table code. Code should be used in place of this template because this template generates an "edit" button for each section that does not work properly, therefore the entire article must be edited to update each section as individual sections cannot be updated. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (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:Playmates of 2010

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playmates of 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template won't be used for at least 8 or 9 months (depending on when the first Playmate of 2010 is announced). The template can always be re-created after the December 2009 issue is released. TJ Spyke 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well no reason was given, but this can be created once the first playmate of 2010 is announced per WP:CRYSTAL.--TRU CO 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did write a reason, but for some reason it didn't show up. Adding it again (at least what I can remember). TJ Spyke 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - premature. Can be recreated if needed in future. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is simpler to leave it in until it is needed, than to remove it and then create it again, & it will do no harm in the interval DGG (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2009 (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:League of Assassins

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:League of Assassins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single line list of character which is more or less the list in the infobox on League of Assassins and the League of Assassins#Members section. Both of which make the article a reasonable navagation hub since the character articles all link to it. J Greb (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following J Greb - the template seems redundant as there is a member list on the article all the members link to. Where team templates work is where there are numerous titles and storylines and it becomes difficult to keep all the links in one easy to find area. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - per nom.--TRU CO 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced any of these templates are problematic. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's nothing wrong with the template, and isn't going to cause any problems. ^BlackManta 01:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On one hand, each character's membership is unsourced. On another, in comics, characters may be a member of a nearly infinite number of teams. Consider how many such navboxes Magneto would have at the bottom of his article. It's better to give the membership(s) of the character context within the article, and link to the teams' article/list. Team navboxes should only exist when larger navigation/context is presented. Template:Justice League or Template:Avengers being two such examples. (That isn't to say that in-universe information tangently related to a team should be considered such "context". A junkyard of links isn't necessarily an aid to navigation, which, of course, is the point of navboxes.) - jc37 08:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above arguments. Hiding T 11:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments, and nom. Versus22_talk 08:36, 27 February 2009 (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:Legion of Doom (Super Friends)

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legion of Doom (Super Friends) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single line list of character which duplicates the Legion of Doom (Super Friends)#Members section of the parent article. This make the article a reasonable navagation hub since the character articles all link to it. J Greb (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this template should stay because it helps with easy navigation, rather than going to a seperate page to view the Legions members. Also I have seen many other templates similar to this one, e.g. Template:Evolution (professional wrestling) so if other templates have stayed I don't see why this and the League of Assassins above should have to go. ^The Scarecrow... 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the information is listed at Legion of Doom (Super Friends)#Members which has additional information making it a much more useful navigation aid, which all the character articles already link to. The navbox is not only redundant but is less useful than the existing information. (Emperor (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - seems acceptable as a navigational template to me. Yes, you could use Legion of Doom as a navigation page, but the point of this template is that you don't have to. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On one hand, each character's membership is unsourced. On another, in comics, characters may be a member of a nearly infinite number of teams. Consider how many such navboxes Magneto would have at the bottom of his article. It's better to give the membership(s) of the character context within the article, and link to the teams' article/list. Team navboxes should only exist when larger navigation/context is presented. Template:Justice League or Template:Avengers being two such examples. (That isn't to say that in-universe information tangently related to a team should be considered such "context". A junkyard of links isn't necessarily an aid to navigation, which, of course, is the point of navboxes.) - jc37 08:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above arguments. Hiding T 11:44, 24 February 2009 (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:Cite episode

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 speedy keep Sceptre ^(talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previous TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 18#Template:Cite episode

I think this template should be deleted because citing episodes doesn't actually make information verifiable unless other sources like DVDs or websites are used, both of which have their own citation template. If those don't exist, there's no source material to reference. Also, citing episodes which are not commercially available promotes piracy which is already explicitly forbidden in several other places on Wikipedia. (I'd suggest using subst: on existing uses of the template before performing a deletion so existing instances can be properly edited out.) Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See e.g. George Hammond (Stargate) and Characters of Smallville where this template is used with and without dialog from the respective episode to verify in-universe/plot information that is present in the article. Even if websites were more reliable than the primary source (which they are not for plot summaries), why use {{cite web}} when the parameters |url= and |transcripturl= of {{cite episode}} fullfill the same purpose? Citing episodes from shows where neither reliable episode guides nor DVDs are available, is a problem with that show, but not with this template. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could throw that right back at you. Why cite the episode, when the source is a website? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't cite websites. For a popular TV show, citing the episode makes it easy for any interested reader to google a transcript or find hundreds of fan-made episode guides about that episode, or (if the ditor is a fan) pull out a videotape from his closet, find a downloaded episode on his harddrive, or buy a DVD to verify that information. It's the reader's choice, really. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But citing the episode doesn't prove it is actually verifiable through any of the legal means you mentioned. Citing a website allows you to fill in the same information either in the title field or in addition to the template. The reader can still do what you said, but it stops people from citing non-existing episodes or ones that aren't covered in reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from any other citation template? I don't live in the US and don't access to all books and websites that are cited on en.wikipedia, usually for geographical reasons and sometimes even for legal reasons (national regulations, the wrong IP range). But I doubt that {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} should be deleted for that reason. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't because they are reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are reliable source. The templates are used to format the citations for reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Episodes and other television broadcasts are valid reliable sources, even in academic work. Wikipedia:Verifiability only requires that the sources be reliable, it says nothing about it being easily available. And the piracy concern is a red herring. --Farix (Talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum If the reason behind this nomination is that the template is sometime abused, then it shows poor judgment on the part of the nominator. Don't get rid of the template but deal with the abuse directly. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep deletion argument gives no real basis for deletion. Episodes are valid, reliable sources for episode specific content. The deletion argument here seems to have nothing to do with the template itself. It does not "encourage abuse" as we do have editors from other countries, nor does it particularly matter how someone saw an episode so long as it either aired on television, was broadcast legally on the internet by its owners via iTunes or whatever, or released to some form of home media. Punishing the hundreds of legitimate uses of this template, and rapidly destroying dozens of featured articles and featured lists for, what appears to be an issue more with an extreme minority of editors, is over the top. The idea that you can cite a website for the greater bulk of episode information is incorrect. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of series for which there are Wikipedia articles which aired long before the Internet ever existed. Also, to cite specific plot points, you must cite the episode. Claiming you must cite it from the internet is what would really encourage abuse as finding another cite that will have every detail of the episode would require citing what would amount to copyvio summaries (or linking directly to pirate websites). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with sgeureka, Farix and Collectonian. Seriously, why would we make stuff up from episode? They're reliable. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given during the last discussion. If citing a dramatic presentation is acceptable in scholarly works, it's acceptable to us. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are raising the Verifiability issue when this template is used arguing the difficulty to check those references. You are not assuming Good Faith from those who use this template, there are obviously few editors who abuse this template but it is unfair to punish everyone for some bad apples. Another point is you assume that alternative references could be found on the form of DVD or Internet. As Collectonian said a lot of shows pre-date the boom of Internet and their only informative websites are personal websites which won't be accepted as RS. For the DVD, i will return your argument some DVDs are hard to find so citing them as refs create verifiability issue maybe the DVD never existed at all. Further in this idea some show were never released on DVD format and stayed to the VHS tape or the Beta max, how great it would be to verify a Beta max release. Some where never released in any format at all. Finally the pirating issue, just by browsing Wikipedia, i can find a lot articles about shows not available in my country and i doubt people would accept to remove them because they could incite people like me to pirate those shows. --KrebMarkt 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just because the template can be misused in not a reason for deletion it. {{cite web}} does not stop people from citing nonexistent websites and {{cite book}} is a favorite of the more skillful hoaxers who will either cite nonexistent works or use it to claim real books say things that they do not. Edward321 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - that's like saying, "let get rid of Cite Book, because I'd have to actually go out and buy the book just to verify what is being cited from it". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - if a reliable source is not found and if a episode is on Youtube but its not published by the owner of the video, we can use this to cite it.--TRU CO 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - if we remove this, we might as well remove {{cite book}} as well because it's doing the same exact thing, except citing a piece of audio-visual media instead of print.じんない 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI probably should reword this. I'm nominating the template specifically, because I believe that an episode is not a reliable source. Reliable sources need to be published and a one-time broadcast that cannot be checked against is not published. The potential for abuse and piracy or just additional concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A broadcast is a form of publication. So you strike out there to. All and all, your agreement amounts to a hill of beans --Farix (Talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) A broadcast is a publication. It has been made public to the receivers. 2) Certain kinds of literary analysis treat all creations "texts", be they printed words, spoken on the street, or paint daubs on a canvas. If this is good enough for acamedicians, it's good enough for us. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the reasons given above. I can't add anything that hasn't already been written here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per pretty much everybody. The reliability or nonreliability of episodes does not affect the usefulness of this template. After all, some people try to cite unreliable web sites, but that doesn't mean we try to delete {{cite web}}. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a strawman. Even if a website is unreliable, a reader can easily determine if the website is available for review. There's no such luck with episodes. Also, websites are unreliable sometimes, while episodes are always unreliable; it's comparing apples with oranges. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that an episode is not a reliable source? Edward321 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about episodes of news programs? They're not all unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have the good faith that others have seen the episode as well and will correct any errors. If you think a source is dubious, then mark it and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. But just because a few editors abuse the template by creating fake episodes doesn't mean that the template is without merit or that all episodes are unreliable. And even if you do manage to delete the template, as much of a snowball that it is, it isn't going to stop people from citing episodes as sources. It just means that the formatting of the citations will be less consistent. The reason the template exists is so that the citations can have a consistent format across Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Citing an episode is certainly appropriate. In any case, this has snowballed enough to see a clear response. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:08, 17 February 2009 (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:Panama Squad 2009 UNCAF Nations Cup

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. — Aitias // discussion 04:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panama Squad 2009 UNCAF Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

DeleteThe tournament is not a top regional event, per WP:footy discussion, it is overuse of the template. Matthew_hk t c 09:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According WikiProject Football this templates shouldn't be created. Blu e Red 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior project concensus. Navboxes should only be necessary for top tournaments (i.e., World Cup, Olympics and Confederation Championships) and the UNCAF tournament is just a qualifier for the Confederation Championship (i.e., Gold Cup). Jogurney (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete the tournament is the top regional event for the Central American Football Union (UNCAF), I don't see why it could not be created since it is a regional tournament involving the Central American nations of the CONCACAF.

Delete per nom and like-minded !voters above. – Pee Jay 01:49, 25 February 2009 (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.

Youth tournament templates

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.

According to the discussion WikiProject Football these kind of templates should not be created. Blu e Red 06:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Matthew_hk t c 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom--TRU CO 20:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Youth tournament templates are not supported by WP:FOOTY. King of the North East 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete Columbus Crew MLS Cup 2008 squad is not a youth template. The rest can be deleted though.--Skotywa^Talk 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Although the Columbus Crew template should not have been grouped with the rest of these templates, I still recommend its deletion, as a club's squad for one particular tournament is not worthy of a separate navbox. – Pee Jay 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not needed. Just trivia-like info. Versus22_talk 08:42, 27 February 2009 (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.