Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9

Template:Movie-Tome

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. — TKD::{talk} 09:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movie-Tome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used template for a user-edited database of minimum importance. Last nominated in 2006 and received only one response. Many of the current links are broken, and the website has become difficult to access in order to correct linked pages. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Few or none of the templates ~15 uses are functional and I had no success trying to correct them (the "search" functionality at the MovieTome website website seems to be down). More importantly, MovieTome is a defunct user-edited database and, since it has no great historical significance as a films database, I do not think that we should continue to link to it in "External links" sections except in special cases (e.g. in the article MovieTome). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it's user edited ithout stability and so forth it fails WP:EL and should not be used as an external link except for as Black Falcon mentions. DreamGuy (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and EL. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ELNO; not a link to be solicited in a widespread manner by any means. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 13 March 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:Bbcnews

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. The keep of 9:42 10 March was not explained much so was given less weight. The "Don't keep in its current form" seemed like it had been addressed. An argument was made that this increases consistency, but it looks like most of the rest of the comments viewed the template as redundant. delldot ∇. 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

BBC is one of the most cited news sources in our articles, however, I see no justification for creating citation templates for individual news providers. Also, use of this template would encourage omitting many fields of information that are present in other citation templates (author, date) . meco (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale could well be used for anything under Category:External link templates. This template simplifies the construction of external links to the BBC site and ensures that they are presented uniformly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's a significant difference between external links to various resource sites and this type of proprietary news source link. __meco (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep in its current form. I'm all for uniformity but anything that encourages dumbed-down web citations without date and accessdate is worse than useless. - Pointillist (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding it to add those parameters would be trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would create a maintenance nightmare if this catches on and we get {{Cnnnews}}, {{Guardiannews}}, {{Timesnews}}, {{NYTimesnews}} et al. __meco (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as all those templates are inheriting from {{cite web}} (which ~~I'll try to make this one do shortly~~ this one does), I don't see that this is anything but a boon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A consistent approach to citations of online versions of news reports might well be helpful. To the extent that partially pre-filled templates would encourage editors to complete the remaining fields, I would support them. As currently documented, however, the Bbcnews template doesn't do that. - Pointillist (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the documentation done shortly. The code has already been updated - it's functionally equivalent to {{cite web}} now, with the exception that it has slightly less bitrot-prone URLs and a customised short form. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the name? How about {{cite bbc}} or {{cite bbcnews}} for consistency with the established citation templates? - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not yet formed an opinion on the desirability of templates for individual news providers, but I'd like to suggest that {{cite news}} would be a more appropriate format than {{cite web}} in this case. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go back one revision to see the {{cite news}}-based one. There are quirks with the way that {{cite news}} displays URLs, and {{cite web}} is practically functionally equivalent anyway, so I just switched the parent. FWIW not all articles that can be linked from this template are "news"; much of the BBC website is catered for. I wouldn't object to a name change but don't feel strongly either way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get the difference between the two: {{cite news}} has extra agency=, curly=, id= (e.g. ISSN) and page= parameters ...maybe agency would be useful for BBC News? The majority of the material in most "news" sources is commentary rather than hard news anyway, so the lines are pretty blurred. If there are more provider-specific templates in future, it would be smart to have them all inherit from the same parent, which would probably have to be {{cite news}}, wouldn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the only reason I switched from {{cite news}} is that I wanted a rapid proof-of-concept - {[tl|cite news}} handles URLs a little differently, and I couldn't quickly get the output format right, so I swapped to a template I was a little more familiar with. I'd be happy to switch back . Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "redundant to a better-designed template". While the current template is an improvement over the "dumbed-down" version, as Pointillist called it, this template is ultimately just a codified version of {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}—both of which have more functionality—that provides only a negligible benefit in terms of time saved (it saves editors from having to complete just one field (work = [[BBC News]]) when formatting a reference). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The template currently supports every element of {{cite web}}; it also supports a feature that {{cite web}} doesn't, unnamed parameters (for the URL and title). I'm not sure that the criterion in question applies if the template is actually a subclass of the "better designed template", as this would seem to suggest that that hundreds of {{ambox}} subclasses are redundant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I should have been clearer on that point. While this template does indeed support that feature, I am against having citation templates that do not require a title (for news sources) and a URL (for web sources). To repeat what Pointillist said above, I don't think that we should do anything to encourage web citations that lack basic information like date, accessdate, title, and URL. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both the URL and (at least a placeholder) title are mandatory in the template. The rest are no less encouraged than in {{cite web}}, and the various bots / tools which can be used to enhance existing {{cite web}}s could be trivially adapted to also work with this template. It may be that it would be better if every reference used {{cite web}}, but I feel that halfway-houses which at least make it trivial to clean up bare URLs are a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - While the template does have parameters for title and URL, they are not mandatory in the sense that the template will produce a valid-looking output even if a unique title and URL are not provided. Currently the title placeholder is "News report on {{PAGENAME}}" and the default URL points to the general BBC News website, neither of which is good citation practice (I'd rather see bare URLs in citations than "News report on PAGENAME" with a link to the the home pages of a news website). I realize that users are supposed to replace these defaults with actual titles and URLs, but then we come back to the point that it's just as easy to use {{cite news}} instead of this template.
        While bots could work with this template, I see no advantage to having bots do this instead of simply using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, regardless of the outcome, at least the recent edits to the template mean that if it is deleted then the existing instances can be substituted, which will leave {{cite news}}es in their place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand into other sources--this is a step in the direction of rationalism and consistency., 09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment when I cite a source, I will use a template I know about, which will be a more general one, & I would probably continue to do so. I think using more specific ones for each major source would just make things more difficult. DGG (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm inclined to agree that we don't need, and shouldn't have, unique citation templates for specific websites. The existing citation templates (like {{Cite web}}) do a good enough job as it is. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist nomination. __meco (talk) 10:23, 17 March 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:Idolsucks

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 deleted (CSD G10) by User:Anthony Appleyard. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to have only been created as a petty attack towards something the user dislikes, pointless. Not terribly civil. DreamHaze (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G10. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for Speedy Deletion, thanks--I wasn't sure if it qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamHaze (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 March 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 pmid/19240221

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 deleted as G8.. So Why 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite pmid/19240221 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template appears to be simply a redirect to a non-existent page Template:Cite doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0812570106 --Mysidia (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G8 as broken redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bot-generated redirect, so perhaps we should keep it around until we can determine why the bot created a redirect to a non-existent page. I have left a note at User talk:Citation bot requesting clarification. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:00, 10 March 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.

Comment this redirect was just recreated by a bot. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ood television stories

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. — TKD::{talk} 10:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ood television stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not necessary; the Ood are not significant enough in the Doctor Who universe, and a big template is overkill for a handful of appearances that are already easily acceessible. (Suggest a category instead, if really needed.) Ckatz^chat _spy 05:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is a template for episodes of Doctor Who in which the Ood appear. Is that correct? If so, then delete per nom, do not convert into a category (Performances by character and similar categories are routinely deleted at CfD), and simply cover this information in the section about the Ood. If my understanding is not correct, I would appreciate any offered clarification. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navboxes like this tend to grow unchecked. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as endorsement of infoboxing nonnotable trivia in contradiction to Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a sufficiently notable subject for a navbox. Robofish (talk) 01:06, 15 March 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.