Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2

[edit]

Template:Theatricalia person

[edit]
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) 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theatricalia person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template to link to a user-edited website which is not notable enough to even have a Wikipedia article for the site. The site isn't a reliable source for that reason and there are templates available for linking to sites that properly and verifiably deal with theatre. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feared that this was a spamlink when I first saw it appearing on actor pages today. It probably should be removed especially of the editor that has been adding it to the article has any association with Theatricalia. I would like to add, however, that after perusing the site it looks like the editors are trying to create a comprehensive database for actors and there performances in the UK. Something along the lines of the Internet Broadway Database. The IBDb website actually has very little info on it other then names of actors and dates of plays but we have allowed its template to be here for sometime. While there are several websites for individual Londaon theatres I have not yet found one that is attempting to be compehensive. My question would be "If, after a year or two, this website becomes a resource that London theatre people (critics, researchers etc) are using could we reexamine whether it might be put back in?" Also, while I don't disagree with your removing it Wildhartlivie (and thanks for the work) should we not have waited until the outcome of this discussion before doing so? Cheers and Happy New Year to all. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Certainly, if the website gains legitimacy and notability, it can be revisited. There's no issue against that. I don't think removing the spamming of a currently non-notable website should wait for that simple reason. The fact that it openly advertises on the main page that users are welcome to add content tends to lean this toward unreliable, however. I can start a page for myself following that rationale. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only association with Theatricalia is as a fan and volunteer. I think the site is notable enough for it's own page on Wikipedia - I just haven't written it. It's been picked up on Intute, for example. I've been adding the wikipedia links for people to Theatricalia (it has a field for this purpose) and was just reversing those links. --Rjmunro (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Wildhartlivie your rationale makes perfect sense. I apologize if I caused any offense I took a few months off from editing and I was just trying to check out the lay of the land. Unfortunately, Rjmunro if you have a connection with the website, even as a volunteer, you will bump into WP:COI problems with editing about it. Also sites that anyone can edit always have big problems in being used here (sorry I can't remember what section of the MoS refers to this-any help with pointing Rj in the right direction Wildhartlivie?) as a reference since the info on them can so quickly become unreliable. Having said that I wish you and the creators of Theatricalia well. I am a life long watcher of UK actors and I will be going to your site from time to time for info. Cheers and happy editing to all. MarnetteD | Talk 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I think user-donated content falls under WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources and WP:SOURCES. It's the same rationale that makes most of IMDb unusable as a source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2010 (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:AB Hwy shield

[edit]
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 template was formerly useful, but has since become redundant and is now unused. RL0919 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AB Hwy shield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (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:International Pricing Games

[edit]
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 as mostly redundant to {{The Price is Right}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International Pricing Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one of the five links actually goes to an article describing the game listed; the other redirect to the American version of the related game. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I just fixed three of the links to go to specific sections on the specific foreign games named (the last game appeared to possibly not match the linked-to American counterpart). Also, the uses link above appears to not match up with reality, not sure why. --Thinboy00 @007, i.e.
That is really weird...almost none of those articles have that template, but I can't see anyway its being transcluded at all, not in the articles directly not any of the other templates...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template used to be contained as a child within {{The Price Is Right}}. It was removed earlier on the same day it was nominated here. Because it was transcluded indirectly, the MediaWiki software doesn't immediately update the list of backlinks. When the job queue updates, the links will all disappear. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2010 (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:VG series reviews

[edit]
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. RL0919 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VG series reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is overkill for listing two ratings for games in a series - better done with a standard table, which is easier to code/manage and does not have the 16 game limit this template has. Only used on five articles, so seems to have no basis in consensus for use, nor validity. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the whole point of a template is to make a table easier to code and manage, and this does just that. While the template has not been extensively employed as of present, code that generates the exact same table is present on dozens of series articles, as they have not been swapped out yet. -- Sabre (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Sabre (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Sabre.
    • The template was designed to make it easier for inexperienced editors to create such tables without knowing how to actually code a table. Not everyone can grasp wiki table code or html. Keeping it in a template also standardizes the appearance, which is one of the reasons these review tables were created.
    • The limit is something that can be increased. Regardless, the few series that exceed 16 games more than likely wouldn't have aggregate scores for the older games. Final Fantasy for example. Older games didn't not receive such coverage back then.
    • The template has been discussed before (archived and more recent), just not to a large extent. Both discussions gave others the chance to oppose the template, which aside from this TfD, did not occur.
    • I'd attribute the lack of use more to a lack of awareness rather than a lack of consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Its TWO scores. A table is overkill in any sense. Write in proper prose, which is the easiest of all, and it is fairly useless for anything. As noted below, the Video Game project is the only media area that seems to want to clutter articles with pointless tables of content that is then said to not appropriate for prose. If it isn't appropriate for prose, how it is appropriate in this template? I'd argue its not used because it is pointless and only adds a pointless table to the article, rather than the proper game summaries in a video game series articles that prose gives. Guy, you said a lack of awareness is the reason for the lack of use, after arguing that it did have consensus in a discussion...so either there was enough awareness to use it or there was not? Which is it? I'd say VG project members might be aware of it, but this discussion allows the community as a whole to evaluate whether this is an appropriate template for use in an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its two scores from the biggest and most reliable aggregate review sites available for this type of media, each score potentially covering up to and over a hundred reviews. Thus it provides an instant critical overview for an entire series at a glance in a way that prose cannot provide. What would be overkill would be listing a large number of percentages in the prose instead of a table or template, which would be extremely messy and disorganised. That video games potentially have more templates than other medias is ultimately irrelevant. -- Sabre (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its TWO scores, not a "large number" and the film project also uses aggregate scores from two of the largest relevant sites, and its done purely in prose without making anything "extremely messy" nor "disorganized". Further, the claim that it provides "instant critical overview" is invalid, considering it does nothing but throw out some numbers. Without the actual prose to indicate how the aggregate is formed, they are meaningless. 19:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Two scores per title. That doesn't bode well for a series with nine, ten, or more titles, something that occurs a lot more in the video game industry than the film industry (which is one reason why such comparisons are pointless). That's a "large number" where it gets extremely messy and disorganised, when you're dealing with potentially 32 figures—given that's the max this template can take—in the prose. -- Sabre (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian- Those are your personal views on the content, which are not shared by everybody. Numerical scores have been a common thread in video game reviews for a long time. We are merely reflecting what almost every review includes in their content. However, the VG project realizes that the scores alone are hollow and must be superseded by real commentary from reviews. The scores are put off to the side to keep them out of the prose so it can focus on real content and provide a quick overview of the reception.
In regard to the consensus, I think you may have interpreted my words in a black and white viewpoint. A small group of editors (myself included) felt the template would be useful because the hard coded table appears in several articles. Since there was no opposition to its creation, I'd call that a consensus. Simply because most editors forgot about it (I know I did after I put it Kingdom Hearts) doesn't mean there's a consensus against it. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Please keep civility in mind. There is no reason to doubt that this nomination was made in good faith. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2010 (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:VG series and remake reviews

[edit]
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 as unused and redundant to other similar templates. RL0919 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VG series and remake reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, and more appropriate for writing in prose, with sources, anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:23, 2 January 2010 (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:VG reviews

[edit]
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. Closing early per WP:SNOW and request of the nominator, since the consensus on this is overwhelming. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VG reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate template that encourages adding unsourced "scores" without context and meaning to video game articles. A table full of numbers is useless for readers who are not aware of the sites, and takes the numbers out of any usable context. Further, it encourages the addition of custom reception, as well as some predefined ones, which are not reliable sources of any sort. This has been noted in several discussions by the VG project, but as it is, the issue was never actually solved.[1] Reception information should generally be written in prose, with sources and a fuller summary of the review being cited, not just random numbers stuck on the side of the table. If a game has won so many awards that it needs a table, this should be done separately, within the prose, per the same methods used in all other media forms. This template has a long history, and there have been frequent discussions over its use, including notes that it never actually had VG project consensus[2] and is frequently removed from higher quality game articles as part of its clean up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Sabre (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while it is possible to add unsourced scores it is just as easy to add citations to the box. The template is a much quicker way of inputting the data than to create a table on each article page, and it also allows newer users to see which sources have been deemed reliable based on the presets. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think by any means it's "encouraged" to an unsourced scores, it's up to people add them in regardless of where they are in the article. The un/reliable sources crops up in prose as well and that isn't a problem of the table but the people finding the sources, these scores are generally easy to find and get rid of.
Also, my main reason for keeping this is that it provides a good place to put the scores, while yes, it is a table full of numbers, I don't think the scores are appropriate to go into the prose, you're just going to get a list of numbers then. The prose of the reception section is for the discussion of the actual reviews and what specific points they bring up about the game. The template is just an easy way to get an overview on the general consensus of reviewers. Crimsonfox (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they have no place in the prose, they have no place in the article at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as Sabre mentions below, the prose of the reception section is better off focusing on critical points of reviews. The template provides a quick overview of critical reception the game has received. I do feel a final score of a review says a lot about how games are generally received BUT they're not much to talk about when put into sentences. Crimsonfox (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination is full of misinformation. First off: the template does not encourage adding unsourced material. On the contray, the first words on the template documentation are "Only add a score if you cite it with a reference." Video game FAs and GAs have these tables fully referenced as a matter of course. The claim that the template is removed for higher quality articles is just plain false: for instance, all of the recent video game FA articles on the front page have contained this template. The predefined sources in the template have been vetted as reliable sources, and are the most common sources used for video game articles anyway. The custom fields allow for optional sources, only if reliable, since the table cannot possibly be fully comprehensive. Scores are generally thought better off outside the prose in video game articles, allowing for a focus on individual points of criticism instead of structuring it on a review-by-review basis, but rather than eliminating them entirely, this template provides a way of putting them together in a clear and organised manner. Collectonian seems to be under the impression that this template is a substitute for writing a reception section, which it is not. -- Sabre (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be the intention of the handful of project members, but that it exactly what it is done. Further, if the scores are "better off outside the prose" then it would seem they don't need to be included at all. No other media format does this, only video games, and I have yet to see a valid keep reason here. Everyone seems ot be focusing purely on my note about the unsourced information. The scores really don't belong in the article at all, most of the time, except for the aggregate scores. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, album articles usually include review scores from a number of sources. Pitchfork, Rolling Store, and Allmusic guide for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with the comments above. The template is not perfect, but it serves a good purpose by standardizing the tables and allowing less wiki code-savy editors to create the table. In regard to its removal from high quality articles, do you have examples? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Collectonian- I noticed a common thread of your above nominations is the use of unsourced content. This has been a concern of mine as well, but I don't think it's that big of problem for the articles. Or rather, if an article has this template and the scores are unsourced, I'd say it's a safe bet that there are bigger issues present (unsourced content in other sections, POV issues, prose issues, etc.) because of the inexperienced editors that have worked on the article. Regardless, I think one possible solution is to add a ref parameter, similar to {{VGtitle}}. I think seeing such a parameter will prompt future users to include it. The down side is that the template will get bigger and more difficult to use. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
No one reads the instructions, and I notice everyone above seems to focus purely on that one bit about its encouraging of unsourced content, instead of all of the nom as a whole. I've given my thoughts - it should be deleted and no longer used. I would personally never include it any video game article that I wanted to take to a higher level, and would oppose any GAN/FAN I saw using it as it does not add value to the article. As noted from the comments above, it isn't really for organizing information, but moving out undersirable information from the prose, which is not a valid use for this kind of thing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "no one reads the instructions", as not all the parameters are intuitive. I referred to the instruction almost every time I used it (including quality articles). And Sabre addressed your whole nomination.
In regard to why other media articles don't use them, numerical scores have been a common thread in video game reviews for a long time. We're merely reflecting what almost every video game review includes in their content. However, the VG project realizes that the scores alone are hollow and must be superseded by real commentary from reviews. The scores are put off to the side to keep them out of the prose so it can focus on real content and provide a quick overview of the reception.(Guyinblack25 talk 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator. A "Critical reception" is one of the main building blocks of a video game article. I've seen this template used far too many times as a substitute for prose, giving undue weight to the sections on plot and in-game information. There's no equivilent template used in featured articles for films or books, is there? Marasmusine (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an editorial matter then: its likely that such articles are lacking in real-world information for both development and reception regardless of this template's use. There's nothing wrong with the template's usage when someone has taken the time to put that information into prose, where the template happily provides further info on the reviews used to create the section without interferring with how that the prose is presented. Books and films are reviewed in different ways from video games, thus any comparison to how other types of articles do something is a waste of time. -- Sabre (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template is used in hundreds of video game articles, if there is consensus to retire it then each article which uses it needs to be looked at first to make sure it's not going to leave a mess if it's deleted. This is not the right forum for that, at all, whatever its history its removal is not so pressing that it needs to be hammered out during the course of an AFD. Someoneanother 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The numbers in the table are not "random" like the nom suggests, they provide a quick indicator of general critical reception. I'd have no problem with cutting the number of review fields down to 15-20 reliable ones though, nor a problem with the removal of awards from the tables. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please read this essay about voting. Because the template is used on many articles, I think we all agree it can't be removed in an instant. I also think the less harming for wikipedia video games articles is just to put an advice on the template. The advice should say to be carefull with the use of this template as it does not strictly satisfy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY policy. Time and reason should do the rest. Someone with appropriate rights should do it. - Galmicmi (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above.--Saint Pedrolas J. Hohohohohoh merry christmas 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another waste of time. --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep - Used across the board as a standard in VG articles. The notion that it encourages unreferenced information is a superfluous point. Unreferenced information can be added anywhere in the article. This template doesn't encourage/discourage it more than any other part of an article. --Teancum (talk)
  • Keep per Teancum. Tezero (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many reasons above. Furthermore, it's pretty clear that VG articles don't advance up the quality scale until there is prose reception augmenting those scores (or more precisely, using those scores to augment the prose). That said, I've encouraged people to use the template in moderation, as it is not a dumping ground to bloat out the article, and thus there is some style and content issues with it, but that's not a reason to delete it. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to incorrect nomination and widespread use.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least one other type of article uses something similar to this - albums. In these articles, the star ratings of various sites are included in the infobox, but it exists for the same reason as this template: to provide a quick overview of reception. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: You have the same issue with any section on Wikipedia. It's easy enough to add unsourced information, or original research to any page. The review section is one of my favorite sections, and seems very important to me. 8bit (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Due to widespread use. --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 13:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs per all Keep .. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All has been said so far. This template no more encourages incorrect editing than anywhere else on Wikipedia. Scores are a very common way of rating video games and publications have been doing this for decades. It is worth while acknowledging these ratings in a similar format alongside a reception section. A reception section which does not have prose and merely a scores template is not a good reason for deleting the template. --Bill (talk|contribs) 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do agree that reviews should be written in prose and that doing so helps the reader understand the context of the reviews and their scores. However, a table holding holding all of the scores do give a quick and easy reference for general overlook on a game by the critics. This is not perfect, but it is a convenient and quick way to gaze over reception. I can't believe this was even nominated because of it's widespread use in wiki and how useful it is. While this may open this up to bias review choosing, as the nominator noted, it is unavoidable as the prose can also be shifted for positive or negative reviews just as easily as the table can. Basically, keep with no question otherwise, which seems to be the consensus anyways. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Update: As for the addition of unsourced reviews, maybe we can change the template to include "ref=" for the references on each review so that it will encourage sourcing reviews in the table. Or you could just go off the example I have made at Saw (video game) and still source the reviews in the table and the prose regardless. Agree to change? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being one of the few to give a polite response. Since it seems clear the template will be kept, I think the idea of adding the ref, and perhaps requiring it per someone else's comment below, would be good things to consider for updating it. As well as closely evaluating the scores in the template to remove the ones that are not notable and generally not included in the prose. Make it more focused, which I believe was done once before but then went back again, and it might at least seem a little better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The information is conveyed in a easy to view manner and allows one to get a better idea of how a game is doing. The description that usually accompanies the template would allow for more depth in the matter. If reviews are unsourced, perhaps the template should be changed to make it mandatory (aka, no source = no view?). --Elven6 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Not like what I say will matter, but here goes. I think only if the scores in the template are written in the prose and explained there, then the temp would be ok. However, if the scores are not in the prose (and it seems most aren't) and there's just numbers in a temp; it doesn't look encyclopedic and just put more unnecessary strain on mobile devices to render a table. If we keep going at this rate, EVERYTHING will be in a template, no need for prose—what would be the point—you can just stick random information in a template and be on your way. :-\ Some of those sites that are included in the template probably shouldn't be there. If this is kept (and it's looking that way) then the template should be trimmed down to more mainstream review sites. Right now I think that there's all these random review sites listed in the temp to just show that's there a lot of reviews for a game, when most are unsourced, unreliable, and useless. —Mike Allen 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep per several points stated. Poor reasoning. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't use the template for individual reviews — just awards and aggregate scores. But, if you see an unsourced review or award, then slap a citation tag on it or remove it. SharkD  Talk  02:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very useful template for displaying scores to complement the prose. Scores have to be sourced, and they are the vast majority of the time I see this template. It certainly doesn't encourage adding unsourced info more than prose does. Grandmasterka 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unsourced information is a problem in and of itself, and has nothing to do with this template. The prose is for discussing written reviews for the game, and the template is for providing a general overview of the game's critical reception. Music articles do the same thing with chart ratings. Anunnakki (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly disagree with Collectonian. The template does not encourage editors to use it as a substitute for prose, and unsourced clauims are not necessarily influenced by the template. This is an extremely popular template and to try to justify its deletion is completely idiotic. Collectonian is wasting our time. CR4ZE (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. The template is almost a standard in all video game articles and is used in almost any single one. Plus I have not seen any examples of it ever being used for unsourced content.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request immediate closure per WP:SNOWBALL. Erik (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the first things I look for when assessing whether or not a game is worth reading about. It's pretty clear that Collectionism just hates tables with numbers : ) InternetMeme (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I can't disagree with the nomination rationale more. Current practice of writing prose summary of VG review articles and ratings just plain stinks- no offense intended towards our well-intentioned editors, as they are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. After all, there is rarely a source that actually addresses the reception of a game, rather than simply reviewing it. And as to whether it encourages unsourced contributions, I think prose ends up being worse; anyone can add a sentence saying "such and such.com gave it 9/10 and called it game of the year", and most often we need to wait for someone to come by to check and remove the source. On the other hand, an unsourced addition to a table could feasibly be removed by machine. Additionally, this table functions as an equalizer; it is astoundingly difficult to provide equal weight when dealing with these sorts of reviews, especially when most "Reception" sections wind up being nothing but disjointed quotations without explanation. Let's not delete this template, please. If anything, we need to address the greater issue of reception sections and whether we should even consider professional reviews to be appropriate material to discuss a show/film/game's reception. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unsourced ratings are upon the individual who originally added the score to source. Of course any Wikipedian should challenge unsourced ratings if they interfere with the article. As far as I have seen with this template, there have been consistent scores with reliable sources behind them. Even if there was an unsourced score, it consistent with the rest of the scores placed with the template.
For example, take a look at Final Fantasy tactics, A featured article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Final_Fantasy_Tactics#Reception
It has unsourced scores but if you do the math all the scores are consistently close to each other. It got a 4 out of 5 from The Official Playstation magazine which is mathematically equivalent to 8 out of 10. Which three of the rest of the scores are nearby (give or take a fraction).
There is no flaw with the template itself, or the information provided. And even if those individual scores fail WP:V, they are no detriment to the reception section or the sourced scores used in the template. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The prime concern over whether is encourages unsourced scores doesn't effect any potential developed of an articles to higher standards. If an article is being developed and edited with the intention of improving the overall quality, such false scores would not only be discouraged but removed on a consistent basis. It is no different from anyone editing any other article and adding any unsourced claims, such practices that never stay in the article in the long term. To delete this would require an even large needless to hundreds of game articles that are already of good quality and without unsourced false scoring. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it easily allows the reader to gauge the impact and critical acclaim of any particular game without having to read through the whole section. Additionally, unlike the written "reception" section, it is much more objective in its description of a game's critical success by providing a non-emotive number out ten as opposed to a textual description, (which often places games' reception in a positive or negative light by focussing on particular reviews and not others).
  • Keep. IMO, the mere potential for unsourced additions doesn't warrant deletion. The template is being used with sources on quite a few articles already, and the trend doesn't appear to support the nominator's thesis that it could lead to unencyclopedic additions.—DMCer™ 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - It is not an inappropriate template and it is in fact used in lots of video game articles. Let's close this per WP:SNOW. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Sources are added very often and there is no inherent reason to not add sources to the table. I've used the tables a lot myself (as a reader) and would hate to see them disappear. Mathias-S (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Mathias-S. Agent Zero (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rather absurd rationales. Scores are far from random numbers in a reception section and - no animosity intended - by nominator's vague logic, surely if a template directly encourages adding unsourced material by virtue of the fact it exists, the "edit this page" button is no different. Let's have that removed... --Monere (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Irrelevant reasons, unlike the template for film reviews listed below, video games reviews have always been been made in numbers, that's why they always give it a score on all publications, from IGN to Gamespy and specialized magazines, websites, etc. frequently removed from higher quality game articles? I'm sorry but I believe that template is in games like Halo 3, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Call of Duty 4 and all are featured articles. 201.173.29.146 (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All notable reviews should be sourced either way. Portillo (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Abysmal reasons. If the template was orphaned, I would agree, but as mentioned, it's even in featured articles. Scores belong in lists, and specific details on why the game is either awesome or competes for the title of worst game ever belong in prose. You can also see the context from the table in the prose. Uncited scores are to do with contributors who can't be bothered to add a reference, and custom reception is more to do with vandalism. Both are common problems on Wikipedia, and can only be removed. It's pointless to remove a template based on something that happens regardless of whether that template exists or not. Reviews should be sourced anyway, and custom reception should be removed. Nm3yt (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Having the numerical scores listed gives a great idea of the reception of the game. Without it, reviews would have to be summarised in the section's paragraphs, therefore leaving them subject to nonrepresentative and/or excessive quotes. And if we simply assimilate the scores into the paragraphs the section would become overrun with numbers. It's a great addition to any VG article, definitely Keep. Autonova (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the concern is with unsourced scores, that should be the target not the box that they are put in. If the template goes, the scores will just worm their way in somewhere else. a_man_alone (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOWBALL: Could an admin SNOWBALL this already? —Mike Allen 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment " 'Another waste of time.' --Kaizer13" Kaizer's hardcore. :) --4.249.84.211 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC) — 4.249.84.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep In most of the VG pages I've seen using this template, the scores in the template are cited properly and a general overview of the reviews is posted in the Reception section. I, personally, base a heavy amount of my gaming decisions on the Wikipedia articles for games, and the big decision maker for me is the review table. As per above, I believe an admin needs to snowball this AfD. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons above... can't think of anything more to add. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It makes viewing real world responses to video games easier to sort and read. Helps establish notibility and impact. Wikikaye (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perhaps Collectonian's concern that the template will substitute for a description of the game's critical reception can be mitigated by making it clear in the template documentation that the table is not a substitute for a prose discussion of critical reception, especially including qualitative elements. Vectro (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely used, useful template. I noticed this TfD discussion since the warning it is about to be deleted is all over video game pages now. I don't see how the template does any harm. --Taelus (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (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:AlloCiné movie

[edit]
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 as unused and likely to fail WP:EL guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AlloCiné movie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No consensus for this being a proper external link for all films. Used only by one person on one film article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unnecessary external link template. ELs are supposed to be English-language whenever possible, and there is enough English-language profiling and reviewing of a film to make this template unnecessary. In addition, very few ELs actually warrant templates because the content should be embedded into the article whenever possible. The "External links" section is not a dumping ground because an editor does not want to make the effort to incorporate the details. Erik (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2010 (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:Fandango movie

[edit]
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 as unused and likely to fail WP:EL guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fandango movie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No consensus for this being a proper external link for all films. Used only by one person on one film article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary external link template. The article should be giving an overview of the film, and even if pages from Fandango provide such information, they should not be dumped into the "External links" section. If the pages have useful information, incorporate it directly and use the proper citation template. Erik (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Also, the links won't provide as much encyclopedic information as IMDb, and they prompt the user into purchasing tickets (not something I think should be endorsed with a standardized template).—DMCer™ 00:46, 5 January 2010 (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:Film reviews

[edit]
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Extremely inappropriate template with no basis in consensus for usage. Highly encourage OR and inappropriate usage of non-acceptable ratings, including IMDB and other unreliable sources. Per project consensus, reception information is given in prose, not in this kind of badly done format. Further, the project and Wikipedia as a whole has long rejected the inclusion of user ratings such as the many encouraged by this template, and this template was proposed and rejected by the project as well. Creator didn't bother discussing it with anyone and it is currently used only one one article, from which it should be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not asking for the deletion of Template:VG reviews (backlinks edit), this one is also an user ratings template. Moreover, it is protected. - Galmicmi (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its protected because it is used on so many articles. It has long been a bone of contention, however, and will be appearing above shortly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading more about What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy, I admit I may have misunderstood the sense of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and I agree with you for the deletion of Template:Film reviews.- Galmicmi (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This info should be in prose. Not in another template box. Garion96 (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary for multiple reasons. Generally, we do not identify four-star ratings from reviews since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's aggregate scores suffice. In addition, if ratings are to be mentioned, it is typically done in prose, followed by specific reasons why the critic liked or disliked the film. User ratings are inappropriate because they are susceptible to vote stacking and demographic skew. In addition, awards are best displayed in a table that goes the width of the page. Figures like those from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not clear to most readers, anyway, and warrant brief explanations in prose. Essentially, there is no need to table any of this information, either because it works better in prose or is just not appropriate. Erik (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Looks like all the basics have been covered per Collectonian and Erik. I urge a speedy delete before this beast starts spreading like wildfire. —Mike Allen 06:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike games review template this template is entirely useless.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or at least change. Pointless in its current incarnation. Unlike the video gmes template you bizarrely nominated, this one has never been used as far as I can see. Uses IMDB in the scores, which can be influenced by shill reviews, making iMDB unreliable. Get rid of this while it's orphaned. Nm3yt (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2010 (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:Veoh Series

[edit]
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 CSD G8: Dependent on a nonexistent or deleted page: The only linked article in navbox is a red link. —Crazytales (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Veoh Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox that provides no navigation. The one linked article in the navbox has already been deleted. Sarilox (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (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:Cindy And The TV Show

[edit]
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 delete per T2/T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cindy And The TV Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox that provides no navigation. The only articles in the navbox have already been deleted. Sarilox (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (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:WPAVIATION creator/Airline/content

[edit]
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. RL0919 (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPAVIATION creator/Airline/content (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This page appears to be a shorter duplicate of Template:Airlinestart, and so is not needed. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Template:Airlinestart is meant to be subst'd. This page is a preload part of the Template:WPAVIATION creator. The end result may be the same, but different users prefer different means of creating articles. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see. Thank you for explaining that. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (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:Infobox Song lyrics

[edit]
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) 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Song lyrics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As stated in WP:NOT#LYRICS, articles should not be simply for song lyrics, and this seems to be an infobox for lyric only articles. Miyagawa (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_2&oldid=1140244096"