Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

[edit]

Template:Spain Squad 2011 Euro U-21

[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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain Squad 2011 Euro U-21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Youth tournament templates should not be created per discussions at WP:FOOTY GoPurple'nGold24 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Template establishes that these players have been part of an important tournament that was won by them. Not only that, it provides them the chance to play in the 2012 Olympics. Kido477 17:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you define "an important tournament"? "Important" is a very subjective term. Which Wikipedia policies actually support your point of view? – PeeJay 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No precedent to delete. Issue of cluttered boxes trivial plus you can stack them together. Transaction Go (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we please ignore my comment about precedent? Anyway, if you think the clutter issue is trivial, would you therefore support the inclusion of other youth squad navboxes? How far down would you go? Under-19? Under-17? Under-13? We have to stop somewhere, but unfortunately the point where we stop is always going to be arbitrary. Why don't we just say that all youth squads are unworthy of navboxes and be done with it? – PeeJay 13:09, 3 July 2011 (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 Peri GR

[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. BigDom 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Peri GR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, easily replaceable by Infobox Settlement. Darwinek (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2011 (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:Chemformula

[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've not seen this template being used for about two years now. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without documentation I can't be sure, but is this one of those "it takes more time to place the tag than it does to fix the problem" templates? If it's supposed to be used to flag things like "sodium chloride" then one would assume so. If it's meant to be used to flag things like complicated alkanes I can still see some value to it, but of course if nobody's using it then it's difficult to prove. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Category:Articles needing chemical formulas which is solely populated by this templated, should be considered part of this nomination. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2011 (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.

Tv.com templates

[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 {{Tv.com show}} in favor of {{Tv.com}}. No consensus on all other templates. Ruslik_Zero 15:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tv.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tv.com anthology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tv.com episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tv.com episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tv.com show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating these TV.com templates based on the same reasoning as with the Tv.com person nom. I was unaware of these other templates when I nominated the person template until someone advised me of them.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • suspend this discussion pending appropriate discussion regarding the acceptability of tv.com as an external link on the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. short of that i say KEEP THEM ALL because this seems to be nothing but a crusade against the competition for this corner of the Wiki. The hypocrisy of not allowing links to sites which contain user-generated content when this site itself is wholly generated by user submission is too funny. Wikia is user-generated content. IMDb is user generated content. tv.com is user-generated content. Wikipedia is user-generated content. If you were to not link to user-generated content you would need to kill off all internal links on WikiMedia Foundation sites. Now how contradictory to the purpose of a wiki would it be if the no-links-to-user-submitted-content was strictly enforced? While tv.com is a major pain in the ass to try to add or correct content on and the biographies of the actresses, actors, and various crew are a total mess (how many entries are there for Shawn Doyle of Big Love, Endgame, and the eleventh hour? I found 3 so far.) the errors there on the shows and the episode lists themselves are no greater than the errors on tvrage, IMDb, or Wikipedia. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 01:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons I brought up in the tv.com/person nomination; many incorrect errors going back to the TV Tome days that never were corrected in years, badly organized, and because of user-gen content, easily susceptible to errors both minor and major. Nate • (chatter) 03:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also second Xeworlebi's argument Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nate. If the site is wildly inaccurate, we shouldn't link to it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe a silly question but were did this recent Tv.com "is wildly inaccurate" come from? In my experience it's no more inaccurate than lets say IMDb (which for some reason is even allowed as a BLP reference). Xeworlebi (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tv.com is fine as an external link. I shadow Xeworlebi and Deliriousandlost. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 03:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I would have nominated these myself but I'm time poor at the moment. Tv.com is effectively an open wiki, I edit there myself, and as such it's covered under WP:SPS. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all While it is likely that the claims about inaccurate information are valid (I have not investigated), my delete recommendation is based on the fact that there should not be a template to give these links an "official" aura (i.e. the templates exists, so it is desirable to add them to as many articles as possible, and it would be difficult to sustain an argument to remove a template from an individual article). For a particular article, it may be appropriate to add a tv.com link that is compliant with WP:EL. In that case, it should be added and justified on its merits, without the implicit support of a community-sanctioned template. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All except {{Tv.com show}}- per Xeworlebi.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except {{Tv.com show}}. Perhaps my reasoning is faulty given certain rules, but doing engine searches for tv shows, tv.com links regularly show near the top of the list after WP, IMDb, and YouTube clips. IMDb's validity (as well as many other sites) comes from popularity, not necessarily accuracy of its data as it too isn't strictly "professionally driven" or whatever term describes the opposite of data made existent by your average reviewer. I can't speak for its total accuracy (nor can I for any site,) but I know that I have found much on that site which I know to be accurate that didn't exist here or IMDb. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 07:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per what Nate says. I've just looked up one of the tv.com pages for one of the EastEnders actresses only to find it says she plays herself in the soap which is nigh on impossible!--5 albert square (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. TV.com is owned by CBS Interactive which is a unit of CBS Corporation. It's not just some fly-by-night amateur site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, it's edited by the average person, which means that much of the content can't be trusted. It's effectively an open wiki and therefore not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't used as a reliable source, it's used as an external link. TV.com is as much an open wiki as wikipedia would be considered an open wiki if every article were to be fully protected and every edit required an {{Edit protected}} request, aka, not very open. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The moderation at tv.com is more to reject offensive content than anything else. There is no WP:V equivalent there, virtually anything can and is added to the site. We regularly reject citations based on tv.com so why should we accept it as an external link? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to allow any external link that wasn't verified, we would have no criteria for inclusion.Curb Chain (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The criteria for external links are clearly outlined at WP:EL, being a reliable source is not one of those criteria. I have personally removed instances were TV.com (or IMDb for that matter) was used as a reference. On the TV.com moderation, that's not my experience from the site, I've tried to add/change some thing in the past, it was rejected multiple times before I had to make a whole list of sources and it was finally accepted. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:EL#EL2 recommends avoiding "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." Tv.com clearly falls into this criteria. WP:EL#EL1 says to avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I don't think there's any credible argument that tv.com would provide a resource beyond a featured article given its lack of reliability. WP:EL#MAYBE 4 says links to be considered incude "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Tv.com fails to meet the criteria for reliable sources but most of the content can't be considered to be from knowledgeable sources so it fails. Ideally articles should not need "External links" sections; all relevant content should be included in the article. External links sections allow use of links that aren't RS but are still useful to have a place. Tv.com is rarely useful because it really isn't reliable. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I disagree on all point mainly because you paint TV.com as horribly inaccurate, which isn't the case from my experience, at least no less than IMDb, and all your points rely on that. TV.com provides much information that would not be suitable or even acceptable in an article such as trivia, quotes etc. But we can keep going around on this thing, which is why I suggested this discussion to be had at WP:ELN instead of at TfD. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a reliability noticeboard, seeing as there seems to be two different views of TV.com's reliability.Curb Chain (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I've painted it as being unreliable. Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong (sometimes horribly wrong[1]). The point is, you can't trust what's there, so we shouldn't be linking to it, which is why these templates are a bad thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. When you pointed out a link to TV.com being "horribly wrong", I thought you were going to point out something from TV.com that was libelous, or at least something so obviously wrong that nobody could dispute it. The diff you provided only indicates that the episode code numbers for a series as cited by TV.com disagree with another source. Maybe TV.com is wrong about those code numbers, but I don't think that counts as being "horribly wrong". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now have a look through the edit history of List of So Random! episodes and see how that error has resulted in mutiple changes of cited production codes to what tv.com forums say is correct. Even the smallest of errors at tv.com results in a horrible mess here because there is a perception that it is authoritative. These templates add to that perception. We shouldn't be encouraging use of bad sources and these templates do that, which is why they should be deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aussie, this might seem strange to Xeworlebi because i agree with him here, your arguement that tv.com is inappropriate as an external link is equal to it being inappropriate to have internal links here on Wikipedia. The criteria and faults you find in tv.com are at best no worse here and at worst are grossly worse here for the lack of moderation here (which can at times be very frustrating at tv.com but rarely produces gross errors). Wikipedia itself is a violation of its own policies on Self Published Sources, linking to user-generated content, linking to unreliable or/and unreferenced material be they presented as sources or not, and a whole bunch more nonsense that attempts to place Wikipedia above all others while dismissing its native similarities which it abhors in its peers. You know that moment in Queen's concert from 1986 at Wembley when Freddie Mercury says, "They're talking from here.", well....i dare say so are you. I am a fan of the primary source for these kinds of matters and only a few people in these parts would say the domestic broadcaster of the show is an inherently unreliable source for information about the broadcast of the show. If people want to argue that 'tv.com says ...' then perhaps you should politely explain why tv.com is equal to Wikipedia and is not appropriate to use as a source for content on Wikipedia but it is appropriate to have as an external link. Since your opinion is that tv.com being edited by the average person makes it not trustworthy then perhaps you should realise that Wikipedia being edited by the average person makes it not trustworthy. Why waste your time in matters that produce untrustworthy material? How about you cease generating by your own standards inherently untrustworthy content. Your arguement has merit but the consequence of just application of the merit is rather contradictory to the scope of this project. As such i can in no way reconcile your point with Wikipedia.
    Aussie, I believe the title of that show begs for there to be errors and changes and instability. But that then comes back to Wikipedia abhoring the primary reference in favour of the secondary; Disney Medianet is the primary source and tv.com is a secondary source. Your knowledge of Wikipedia policy should tell you that it is expected to source on the presumption that the primary source is inherently bias. In matters of tv schedules that is quite the stupid basis to act upon. Personally i completely ignore that as bullshit nonsense and go with the primary reference. And i think that is what you are actually advocating with that example. One need keep in mind that tv.com and IMDb accept submissions from writers, directors, producers, cast, and other people who have more intimate familiarity with episodes not yet publicly available; they require references but they don't make them publicly available. The last article i created was on a tv show from a super-indie company and was of a short order and had almost no media coverage and was only to be shown on a Canadian cable channel. I held off on creating the article for about 6 months because i couldn't even satisfy tv.com or IMDb for proof of existence of the show and a Wikipedia article that has not one external link is not good. Those sites do have some high standards. They also have some moderators who are complete idiots and will approve the most absurd nonsense. Just like here on Wikipedia. If by your standards one is bad so too is the other. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:33, 10 July 2011 (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:LibGuides

[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) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The site that it links to does not add another over what is present on Wikipedia if the article was featured. Thus delete per WP:ELNO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I checked a few articles where this template had been used and the linked page did not assist the article in terms of WP:EL. There is no reason why this particular library should have a template to add its links. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as outlined above. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ELNO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is very good reason to keep this particular template. They are unquestionably one of the 10 best academic libraries in the country in terms of collections and patron service, and their guide series is superlative & extremely well known in the profession. I consider it the very best series of guides of them all (I've written a few such guides myself, and never come near their standard.)--see some examples, like [2] or [3]--check all the tabs, not just the first. Meets WP:EL as the best available resource for people who want to go further. (If anyone wonders, I have absolutely no connection with this library.) Maybe I'll deal with the situation by writing an article about this series of guides--I think I can find RS references from unconnected sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (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/2011_June_29&oldid=1140753115"