Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21

[edit]

Template:NNDB

[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. Consensus among many editors here is that NNDB is an unreliable source and should not be used as a reference or as an external link. One editor expresses fear that this may set a precedent but such deletions will always be preceded by a discussion. Parallels with the imdb template are raised by successfully disputed--imdb has, in some areas, some authority. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB is not a reliable source - we should not be using it at all as a source, as has been established many times at RSN; there should not be a template to make citing NNDB easier. Because it is not reliable, we shouldn't be using it for ELs either. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (add a note to deal with its intended use (not only use) as an EL Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I became aware that this template existed via this dif where someone used it in a ref calling it the "canonical template". I still favor torpedoing it. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB template was made by the same editor and is also unreliable as it is a Wiki; I thought about also listing it but didn't want to be too aggressive. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read the two templates' history. IMDb was created in August 2004, the creator of NNDB started editing in September 2006. As I wrote, I'm aware that IMDb is not a RS, but I wouldn't describe it as a Wiki – contrubutors must be registered and IMDb exercises some editorial control. Anyway, IMDb was just an obvious example; {{Find a Grave}} or {{YouTube}} are others. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, IMDb should be kept, unlike NNDb. I know that's not the point of this TfD but just wanted to share. IMDB info regarding cast, credits, episodes, dates, etc, is utterly reliable and, I think, indispensable. It is only personal info (which they have now tightened up considerably on) that was user-generated and thus subject to being OR or unreliable. Quis separabit? 14:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for various reasons. First of all using a "canonical template" ensures a consistent format for external links and allows all kinds of useful manipulation. Second, this template is hopefully going to be used by someone at Wikidata to extract NNDB data in order to store it over there. Given that the diff quoted above was mine, I might have appreciated it if you had let me know so I could tell what I was doing, so we could work together. It would be more sensible to move usage of this template to External links if you don't like using it in a reference, but simply deleting it is losing information unnecessarily. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So now do I have to go back through the work I have been doing finding where you have deleted this template without saying anything, or was this the first time? —Phil | Talk 17:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed its use in one place, where it was used in a ref. That's all. And god forbid that we extract data from NNDB. It is not reliable per many, many threads at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that the people voting "delete" have misunderstood the purpose of External link templates and are under the delusion that if those templates were unavailable nobody would ever link to those external sites they class as "unreliable". I understand the view—and mostly agree with it—that uncorroborated information from NNDB should not be used in articles: part of what I am doing is to replace instances of {{cite web}} with {{NNDB}} so that the latter can be scanned for Wikidata. Maybe it would be a better idea if people who don't like this being used as a citation tried finding better sources and moved it to external links instead. —Phil | Talk 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Boswell why would you want to pull data from an unreliable source? Real question. I am baffled. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It works like this: Editor 1 comes along, creates an article as a stub, and posts a series of sources in the External links section. Editor 2 comes along, and using the details in the NNDB as a key, tracks down information on the subject. I've done this with many biographical articles. You shouldn't confuse reliability with utility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to nominate NNDB for the blacklist?! Wikipedia allows youtube videos. NNDB is not THAT unreliable as to be blacklisted. I don't think NNDB is any less reliable than IMDb. I am a (desultory) contributor to IMDb. Although it is not a Wiki, it is definitely full of user-generated content. It is owned by Amazon. I wasn't aware that there was any editorial control at all for IMDb, whereas NNDB is accurate as far as date of birth, parents, religion, spouse and other basic life events for those individuals who are listed.--FeralOink (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RSN pretty much universally disagrees with your assessment of NNDB. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklist sounds about right, particularly given the incestuous relationship it has with Rotten.com noted at the bottom of many pages. One tame example, Richard M. Nixon (NNDB) links directly to Richard Milhouse Nixon (Rotten.com) which begins "Perhaps best known for faking the Moon landing..." Changing gears with a different url to absolve itself from crap information doesn't cut it for me. - Location (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (pending) The underlying basis for deleting this template (per @Jytdog and @Location) could jeopardize other widely used templates that are comparable in reliability. Given the ramifications of this discussion as a potential precedent for future nominations to delete widely used external link templates, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard to address the core issue of this debate. If my post at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard does not accurately reflect the argument(s) of this discussion, then please correct/amend my statements. I apologize in advance if I have erroneously portrayed any argument posted here at the External links/Noticeboard . Mitchumch (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchumch would you please consider revising your !vote to reflect the merits of this nomination? The "domino theory" is not really relevant; each template would have its own nomination discussion and I have no intention of nominating any others. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My position remains unchanged. Sorry. Mitchumch (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the goal of this template is (as some are suggesting) to be used ONLY in the External links section, could one of you who wants to keep this template update the template documentation to document how it should be used? I came here from the Don Henley article, where this template is used as a reference. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reference, Kill the template. It looks like there are actually two questions here. No generalized source (i.e. publisher) should ever be blacklisted as always unreliable. Decisions about reliability should be more granular and flexible, and should be a judgement call in the proper time and place. A ban on all of it gives too much weight to earlier decision makers - when less information is available! It disallows the consideration of new information as it appears over time. It prevents later editors from duly investigating the reliability of the sources of a specific fact from a condemned publisher. Here, there's no specific information suggesting the source for that fact is unreliable. The only reason to doubt is that the purported fact is unexpected, which is merely what makes it notable! If the source for this presumed fact is unreliable, there should be a specific reason related to that specific fact rather than a general warrant against the publisher.
    The source may be weak because of the reputation of the publisher, but that only calls for either 1) finding an additional independent source, or 2) investigating the publisher's own source for that fact and judging it's reliability. Sullying a fact based on a purported reputation of a publisher is overreach. 108.20.176.55 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I remarked above that "[i]t would seem that the people voting "delete" have misunderstood the purpose of External link templates" and your bold-text vote has just proven my point… —Phil | Talk 18:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right!  Although, I can't tell if it's ignorance on my part that proves your point, or if it's some kind of insightfulness on my part that proves your point!  I would prefer it be the latter.  But either way, I'm happy to serve!  :-)  108.20.176.55 (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, perhaps you should review the three criteria noted at External link templates prior to stating that others have misunderstood the purpose of the template. #1 ("a commonly linked primary source") and #3 ("a Wikimedia sisterproject") are not relevant and #2 states: "The site is a high-quality reliable source that covers the subject in greater detail than Wikipedia can or should" [emphasis mine]. Those arguing for delete have been stating that NNDB is NOT a "high-quality reliable source" and various discussions over the years back this up. Even Mitchmuch, who !votes to keep the template, seems to acknowledge in a non-committal way that it isn't a reliable source. - Location (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2015 (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:The Walking Dead video game episodes

[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. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the episodes of S1 and S2 have been merged/redirected to the respective season articles, making this box unnecessary. MASEM (t) 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:11, 23 August 2015 (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:SAFF U-19 Championship

[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 3#Template:SAFF U-19 Championship. Alakzi (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First tournament has only just started. In a few years time when there have been more tournaments this will be a useful aid to navigation but currently it is not. The two links in the navbox are already found in both the articles themselves. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there is no harm to the encyclopedia by retaining this template especially it will be expanded in the future. It is encouraging to editors to continue writing articles they know they will be used in a template. Deleting it now will only mean that it will have to be recreated in the future.
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Announcements for future host will be made soon, and a template will be remade if this is deleted. There is really no point in deleting it, other than pushing a deletionist ideology. Ayoopdog (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2015 (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 CIH

[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 subst: and delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clicked too fast. Hard-coded instance of cite book used in a single article. - Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, grudgingly - this template is used on only 6 pages at this time but it is sure a great idea that I will probably use in my future editing for inserting a highly cited source that I dread entering into an article or dozen that I edit or create.

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bfpage:, see User:Ricky81682/Template:Johnson for how you can format it in your userpage (including automating it within the reference tab which is usually the ugliest part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2015 (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:White - American railroad freight car

[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. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-coded instance of cite book used in a single article. Doesn't allow for most parameters (page number for example) to pass through. It would be easier to just use cite book rather than this wrapper template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is another template that I created when I started editing. The source reference is widely known in rail transport history as reliable, but there has been more than enough time for other editors to find and use it and its low transclusion count since then is a strong indicator that other editors have either not known of its existence or have chosen not to use it. Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Suspending my delete decision, awaiting further input from other users as noted below. Slambo (Speak) 11:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Begging Slambo's pardon, but I've expanded the template to include the necessary passthrough parameter and added it to two articles which already used the book but with plaintext markup. See especially [1]. More will follow. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at 32 tranclusions. It's a popular source for freight cars (as is The Great Yellow Fleet) but the template just needed a little work. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is used in about 70 articles and would disrupt editing by a number of editors who have found it useful.
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:21, 23 August 2015 (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:0809sbwildfires

[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 deleted by RHaworth per CSD T3. BethNaught (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really no need for this navbox... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:42, 21 August 2015 (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/2015_August_21&oldid=1083988451"