Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15

Template:Myspace

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, after orphaning by removing the link, or subst'ing, depending on what is right for the particular article, in accordance with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wouldn't consider Myspace reliable nor does anyone still use it. No celebrities/notable people that I'm aware of. It has become impracticable.

[1]

[2]

I'm just saying. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all instances, then delete. The first several MySpace links I checked were all outdated shells with virtually no traffic, and a few even appeared to be fanpages with Wikipedia mirrors on them. The site is just too underused anymore to warrant linking to it anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I tried looking for some of the artists I follow on there but no luck; pages are still there but empty or out of date, untouched in years. Looking at their featured artists there's none I recognise as mainstream/popular. Most importantly who now links to it as part of their official web presence? Artists use or link to, Youtube, Facebook, Google+, Bandcamp, their own sites, label sites, iTunes, even fan sites. But not Myspace. Unless someone can come up with some examples of pages linked to being active, not empty shells, then delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some bands still use Myspace as their webpage. It is an EL template not a REF template, so functions as a primary source indicator when used for an official webpage. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how many still do? As I said, I did a check of several, and every single one I found was an outdated shell with no viable content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And also as WP:ELMINOFFICIAL normally only one official link is needed, so to the artist’s own website, not to their FB/twitter/Myspace. If they link to them from their main site then readers can find them that way. If artists don't think them worth linking to then it's unlikely we should. The exception would be if their main web presence is on Myspace but this seems very unlikely; are there any examples of artists who use Myspace ahead of other web sites?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't see any TfD notice at the template. Without it, a proper discussion seems unlikely. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's protected so twinkle must have skipped the step of adding the notice. I've put in an edit request.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: it's been to TfD five times before – see Template talk:Myspace. Isn't that normally mentioned at the top of subsequent nominations?

Procedural: it's not clear what the nominator is proposing. It's a template for external links, not for citations, so reliability doesn't apply, nor do other publications' opinions. "I'm just saying." is not a strong or well-reasoned argument for anything. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear, and that in theory deals with both your concerns. It's been nominated before but mostly 5+ years ago and a lot's changed for Myspace since then; it's now largely empty of content, activity and notable members. Anyone who is anyone has set up elsewhere, probably multiple elsewheres as Twitter + Facebook seem obligatory now along with a more individual site. We should not be linking to it as a source or external link and so a dedicated and widely used linking template is inappropriate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FWIW, Bianca Ryan uses hers, if infrequently (most recent: August 2014). However rare it is for an artist to use MS as the primary presence, it's not dead yet, and deleting the template serves no purpose, IMHO. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does she? Go to http://biancaryan.com and there are prominent links for YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Google+, Twitter, Pintersest and Last FM, before you even enter the site. So it's not primary, secondary, tertiary, or anything for her.. And as such if she's not linking to it then we surely should not (looking at that article all of the links except to her official site should go anyway per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL).

I've looked at Myspace for the first time in years over the last few days and it's not just dead, but seems to have gone through a makeover from corporate Hell. Previously artist pages were if only occasionally updated interesting, with fan posts, artwork, colour, interesting layouts. Often hard to navigate but that was part of their charm. All that seems to have gone, together with all of the content. Now there's nothing; no blogs and messages, no personal photos just wire/publicity photos (if that), no fan contributions. Nothing up to date such as news or tour dates (though that was always a problem). Just lots of black and white layout and albums probably licensed from Spotify or similar.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my carefully crafted argument.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I appreciate some artists may use MySpace but except bands/singers no one's ever heard of hardly anyone ever uses it these days, If I'm being totally honest MySpace's dead and has been for the last 5+ years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the readers here don't even bother with clicking the MS link, IMHO it's redundant and no longer serves a purpose here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Michael Bednarek's procedural note. –Fredddie ™ 00:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep or subst - if deleted then subst the template: I think tfd is the wrong place to discuss policy, it should have been discussed at the pump or WP:External links. Christian75 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; unless someone provides multiple examples of artists using it as their primary site, the template is useless if we follow WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Deleting it will IMO be good because MySpace links will then be removed from a lot of articles where they are currently serving no purpose. Where the links are needed, the template can be substituted. I also agree with Christian75 that this should also be further discussed at WP:External links.--MASHAUNIX 02:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And which process do we have in place to substitute deleted (!) templates when they are judged to be needed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A moot point as so far there is no evidence any artist uses it as their primary online site. Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and as if they choose not to use it then we certainly should not link to it, that means there are no articles that should be using it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant manually replacing the template with appropriate wikicode where there is need to keep it. This would obviously be tedious, so I'm not at all against keeping the template if there's evidence that it is often needed. If the template is deleted I'll be happy to help with cleaning up its articles myself.--MASHAUNIX 10:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deleting this template won't stop people from adding irrelevant sites to the external links. But I guess this template really doesn't serve a purpose any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the few instances that are appropriate can be linked without template, for the rest, MySpace hardly ever needs linking per WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As recently as, say, 2011 maybe, you could still say that it was not without importance in the pop-music ecosystem, as neither Facebook nor Google had yet developed or evolved into a site of equal effectiveness. But since then not only has Twitter become more important, we've seen the rise of Tumblr and Instagram as well, all of which have, taken together, eliminated the need for a band to have a MySpace presence. Put it this way: when was the last time you saw a MySpace icon among the set at the bottom of a webpage with the "f", "t", "P" and "G+"? Have you ever? Do you even remember what it looks like? It's not only time, it's past overdue, for us to put this last nail in the MySpace coffin. Sorry, Justin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 21 January 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:Addiction glossary

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. There is consensus that this is a useful addition to the articles it is used in Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Addiction glossary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is unnecessary and non-standard, in the sense it does not serve any standard purpose for templates. It supposedly serves as a glossary but articles don't have glossaries. That's why we have wikilinks, or in exceptional cases links to wiktionary for definitions. It's far too large for a navbox, with non-obvious and duplicate links (i.e. two to substance abuse which isn't mentioned) and refs which don't belong, and dominates any article it's in.

The purpose is to help editors find the right word but as such it's utterly misplaced in articles. Articles are for content, not for editing guides. Such problems in articles are easily fixed. The definitions are too narrow and prescriptive, being I suppose those in these particular sources. "addiction" in particular is used in a variety of ways as its article, and the many articles with "addiction" in their title, indicate. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This has been extensively discussed previously and there was general support for such glossaries. In response to two specific points raised by the nominator:

articles don't have glossaries – Yes they do (see for example WP:GLOSSARIES).
The purpose is to help editors find the right word – No, the purpose is to make a technical subject more accessible to the general reader. Boghog (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GLOSSARIES is not a policy or guideline. It's been a proposal for many years but not been adopted. And I don't see general support at that discussion or any other, but at least as much objection to it being used across articles. See also discussions here and here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glossaries through their long term use in a number of articles have become a De facto standard. It is also important to keep in mind, that while WP:GLOSSARIES was never promoted to a guideline, no strong objections were raised to it either. Furthermore a glossary can be considered a type of imbedded list for which a guideline does exist (see WP:EMBED). Finally it is worth noting that a WikiProject to Glossaries has been established (see WP:WPGLOSSARY). Boghog (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wikiproject is for glossaries as articles, i.e. those in Category:Glossaries. I see no evidence of their use in articles previously, certainly not using templates like this - WP:GLOSSARIES describes how they appear in glossary articles using the {{glossary}} template.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imbedded glossaries are within the scope of WP:WPGLOSSARY. Concerning glossary templates that have been previously imbedded in articles, see for example {{Transcription factor glossary}}, {{Docking glossary}}, {{Restriction enzyme glossary}}, {{Lymphopoiesis Glossary}}, {{Introduction to genetics glossary}}, {{Virus glossary}}, and {{Genetics glossary}}. Boghog (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements and related comments here, here, and here. Boghog (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I would note though that they are being used quite differently to this; either they are being used in one or at most two articles. Or they are narrow collapsible lists, without the bold orange heading, so are much less obtrusive and do not dominate articles. I haven't looked at the endorsements but discussions about other articles and their templates are not directly related to the discussion here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these glossaries should be kept unobtrusive and short (maximum 10 terms and preferably fewer) and each template should only be transcluded into one or at most a few articles. There needs to be a close correspondence between the scope of the glossary and the scope of the article. If these scopes start to diverge, it would then be appropriate to create a new glossary tailored for each specific article. I support shortening this particular template and reducing the number of articles it is transcluded into. Boghog (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per my reasoning at the two WTMED threads. john simply has an axe to grind in this case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you include your reasoning here, especially if it is spread over multiple threads, otherwise it hard to take into account any concerns you have.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:33, 16 January 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.