Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 26 January 28 >

January 27

[edit]

Template:Video game console timeline

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not updated since 2012. Unclear what timeline is about. Video game consoles in North America? Production? Sales? If so, nothing that can't be explained in text. Soetermans. T / C 15:18, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Final Fantasy locations

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles listed, not necessary to have in a siderbar template. Soetermans. T / C 15:12, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:StrategyWiki

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, unencyclopedic to point to one provider of walkthroughs. StrategyWiki's welcome message reads: "Welcome to StrategyWiki, a collaborative and freely-licensed wiki for all your video game strategy guide and walkthrough needs! The guides here can be edited by anyone, so feel free to jump in and improve something!" No different than GameFAQs, CheatCodeCentral or any random cheat or walkthrough guide. It fails WP:ELYES, as it is not "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" to know how to finish a game. As it is user-submitted, we can't tell if it is accurate to begin with. WP:ELNO No. 1: it is not a "unique resource", as it is a "how-to" guide. Soetermans. T / C 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 17#Template:StrategyWiki
  • Keep: A lot of content from some of the wikipedia pages was transwiki'd to strategywiki, and the links are provided so people who initially felt the information belonged now know where to find it. The template is created to make it easier to link. The links are all within the "External Links" section, so it's not meant to be encyclopedic, it's for users to find further resources that don't belong on wikipedia. -- Prod (Talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They do not belong in the External link section either. WP:ELNO No. 1: a walkthrough won't be used beyond for a featured article, as these are user-submitted and also... No. 2: it's unverifiable. We can't tell if these guides are actually accurate. No. 12: only open wikis with a substantial history are okay. There are articles on Nukapedia, on Memory Alpha and on Wookieepedia, but not on StrategyWiki. Wikipedia is written for a large audience. That's why video game articles describe gameplay in general, not in detail. So after reading an article about a video game, the general reader would have more use of a link to an official website, an interview with the developer or an in-depth behind-the-scenes piece. Being presented with a guide on how to finish the game is not necessary. Further more, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other websites that offer the same content like StrategyWiki. There are strategy guides like Prima Games and there's GameFAQs. Having those would be considered inappropriate as well. Why make an exception for StrategyWiki? --Soetermans. T / C 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review the entirety of ELNO#2, which is "A website which misleads the reader by [etc.]"; StrategyWiki clearly does not fall under the category of a website attempting to mislead the audience. As well, their material is not unverifiable--go and play the game yourself.

Regards ELNO#1, walkthroughs are clearly material-unique and which go above and beyond what an FA would provide. Please review that statement as well.

Regards ELNO#12, StrategyWiki is an open wiki with a substantial history--that it is not deemed WP:N at this time is irrelevant to that question.

Regards your "what about every other walkthrough site", this is an interesting one but the deletion of a template does not factor into it. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". To learn how to finish a game does not mean knowing more about the game, which why it fails WP:ELYES No. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". You know I'm also heavily involved in editing video game related articles. I'm always making sure that the general reader of Wikipedia can understand a video game article. So why would it be "encyclopedic" for the general reader to know how to finish Arkanoid? ELNO No. 2 reads: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". I'm not saying that StrategyWiki is "attempting" to mislead, I'm saying it can't be checked. I do not own Arkanoid for instance; I can't check if that information is correct. I've crossed the nobility point out, you're right. Concerning other walkthrough websites, maybe I'm not phrasing it right at this time. --Soetermans. T / C 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The walkthrough is only a portion of what is covered. There are also comparisons of different versions of the games that were released StrategyWiki:Arkanoid/Versions and large sections of appendices which contain lists for all kinds of in-game content. The difference from prima games/gamefaqs is that it's an open wiki, with a compatible license to Wikipedia. This is useful as a target to transwiki any un-encyclopedic content, as was done with a number of game-guide books from wikibooks. -- Prod (Talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't own Arkanoid and can't verify the information doesn't mean that others can't. Most of the contributors to SW make tremendous efforts to verify the accuracy of the content. I'm not clear on what Soetermans's personal bias against the site is? Maybe if he came to the site and joined the community, he would have less misgivings about directing people to learn much more about a game than what Wikipedia is permitted to present to a reader? Plotor (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While different versions of a game I would consider useful for the general reader, those can also be found on MobyGames. MobyGames also includes original reviews and other information, and is especially useful for older games. StrategyWiki still functions as a "how-to" guide. Xbox 360 achievements and lists of weapons are not useful for the general reader either, and can be found all over the internet.
Just because my reading of WP:EL is different than yours does not mean I'm somehow "biased". I think it's a great idea for readers to know more about video games, but StrategyWiki is not the place. To learn more about BioShock, I'd rather point to scholarly research, than a half-finished walkthrough. --Soetermans. T / C 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia should not endorse one strategy guide website over another. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well what do you know. I nominated this for deletion about six years ago, along with the GameFAQs external link template. The GameFAQs template has since been deleted for similar reasons as this one should be, discussion here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not an apples-to-apples comparison Axem. SW has an entirely different nature to GF, as SW was literally born out of the same spirit and goal of WP, and became the extended repository for information which has since been determined out of scope for WP. The arguments for one do not apply to the other. Case in point, there are specific interwiki links between SW and WP, indicating the close relationship they have always had. Plotor (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, StrategyWiki houses all content which was jettisoned by Wikipedia during the great content reform, and is thus a spiritual extension of Wikipedia. It provides an encyclopedic reference to game content that falls outside of Wikipedia's scope, thus providing the reader with another avenue to research specific topics not permissible in the Wikipedia article by Wikipedia's standards. StrategyWiki is clearly a notable, well maintained, reference site of historical note, and deserves to be represented in Wikipedia's knowledge base. Plotor (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this, it seems that this user is responsible for adding about 350 of this template's 472 transclusions, which also happens to be over 75% of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I use the template a lot, I'm certainly not denying the fact. That doesn't invalidate my arguments or my vote. Plotor (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because you consider it a "spiritual extension" does not mean we should keep linking to it. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for people who actually play video games, let alone for people who need walkthroughs to do so. --Soetermans. T / C 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • What it does is that it shows that there is not "widespread consensus" to use the template, rather, its current usage is the work of mostly one person manufacturing its widespread prevalence. As such, its current degree of usage should be discounted as a reason for keeping. It also suggests that you are a single purpose account who is not dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Three points.
  1. StrategyWiki is not well-maintained, and does not provide a good gameguide for every game. Looking up BioShock, a game released over eight years ago, I noticed StrategyWiki's guide on the game is half-finished. There is no article on BioShock Infinite, released three years ago. There aren't a lot of Tomb Raider games with an articles either. IIIand Underworld don't have a guide, while 1996's Tomb Raider has the first three levels. Randomly looking up other games: Donkey Kong Country misses 18 levels out 39. Age of Empires II is in better shape, but misses three missions and not every unit has an article. I looked up Disney's Aladdin, it has two levels. The level "Inside the Lamp" is described as "Throughout this level, your transported inside the Genie's lamp! Not good! So make your way out of the lamp and continue your epic quest to kill Jafar!" That doesn't provide the reader with anything substantial at all.
    It is true that not all of our guides are in a completed state. It is also true that not all of Wikipedia's articles are either. I personally have never chosen to add the template to any article on Wikipedia for which a guide is not in a completed or featured state. That's why the SW template has not been included on BioShock or Tomb Raider or Donkey Kong Country, and it won't be until such a time when those guides are complete. That's also precisely why we need your assistance on the site, not this useless bickering here. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. StrategyWiki is used in 472 pages on Wikipedia, which isn't a lot. Theoretically, what would editors think if the template was added to all video game articles? Wouldn't that be inappropriate? After an article (again, written for an audience), how would pointing to a guide on how to finished said game be encyclopedic or even informational?
    The template should not be used on every game article for precisely the reasons I expressed directly up above. If a guide on SW is not in the kind of shape it needs to be in to provide WP readers with reliable, peer reviewed, and complete information, the template is not added to the WP article. And I would have any such inclusion removed from the article for that very reason. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are dozens of other gameguides on the internet. StrategyWiki is by no means complete. Why play favorites and link to StrategyWiki (in a template form no less), instead of IGN, USGamer or VG247, all considered reliable sources? --Soetermans. T / C 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those sites you mentioned are commercial sites with closed licenses. None of the information presented on those sites is public domain or editable by peers. SW maintains the exact same license and interface as WP itself, and therefore deserves distinction. There is no break or change in philosophy when going from WP to SW and vice versa, and we've worked very hard to maintain that over the years. You are primarily criticizing the site's inclusion due to an incomplete understanding of how the site operates and what it's intended function is. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After having thought about this all night, I'd like to say something. I think it's very unfair, and a little underhanded, for a vocal minority to renominate this template for deletion less than one year since it survived a similar vote. It's as if you're trying over and over until you happen to catch a moment when the people who would defend it are not present or aware. If the previous vote had succeeded, we would not be permitted to reconstruct the template on the basis that we felt it should exist, so why do you continuously get to try and remove it? StrategyWiki has worked tirelessly to be a reflection of WP's community. We have the same license. We have very similar structures and values. We run the site democratically. We started out as the repository for video game content that was being removed from WP, and have continued to build ourselves with the primary goal of being WP's video game extension. If any of you spent a little bit of time helping the site out, I think you'd see that. And I implore anyone who is reading this to do so, we could genuinely use people with the analytic and curation skills that many of you possess. I know enough about WP to know that arguing for or against something here requires a level of familiarity in WP's own legalese that I don't possess, so I can't directly respond to all of the rules being mentioned. All I can say is this. Yes, not every Wikipedia reader cares about walkthrough information, but there's no way anyone can claim with 100% certainty that no one does. And for those readers who do wish to learn more about that information, or perhaps even came to Wikipedia seeking that information without knowing that they can't find that content here, how does it necessarily harm the quality of an article to possess a single external link providing readers with an alternative resource to learn more about a game which they are unable to learn on Wikipedia? Especially one that continues the theme of contribution and collaboration that Wikipedia itself defines? This isn't about blanket favoritism, StrategyWiki has always strived to earn the place it holds, and it's only improved over the years in that regard. So please, consider the fact that this vote was held not even 11 months ago and respect the fact that it has a right to remain on the site. Thank you. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple editors happened upon this template and decided that it was worth nominating for deletion. There is no cabal tirelessly working to destroy it. That a website has a similar philosophy as Wikipedia is not a reason for Wikipedia to endorse it. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your personal opinion shouldn't have to matter in this case. I think "continuously" is an exaggeration, as I wasn't aware of the previous nomination to delete it (and as you can see on this page, I've nominated a bunch of templates). It's reverse logic to keep a walkthrough external link, because there might be people looking for one. That wouldn't make sense in the first place, because if someone would be looking for a walkthrough for BioShock, we can assume they would write 'bioshock walkthrough', and not 'bioshock', to go to Wikipedia, to find an external links section on the bottom of that particular article to point them to a walkthrough. And even if a reader would do that, the template isn't used on every single article and there are dozens of other websites that provide the exact same content. --Soetermans. T / C 13:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Soetermans further comments. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for further input from the video gaming community. -- Prod (Talk) 00:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually already notified WP:VG on the matter. --Soetermans. T / C 09:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I think the nom covers all major points, I'll add that I cannot foresee a single case in which StrategyWiki would be a worthwhile "unique resource" to link. As an encyclopedia, we don't provide for interest in game guides the same way that we don't link to gardening tutorials. If there ever was a case of local consensus to add such links, it should be as a one-off and not as a templated/institutionalized system. Note to closer: the two "keeps" come from editors closely affiliated with StrategyWiki. czar 17:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it? After serving the Wikipedia community for over nine years, this template will be unceremoniously deleted from the site, and we have no recourse or alternative? Plotor (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I'm hard-pressed to think of a more ceremonious removal of text from the Internet. czar 01:20, 7 February 2016 (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).

Template:Steam app

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to link to a commercial website (WP:ELNO No. 14), unnecessary to have it in a template form. Soetermans. T / C 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. ELNO #14 does not seem particularly applicable to me. The link qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL, as the content is directly controlled by the developer / publisher, and not by Steam. Obviously, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL may exclude it on a case by case basis (depending on what other official sites are available for the subject). It may also be of use for sourcing per WP:VG/OFFICIAL. Murph9000 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why being directly controlled would mean it's okay. It's safe to assume every developer and publisher wants to sell as much as possible, like F-19 Stealth Fighter: "F-19 STEALTH FIGHTER takes combat flying to new heights. With dazzling graphics and authentic, real-world scenarios. F-19 creates action-packed excitement that keeps you coming back for more! It's easy to learn, but satisfyingly tough to master". Most official websites already have a buy or pre-order option (like H1Z1 does) and the Steam page itself also functions as a storefront, not a developer blog or behind-the-scenes featurette. --Soetermans. T / C 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Directly controlled by the subject of the article makes it WP:ELOFFICIAL. Additionally, ELNO #14 is about "lists of links", not individual links, as well as being explicitly invalidated by Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, at the top of WP:ELNO. Murph9000 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Most video games have their own official website, or an entry at a developer's website. Steam is a storefront. We do not allow links to, say, PSN, XBLA or Good Old Games. WP:ELPOINTS says: "...e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links". Steam is a commercial link. It is prohibited to use, even if it is "official". Further more, you cited WP:VG/OFFICIAL. It reads: "The crux is that "official" is not relevant to Wikipedia standards. In fan communities, all information released by the game developers is official and important. In a Wikipedia article, information released by game developers is no different from any other reliable source; in fact, it may be less reliable under possible interpretations of the policy regarding self-published or primary sources". So whether or not actually is "official" doesn't matter: it's a commercial link. --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ELNO #14 does not talk about individual commercial links. It talks about lists of links. It does not apply to an individual link. The specific page on Steam for an app is no more, and no less commercial than a directly published site by the subject. The key thing is that it qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL for EL purposes due to being directly controlled by the subject. In the absence of a better ELOFFICIAL, it is an entirely valid EL for a subject. The key distinction between Steam and a storefront, is that Steam serves content on the app page directly controlled by the developer / publisher of the subject. The point about WP:VG/OFFICIAL, is that "official" sources are permitted in the absence of a better source. Yes, WP does not give weight to "official", but the section you quoted from VG/OFFICIAL does not prohibit the use of such links for citations. The Steam app page qualifies as a valid source under VG/OFFICIAL. ELPOINTS does not create the prohibition you claim (if it did, we would be unable to link to the vast majority of directly published official sites for games); it establishes a permission to use links that might otherwise be excluded due to other guidelines. Such a prohibition would be on the basis of ELNO, which does not apply in the case of ELOFFICIAL.
    So, I reiterate, ELNO #14 is irrelevant on several counts (not a list, excepted for official). ELPOINTS #1 does not create any prohibition on its own, and does not establish any basis for deleting this template. Any link which qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL is acceptable unless it is excluded by WP:ELNEVER. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL must then be applied to available official links, but failure to be included at that point does not remove the complete exception to WP:ELNO. Links which are both commercial and official are both permitted, and in current vast majority use across WP:VG articles (as the official site link, wherever that happens to go).
    Murph9000 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please review the big, fat, disclaimer at WP:ELNO, which is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" (bolding not mine). --Izno (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Like I said, WP:ELPOINTS says: "...e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links". I just realised something: how is a Steam page "official" anyway? And if its official, why is used in no more than three video game articles, and not in, say, Half-Life 2 or any other Valve game? --Soetermans. T / C 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That item in WP:ELPOINTS is specifically commenting on "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references". You are taking the statements out of context inappropriately.

    There are some WP:N games published which do not have their own official website--Steam being the only location for publishing.

    Usage doesn't factor into the question of whether this template should be deleted, there being no policy-based arguments being advanced. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not fair of you Izno, I shortened the statement, but I did not take it out of context. WP:ELPOINTS is a quick summary of WP:EL and reads: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations". That ELPOINTS says commercial links are okay in footnoted citations is not the issue here. Steam might be the only place for publishing for some games, but that doesn't answer my question: how makes having a Steam entry "official"? And even if Steam is the only place of publishing, why link to it? Steam still is a digital distributor. ELPOINTS No. 3: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." To a certain extent, it does matter, unused templates aren't kept around either. With thousands of games listed on Steam, I'm asking why it isn't used, besides H1Z1, Caffeine and F-19 Stealth Fighter, on any video game articles. --Soetermans. T / C 17:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually, you took it out of context, because you must read it in context to understand its full meaning--that it's a summary, and not one of the actual !rules regarding an external link. I'm going to ignore your question regarding "official"--answered below. Why link to it? Because that's "us as editors" providing readers a place to get official information regarding the page in question. For video games, it also allows you to get the game directly from the source.

    Regarding your usage argument, as I said, it's irrelevant. The template is clearly not unused. One of the reasons why you might want such a template is to track such links, so that you can keep them to a minimum. I don't know why it's not used more--presumably the editors at the individual pages have not found reason to use it in their cases. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was discussed last year at WTVG. Standing convention has been to not use Steam links as external links, for preference of one store over another, but the consensus of the previous discussion is that sometimes the Steam storefront & community page is indeed the equivalent of the game's sole/official page. In these cases, it is preferable to use the {{official website}} template anyway and not this template, which formats links so as to encourage editors to add the Steam link as another external link among others. We've deprecated these sorts of templates before when we want to generally discourage a type of link. Editors are still welcome to add a manual link to Steam if there is local consensus, but we don't want to make a habit of adding storefront links. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 13:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a couple of days, I still have to see an explanation on how the usage of Steam by a developer would be considered "official". --Soetermans. T / C 13:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it has been explained to you repeatedly. The content on the individual app page is controlled by the subject of the WP article (in this case, the developer / publisher of the app). The content is not controlled by Steam. Since providing a link to WP:ELOFFICIAL seems to be insufficient, I will directly quote it for you.

    An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
    1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
    2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
    …
    — WP:ELOFFICIAL

    Both point 1 and point 2 are unambiguously met by a Steam app page. It qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL. I have made this point repeatedly, yet you have entirely failed to raise any argument that ELOFFICIAL's conditions are not met. Please either support your claim, or stop parroting a vague assertion which does not appear consistent with the guidelines. There is no difference between a Steam app page and a product page/site directly published by the developer/publisher; the latter is in vast majority use across all Wikipedia articles relating to games/apps/software, on the basis of that very guideline. Murph9000 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're pointing to Wikipedia guidelines. You're still not explaining how a Steam page actually is official. Besides you saying it is, what makes it "official"? --Soetermans. T / C 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only definition of "official" that matters right here is WP:ELOFFICIAL. No further explanation is necessary. As repeatedly stated, it qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL, per the definition quoted. Either provide a credible argument to refute that point, or please drop your misleading claim on that point. Are you claiming that it does not meet the definition of WP:ELOFFICIAL? If so, make your case, instead of just continuing to throw vague unsupported assertions around. Murph9000 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an argument. You're saying it is official and that's why it's okay to have it. When I ask you how it exactly is "official", you point to Wikipedia's guidelines. Imagine you were talking about a random blog, and claimed it was official just by pointing to Wikipedia's guidelines: that doesn't explain how it is official. What page on Steam says it is official? Is there a reliable source that says so? Or is there an interview with a developer who said something along the lines of "we're going to join forces with Steam"? You pointing to a guideline doesn't mean a Steam page is official. --Soetermans. T / C 19:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're treating "official" in the colloquial sense and not the as-defined-by-Wikipedia sense. Additionally (and this is a rarity), I'm going to pull the phrase "common sense" on you. You cannot put a game on Steam which is not your own. If you won't accept that argument there's no reason arguing with you on the point. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will, however, switch to delete based on the argument that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL + WP:ELNO means that the links produced by this template should only be used where there is not a better official link. Those links can or should be linked using Template:Official website instead. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL creates a basis for deletion here. I believe that WP:ELNO does not apply for any cases which pass WP:ELOFFICIAL, and that being subsequently pruned by ELMINOFFICIAL does not remove or nullify the exception to ELNO. ELMINOFFICIAL alone provides a case by case basis for exclusion, without relying on anything written in ELNO. As for {{Official website}} being a suitable alternative, it does not retrieve the Steam ID from Wikidata and track its usage. Murph9000 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Paraphrasing: ELMINOFFICIAL says "use the minimum number of official links". ELNO says "except where an item is an official link, avoid these types of links", and ELOFFICIAL says "these are the criteria to consider a link official" (criteria unimportant in this discussion, IMO). The four cases I can see:

    1. Where Steam is not an official link, ELNO says not to link to Steam, without exception (a rare case I'm sure, but to be complete, we should consider it).
    2. Where Steam is an official link, and there is not another official link, then we can link to the Steam page using {{official website}} (which Wikidata should also reflect using the official website property).
    3. Where Steam is an official link, and there is another official link, and that official link links to the Steam page (directly or not), ELMINOFFICIAL says not to link to Steam.
    4. Where Steam is an official link, and there is another official link, but that official link does not link to the Steam page (directly or not), then we should include a link to the Steam page.
    The only case where we "need" this template is case #4. But I expect such cases to be a rarity. Do you disagree with my assessment that such a case would be rare? (@Soetermans: This gets to the question you should have asked e.g. not "how much are we using it currently", but "how much could we use it?") Is there a need for a linking template when the set of item 4 is sufficiently small that we can track its usage via Special:Search (using insource:) or Special:LinkSearch? I don't think there is such a need. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there may be an additional case to consider, where Steam is an official link, a directly published official link exists, but the Steam link provides better content (i.e. a case where the direct official link has relatively little content, lacks significant information, is not kept up to date, or similar). Now, for the cases you identified, I'll use a list with the same numbering:
    1. Yes, if it fails ELOFFICIAL, there is probably no other basis for inclusion of the link. I agree that this is probably a very rare case, but quite appropriate to mention in a complete analysis.
    2. From a database design and management perspective, I have to question if it is ever correct to insert a Steam app URL into official website (P856) when Steam application ID (P1733) is dedicated to providing that data. Doing so has a negative impact on database management, in terms of complicating easy reporting of records which lack direct official website data. Additionally, I believe it is more appropriate for the link to be presented as "App name on Steam", rather than "Official website", to allow the reader to know at a glance which type of official link is available (or which type they are about to visit), without needing to hover the mouse and inspect the URL (possibly an even more significant issue on things like tablets and phones). Using this dedicated template simplifies and ensures the use of standardised text / format / markup for that. "Name at/on Site" appears to be a de facto standard for deep links to specific pages on sites which cover many topics (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Links for many examples).
    3. I believe this case needs slightly more consideration. The relative quality of the two links should be considered, and the better of the two used where it completely covers the subject; or both (this is the additional case from above) where Steam provides better coverage, but the direct official site has reasonable additional value.
    4. I believe this may actually not be all that rare, as developers / publishers earn more from direct sales than Steam sales, so there is some incentive for them not to prominently link directly to their app page on Steam. If the link exists, but is basically relatively hidden in the depths of the website, I believe it should be considered not prominently linked, and roughly equivalent to not existing. Note that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL covers this.
    In terms of current usage, there are over 1000 links to store.steampowered.com/app/(numerical id) currently on the wiki. While I'm sure there may be some of those which could or should be pruned per ELMINOFFICIAL, there are probably also cases where a link could be added. Some of those links might be appropriate to convert to this template. "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information." in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL should also be considered. Thanks for pushing this over onto the more important discussion of "how much use could be made?", rather than "how much use currently exists?".
    Murph9000 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ELNO because it's effectively a store link with minimal unsubsitutable encyclopaedic value. The developer has limited freedom to change the content and it's within Valve's overall website/control. The page would rarely present something not in developer's official website or proper reliable sources, but would always have the store interface and other Steam stuff. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If they qualify as WP:ELOFFICIAL, then no part of WP:ELNO is relevant, per the bold complete exception at the top of ELNO. (Already covered above, just re-stating it briefly here.) The developer / publisher has direct control over a significant portion of the page. Murph9000 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read the discussion above prior to commenting. I don't agree they qualify as official in any way. The page is not fully controlled by the owner, nor is its main purpose other than selling the product. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:44, 6 February 2016 (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).

Template:Gamerdna game

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Soetermans. T / C 14:58, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Yakuza chronology

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. czar 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per a previous discussion, video game chronology templates generally aren't considered useful. It lists three games that are not canonical, while the rest of the games are subsequential. No reason to have a chronological template. Soetermans. T / C 14:56, 27 January 2016 (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).
[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX completely. Rogues gallery "is a police collection of pictures or photographs of criminals and suspects kept for identification purposes". What probably is meant is "In comics, a specific superhero's recurring and most notable enemies are sometimes referred to as a rogues gallery" (see Rogues gallery (disambiguation). So there is no article on the subject of this navbox, the most important reason for having one in the first place. It lists common enemies and villians from various fictional universes, but those do no have anything in common with each other. Soetermans. T / C 14:46, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:IPhone video game engines

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. czar 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's already {{Video game engines}}, listing video game engines. It would be redundant to have separate navboxes for engines on each platform. Further more, this navbox supposedly lists engines "targeting" iOS. But Unreal Engine, Marmalade (software) or GameMaker: Studio aren't specifically "targeting" iOS. Soetermans. T / C 14:40, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Pro gamer achievements

[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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 8. Primefac (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2016 (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).
[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. czar 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary sidebar with events and releases in the video game industry in 2006, divided by year. Soetermans. T / C 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (transclude?) as unnecessary. If we really want to make standard TOC-style stuff for "2006 in Xxx" topics, this should be centralized and standardized, rather than one-off for specific pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:08, 6 February 2016 (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).

Template:Map of Square Enix companies

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Page was already substituted onto the Square Enix page, which is a decent location for it. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary world map of locations of Square Enix companies. Nothing that can't be described in prose or in a list. Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:AtariAge company

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished, unused Barely used template. Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Periglio/Reject

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:CyMoBase

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Prism/Lights

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:NewyorkadamGA

[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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 8. Primefac (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

should be moved to userspace? Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Cite Hochreiter:2000book

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Miss Denmark

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three year versions of a pageant, all three AfD'ed. Two of them Crystal balls. The Banner talk 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete If the articles are deleted, then this template should go to but not before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By now emptied by a third party. The Banner talk 16:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Infobox Quebec political party

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete after ensuring that all relevant information not currently contained in {{infobox political party}} is merged into it. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Quebec political party and Template:Infobox Canadian political party with Template:Infobox political party.
These two infoboxes differ only minimally from the generic political party infobox and are therefore redundant rather than a really helpful simplification. PanchoS (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This isn't as bad as some I've seen. There are several hardcoded parameters in the wrapper, so this looks a lot like a template whose purpose is to track the parameters in question. The main things to consider here are: a) are the parameters in question likely to change in a way that means that it's useful to be able to easily change them across articles, and b) are there likely to be enough new instances of the templates that it's convenient to have the parameters in place already? Both of these events seem possible, but reasonably unlikely; in this case, the wrapper probably costs more (in maintenance of wrapper templates) than it gains (in the ability to mass-update articles). But I'm not sure. --ais523 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Trains portal/DYK date

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy currently contains a notice that "A fact from this article was used in the "Did you know" section of Portal:Trains on November 4, 2009.". For most (if not all) editors interested in discussing the RFK article that notice is nothing more than a piece of clutter that has to be scrolled past to get to the discussions. This template appears to have been superseded by the use of a parameter on the WikiProject template - e.g. {{WikiProject Trains|...|portaldykdate=January 7, 2016}} (which doesn't add to the visible clutter on the talk page). Note: If this TFD results in the deletion of the template then it could be followed by a TFD covering other similar templates (e.g. Template:OhioSAN, Template:VP Showcase, Template:MedportalSAC). DexDor (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Amended. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template is useful. It is useful to editors to note that the content of an article is of interest to other editors who may not have made substantial studies on the article's topic. It is useful to me as the lead editor of the Trains portal to know at a glance if a fact from the article has appeared in the portal's DYK section (I try not to use an article in this section more than once). The alternative for me would be to scan the article's links list, which is a more lengthy procedure and an article's past use on the portal is more likely to be missed. With almost 11 years of edit history on the portal, scanning those archives every day would be prohibitively time consuming. This template is only used on articles where the main topic is not within the scope of WikiProject Trains (and the article's talk page would therefore not have the project banner), as can also be seen on Talk:Pocket watch, Talk:1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Talk:LGM-30 Minuteman and Talk:Joan Sims to name a few more. When I created this template, I tried to keep it as simple and small as possible to say just the most important fact (the date that the article appeared in the portal's DYK section, the text of the DYK fact is archived elsewhere). I added the |portaldykdate= parameter to the project banner because the majority of articles featured on the portal are within the project's scope, and having two banners that linked to the portal was overkill. The parameter in the project banner does not supersede this template; this template is for articles where the WikiProject Trains banner is not appropriate. As to adding banner clutter, there is probably a better solution, such as perhaps incorporating it into the BannerShell template, that is more suitable to a different discussion. Slambo (Speak) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of how having this template on a page is useful - i.e. how would knowing that a page once featured in a portal's DYK affect any edit you (or, more importantly, another editor at, for example, the RFK article) might make? If editors (actually, for many/most portals that should read "the editor") at a particular portal want to keep a record of that portal's DYKs then a list on a subpage of that portal would be more appropriate. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note: I have left a message on WT:TWP for participants in the Trains WikiProject to participate in this discussion.
Since there are now several million articles in this language version of Wikipedia, I avoid having articles appear more than once in the did you know section, so, as the portal editor, I need an easy way to identify that an article has appeared on any date in the past. It's quite a bit faster and less error-prone to check an article's talk page than it is to scan a list of several thousand articles (even when using the Find function in the browser). The Trains portal was created in May 2005, I have been maintaining it for the last 11 years and making additions to the portal's DYK section on a daily basis, that means that about 4000 distinct articles (365x11=4015) have been selected for use as entries in the did you know section. Maintaining a list with more than 4000 entries is impractical. Slambo (Speak) 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I reject the clutter argument entirely. It's a very small amount of vertical space, trivial to scroll past. I think it is nice to let editors see that the article has gained recognition somewhere else within WP. In addition to considering it harmless, Slambo's argument about it being very useful for managing DYK is compelling for me. Murph9000 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As an editor on a few rail-related articles, I've found it useful as per Slambo's "content of interest" argument. It's also useful to find other interesting content. I also reject it as clutter. It's very non-intrusive, but visible enough to anyone for who it might be of interest. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2016 (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).

Template:WikiProjectBanners

[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).

The result of the discussion was redirect. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProjectBanners with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell.
It would be nice to merge these two templates so that we have a single banner shell template with all the same options. Currently {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a wrapper for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with the parameter |collapsed= set to "yes". So if we could replace all instances of {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} then we could just redirect or delete {{WikiProjectBanners}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a wrapper, so it's already been merged. Though you could convert Banners to be a subst-only version... -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is basically substitute the first template and either redirect it or make it subst-only. They both appear to be appropriate actions, though editors may prefer the subst-only version, if they are used to it. The second template doesn't need to be touched. —PC-XT+ 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. I wasn't going to bother making a subst'able template because there is nothing about the name WikiProjectBanners which implies its collapsing function. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Latin Union

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. The navbox doesn't link to articles about the involvement of the countries in the LU, which is the primary purpose of a navbox. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless navbox that just links to country articles for those countries who are members of the organization. We already have a list article that serves this function. If the template were to link instead to, say, articles on branches of the organization in different countries it might be worth keeping, but not as it stands. NSH002 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CLN navboxen and lists are not mutually exclusive. When reading a country article, one could conceivably wish to see similar countries, such as other members of the Latin Union. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It's true that lists and navboxes are not necessarily exclusive, but in this case we have navbox entries pointing to articles that have nothing to do with the topic of the navbox. Instead they point to major articles on countries. It is doubtful that, at that level of generality, those articles would ever need to refer to a relatively unimportant and now-defunct organization. In addition, they are suffering from an excess of navboxes at the bottom, and we really don't want to increase navbox bloat any further. --NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was the one who moved its content from navbox code at the bottom of the article to a tag-implementable template standing on its own. I can't see objections were made to have the navbox code straight in the footer of the articles, however, I don't really see us applying that method as an habit. As for stackning of navboxes, we already have a very well functioning method of collecting related navboxes at the bottom of the articles, that are initially hidden, requiring interaction to open and make browsable. The Latin Union is an important international organisation. I suppose we still have space on the harddisks of Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to save bytes on Wikipedia by deleting the navbox overview of this organisation as opposed to extant navboxes of other equivalent, prominent organisations of international co-operation. However, an navbox like this can always be improved to be even more at hand, and you are more than welcome to assist if you have ideas. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It is not a question of disk space on the wiki servers. Rather it has to do with unnecessary clutter on wiki pages. The fact that some editors feel it necessary to use {{Navboxes}} to wrap navboxes illustrates the problem of navbox bloat very well - it doesn't remove the clutter, it merely hides it (which may be even worse, since something hidden is much less likely to get fixed). Moreover, by introducing extra click(s) it mostly defeats the purpose of navboxes in the first place, namely to make it easy to navigate between related articles. See Template talk:Navboxes for details of even more problems with this template.--NSH002 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider it unncessary clutter? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chicby, WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not an argument, nor is anyone saying that the Latin Union is not important: we're discussing if having a template based upon the members of said union is needed. WP:NAVBOX reads:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

The subject of this template is the Latin Union, which has its own article. But the Latin Union is for instance not mentioned in the article on France. The articles linked do not refer to other members in that sense. So it fails WP:NAVBOX. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, as far as I'm concerned, I would say the template does qualify to the above conditions. Templates for national or regional memberships in organisations like this, and far less important ones, are typical for Wikipedia. In the academic world, in commerce, in religion, and so forth. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you're concerned the template does qualify? How? I specifically pointed out how it does not meet WP:NAVBOX: the articles listed do not refer to each other. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also not an argument. You're basically just saying "I don't agree", without an argument. Which guidelines would suggest having this template is useful? --Soetermans. T / C 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Technically, I just moved an existing, acclaimed template content into its own template page. Thus, arguably, there was consensus about having this information presented in this template since before. I just changed the location of its code. You seem experienced on Wikipedia and also strikingly concerned about this very subject. I'm not really that experienced, nor concerned. Yet, for now, we are two people who advocate keeping it these template contents in addition to the arguable previous consensus of not deleting it in its previous location of the code. I'm sorry for not yet making an effort to argue more that this, but I shall do it if you do persist in your advoacy for deletion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soetermans has pointed out that this template fails WP:NAVBOX on points 1, 2 and 3, so it should be deleted. That's really all that matters in a deletion discussion. You say that it used to be "existing, acclaimed template content" [on the Latin Union page] but this isn't relevant because on that page it is not serving as a navbox (navigating between articles) but merely as a way of listing some information. The use of {{Navbox}} was just a lazy way of adding the info. Also, I see no "acclamation" relating to that info, neither on Talk:Latin Union, nor on your talk page. --NSH002 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident:, I do believe I am somewhat experienced with Wikipedia, yes. But so are you! :) I might be more familiar with deletion discussions though, that's why I keep pressing on why it should stay or go. And it is my reading of the guidelines which leads me to believe we do not it. But hey, convince me otherwise! --Soetermans. T / C 08:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was going to say Keep but now that I looked at what it actually is, it doesn't seem defining enough to warrant being able to navigate between members of the Latin Union quickly. The purpose of navboxes is navigation, not organization, not recognition, not importance, not anything else except ease of navigation. This is served both by smart usage of navboxes to group tightly related articles together for sensible "what article do I read next?" navigation, as well as refraining from over-providing such navboxes which would dilute the effectiveness each individual navbox that appears. This is an instance of the latter. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (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).

Template:Jedi

[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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 11. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_27&oldid=1084289482"