Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 21

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

February 21

[edit]

Template:Ontario Australian Football League seasons

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox template only contains redlinks so it cannot be used for navigation. No transclusions. BLAIXX 22:20, 21 February 2019 (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:2017 Liga 2 Group 1 table

[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 to Template:2017 Liga 2 tables. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused templates Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All seem to have been superseded by {{2017 Liga 2 tables}}. Nigej (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Template:2017 Liga 2 tables for attribution. although, it looks like {{2017 Liga 2 tables}} may soon be be merged with the articles per this thread. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:09, 22 February 2019 (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:2004–05 Welsh Alliance League table

[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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused templates Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Hi, just to recap:
I have been working on Welsh Alliance League and its seasons, having recently created the 2017–18 and 2018–19 seasons (while keeping 2018–19 up to date). I then wanted to go back to all the way to when the league started in the 1984–85 season. So I created league table templates from 1984–85 season to date. I was next going to work my way back through the seasons and create and update all seasons (using these league table templates in the articles). So to see 'Nomination for Deletion' come about feels unfair considering that I am currently working my way through. I'm sorry @Zackmann08: if I caused offence when I replied to you first about the nomination for deletion but it did throw me back. I understand that you don't want unused templates to exist but these templates will be used. I am just getting round to implementing them into the articles. If you look at my contributions you will see that I have made many contributions to the Welsh Alliance League, which is a mammoth task. I have enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia and would like to continue in doing so.
 :@Onshore: no one ever said you couldn't keep contributing... If you have an objection to the deletion, then discuss it at the TFD. That is what it is for... --'Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)'[reply]

Please advise how I go about resolving this issue so that those templates are not deleted? Onshore (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think will look messy with 2 divisional tables from the 2010–11 season onwards, I will cut and paste the tables from the corresponding templates and paste them to the corresponding articles as I go about creating and updating existing articles. I've got 35 seasons to do, so please bear with me and hopefully all this can be done with next few weeks for the templates to be deleted. Can I just ask, why we're the league table templates created for use on Wikipedia in the first place if we are now reverting back to how they were pre-League table templates? Onshore (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The confusing thing for me is that Template:2004–05 Welsh Alliance League table looks very like 2004–05 Welsh Alliance League so I'm not sure why the template was created in the first place. As to the general issue: templates are really there for situations where the content is to be used many times - if its only used in one place there is generally no point in it, and if it is not used at all it should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej:@GiantSnowman:As I mentioned above I originally created those template league table pages to replace the league tables in the articles. My original plan was to create all 35 seasons of the league table templates and then create/update all 35 season article pages with them. However, after the discussions on here I will now cut the league tables from the templates and paste them into the actual article season they relate to. Hence all 44 templates (35 seasons) eventually being deleted. I will get try and get this done as soon as possible. Onshore (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2019 (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:2004 Mid-South Conference football standings

[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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused templates Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 21 February 2019 (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:1977–78 Pacific Coast Athletic Association men's basketball standings

[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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2019 (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:120th

[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) Hhkohh (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 21 February 2019 (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:1970 Middle Atlantic Conference football standings

[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 no consensus. Now only using an article, not unused. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it will be reused on other articles, still to be created. It's a member of a class of analogous templates, which you can see by exploring it's categories, that are already in use on multiple articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (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:1963–64 Big Sky men's basketball standings

[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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The templates are used in Big Sky Conference#Big Sky men's basketball and occasionally elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej: the templates aren't used, the content is... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a template as if it were a real article is not an allowed link. --Gonnym (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: can you clarify where that is being done? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole year column in the link provided by Nigej does it - |align=center|[[Template:1963–64 Big Sky men's basketball standings|1964]]. --Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep templates cover notable content; will be used in more articles that should be created. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2019 (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 YouTube personality

[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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this infobox is deprecated, selectively changed to already existing infoboxes by manual review, and deleted. In this nomination, I will first provide arguments that all (semi-)exclusive fields that this infobox provides are either not exclusive to this infobox, or are unnecessary/harmful. After that, I will examine the arguments in the last discussion. Finally, I will provide examples on how to do the merging. Just a note that I am not nominating {{infobox Twitch streamer}} here in order to minimize the possibility of a "no consensus" close, and that I will nominate that infobox for similar deprecation if this proposal succeeds. Also note that this infobox is often used as a module, and my arguments will hopefully be convincing enough that this infobox is not useful/helpful even as a module. This infobox has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube.

The more or less uncontroversial stuff first. {{infobox YouTube personality}} is similar to many other infoboxes e.g. with |name=, |logo= and |logo_caption=. One of the fields present in other infoboxes is |website=, where we get to the first violation of other infoboxes' standards because the YouTube infobox has |website= AND |channel_url= AND |channel_website= which all three generate different fields in the infobox. {{infobox person}} says about |website= the following: "Official website only. Unofficial websites should be placed under ==External links== in the body of the article." {{infobox company}} should obviously have only one website listed, as listing its YouTube channel(s) would almost run afoul of WP:NOTSPAM. {{infobox television}} has both |website= and |production_website=. Now about the biographical parameters. They are all already in {{infobox person}}. I also count |pseudonym= as biographical, and it has obvious solutions in other infoboxes e.g. |other_names= in {{infobox person}}. I didn't talk about the fact that the YouTube infobox has both |logo= and |image=. This is the same as in {{infobox company}}, while I think it is either unnecessary or runs into copyright problems elsewhere. |location= can also be found in other appropriate infoboxes so it's easily assimilated. |creator= and |presenter= are nothing when compared to all the parameters of {{infobox television}}. |years_active= is from {{infobox person}}, {{infobox television}} has better alternatives of |first_aired= and |last_aired=, and other infoboxes also have the ability to accept some form of "start year" and "end year".

Now onto the parameters created specifically for this infobox. |genre= and |associated_acts= need to go away even if my proposal fails. YouTube is not music, and other than at {{infobox musician}} and similar, these two parameters do not belong anywhere. They aren't at {{infobox scientist}} or {{infobox person}} even though they are at least as useful as on the YouTube infobox. Don't forget that the YouTube infobox is the last place you'd put |associated_acts=, since this single infobox parameter has generated hundreds of talk page debates over its use on various infoboxes. I can imagine |genre= becoming similarly contentious sooner or later, as editors have strongly opposed my proposal to create a list of YouTubers by genre. |catchphrase(s)= is unencyclopedic and per WP:NOTQUOTE Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. |network= is not something I'd be extremely worried about, as there are alternatives at {{infobox television}} and {{infobox person}}. YouTube networks are almost a thing of the past now, and most YouTubers had a network for just a short time. Not to mention that these networks don't make much difference to one's channel. YouTube Play Buttons are very controversial and almost always come too late, so I support removing them from any infobox. We are left with only the number of subscribers and views. The number of subscribers is unreliable (as explained at Talk:Mark Dice and at WT:WPYT), often useless, often spam, but what can you expect when YouTube constantly lies about everything and only admits fault when it's too late. Maybe in the future we can revisit this, but Internet popularity numbers are not a metric I trust too much, and they change all the time so we can't provide a reliable source to satisfy the verifiability policy. The number of views that a YouTube channel has is of little relevance to all but the most popular channels. The problems are also the same as those about subscriber counts, and neither of {{infobox film}} or {{infobox television}} supports a similar field. In short, WP:NOTSTATS.

The previous discussion had many similar arguments, and I will try to answer the keep !votes. An argument is that being a YouTuber is an occupation. However, that occupation is extremely diverse, which is shown by the uselessness of the term "content creator" which was a proposed rename of this infobox. Here I bring much more arguments than last time, because the previous nomination wasn't convincing in my opinion. There was the argument to delete because this is unnecessary branding of YouTube. I agree with that, and it may be useful to come up with some infobox that covers people popular for their content on the Internet, if this proposal fails. Many of the arguments boiled down to whether some infobox parameter was useful or not, but that is not a very good argument.

The already existing infoboxes that I believe cover all instances of this infobox are the following: {{infobox person}} (or an appropriate infobox from Category:People and person infobox templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes, which will almost always be more useful than the YouTube infobox), {{infobox musical artist}}, {{infobox company}}, {{infobox television}}, {{infobox podcast}}, some infobox from Template:Film- and television-related infobox templates. {{infobox presenter}} will be very useful. Articles about groups of people who have a YouTube channel (e.g. Dude Perfect), as well as articles about YouTube channels that are synonymous with a group (e.g. Sorted Food and Hat Films), should employ a biographical infobox. I'm not exactly sure about articles like ChuChu TV which are only about the YouTube channel, but I believe that {{infobox television}} or something similar will suffice. Webseries already use {{infobox television}}. wumbolo ^^^ 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you explain what you mean by "harmful"? Natureium (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remain unconvinced by the unnecessarily long wall of text above. The template provides a necessary way to handle the information that other templates do not and does so in a matter that works. Saying that this box duplicates the work of eight other templates shows you miss the point on why it is needed. Nihlus 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is superfluous and unless youtube would like to contribute to wikipedias fund I see no reason to give them their own infobox on multiple pages when a simple change to the current infobox and some hyperlinks will suffice. -Bigbrainuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B004:F20:AC9A:7E9F:4461:7BD1 (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At minimum we get rid of number of subscribers. It's a bullshit statistic. I probably subscribe to a dozen channels that I haven't watched in years because culling my youtube subscriptions adds nothing to my life. valereee (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but get rid of the subscriber statistic. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subscribers and views are the main pieces of information people expect in an infobox for YouTubers, and a lot of notability is that they are among the top 100 or so non-music YouTubers in the world by subscribers. As for other things like pseudonym, I agree that those are fairly useless as the common name is in most cases going to be that stage name / pseudonym. Catchphrase I agree is fairly useless as people just coatrack any kind of frequently used quote or recurring gag there. But those are detailed fields concerning the infobox rather than questioning whether the entire infobox is useful. Keep in mind that it is also used as a supplement module for infobox person. . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except as Barkeep49 has pointed out, there is literally no accurate way to measure them and the numbers are subject to a lot of manipulation. They’re also rarely covered in RS, which from a NPOV point of view tends to mean sources don’t care. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • How are they manipulated? Any editor can go to the YouTube channel specified and click About to get the current number of views and subscribers, and when they update they have to specify the date refreshed. Are you saying they would have to be sourced by Social Blade or some other place as with List of most subscribed YouTube channels? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point again, is that if there's to be a YouTuber infobox or module, the counts are among the most searched for information. Someone looking for PewDiePie and reading that he's the most subscribed YouTuber will want to know that up front. And someone who's like the 73rd most subscribed, well, what does that even mean for counts? If it isn't there, it will likely be in the lead paragraph and frequently refreshed as with Gangnam Style (music video) and other ones. A preponderance of edits for YouTubers are towards updating those counts, infobox or not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As at least a couple of people in this conversation know, I have been banging the drum about getting rid of subscribers and views so by all means delete those parameters. They are unreliable and manipulated across social media platforms. I have a draft RfC I have been planning to roll-out in the next couple of days that would cement that use not only in this infobox but other places. That said, I do think that a YouTube personality has a distinct set of characteristics and so while subscribers and views should not be included, there are other kinds of information that is worth noting in infobox in a way that using other templates would make difficult or impossible. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to see examples where the YouTube infobox can't be replaced by a better infobox. No examples have been provided in the above few keep !votes, but the onus is on them to prove the infobox's usefulness. wumbolo ^^^ 18:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative infobox
The Slow Mo Guys
The Slow Mo Guys logo
Born
  • Gavin David Free
  • (1988-05-23) 23 May 1988 (age 36)
  • Thame, England
  • Daniel Charles Gruchy
  • (1988-07-28) 28 July 1988 (age 36)
NationalityBritish
Other namesGav and Dan
OccupationEntertainers
Years active2010–present
EmployerRooster Teeth
WebsiteYouTube channel
  • Delete. Have to agree with the originator of this request here. The YouTube statistics are vapid information, and once removed, the infobox is merely another non-standardised variant of so many other entity-style infoboxes on Wikipedia. At a minimum, remove the nonsensical YouTube statistics and standardise around actually encyclopaedic content. IntrinsicallyBroken (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally believe this is another example of a majority of people discrediting YouTubers. There are genres of YouTube videos and channels, so the previous argument that a genre is only related to music is nonsense. Also, associated acts means the same as frequent collaborators. Saying these can only be related to music is discrediting to the many online influencers that have Wikipedia pages. (e.g. Lilly Singh, Shane Dawson, Gabbie Hanna, David Dobrik, Josh Peck, Tana Mongeau, Joey Graceffa, The Dolan Twins, etc.) The subscriber and view counts are not invalid because they do not and (to my knowledge) have never required an exact number, so those statistics are valid and have been for as long as the template has existed (with a credible source). The motion to delete this template would force us to have to look at many other templates that are also useless. We can all admit that in the entire list of infoboxes there are countless other templates that can Bebe deemed unnecessary on a more just cause than this one. Thank you. Logano (VU) (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry that you believe that there is some nefarious motive behind deleting this infobox. Notice that e.g. {{infobox mathematician}} redirects to {{infobox scientist}}. Does that discredit mathematicians? I don't think so, and I only want to make articles about YouTubers better by having more professional-looking infoboxes. Dumbing down all YouTubers to one pseudo-profession is what hurts this diverse group of people in my opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above, especially on the point that the YouTube stats were always a rough number, and the subscriber count serve as a rough indicator of popularity, especially within the YouTube community. Template can be cut down, especially the "Play buttons" section as it is already covered within the rough "subscribers" number. However it is worth mentioning that some YouTubers have a seperate Website from their channel, so it may be useful to keep that field. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 08:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that the play buttons are redundant with counts, and should be removed. Discussion about when YouTubers reached those milestones can be put in their biographies, and not as Awards/nominations section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Having this template makes editing easier and helps readers see relevant information. Discussion about specific parameters can be had at the template's talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure but very sure that we shouldn't keep track of YouTube subscribers. They suggest that the YouTuber has that many viewers, but leaving aside the fact that these can almost certainly be bought, I'm one of many who watch hardly any of the channels I subscribe to. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is trivially easy and cheap[1] to buy views and subscribers. In 2012 Youtube cut billion of fake views from music company vids[2] but the view sellers are in an arms race with youtube coders. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its hard to keep it accurate, may never in fact even be accurate and I am not sure that in a world were 1 million represents less then 1% of a total audience that kind of figure is even meaningful.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but Rework per comments already made above. I do see a need for infoboxes like this and believe there is no real reason to delete it. However, I would like to see some reworking done on this one. For example, there is really no point in having orgin AND birthplace since they are basically the same thing. I can see how this infobox is similar to other ones, but I know it could be altered in a way that would help show more personalized and relevant information. Again, deletion is really not the solution here. Handoto (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Youtube Statistics is a metric used to envaluate the performance of youtubers. It is important that they remain in the infobox of the articles. Manipulation of these statistics is rather rare, and so removing them from articles should be on a case-by-case basis. Also the style of this infobox is quite nice. Emass100 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Emass100, what makes you argue that manipulation of these stats is rare? I'd say the opposite. see here valereee (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This 2018 article on the subject describes the problem. It states that "YouTube says fake views represent just a tiny fraction of the total", and that it is actively combatting the problem. From my understanding, the main offenders are music labels, and that the vast majority of youtube channels do not purchase fake views.Emass100 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emass100, that article, entitled "The Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube Views: Plays can be bought for pennies and delivered in bulk, inflating videos’ popularity and making the social media giant vulnerable to manipulation" is literally ABOUT how easy it is to manipulate the stats and how common it is. The fact Youtube says fake views represent a tiny fraction of the totals and that they're actively combatting the problem is Youtube on Youtube and not remotely relevant. Show me some reliable independent source saying that. valereee (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any recent independent studies on the issue. But whether it is easy or not to buy them, it doesn't matter much for our purpose if the fake views get removed a few months later, as there is an arms race between coders and youtube on this issue, as even the people selling the fake views claim they can't be permanent. I don't see why we need to remove this information for all youtubers is only a small minority of them constantly manipulates them.Emass100 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emass100, what reliable independent source is saying only a small minority of accounts are manipulating stats? valereee (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should’ve clarified that the remainder of my explanation is the same as comments above. Sorry. Benica11 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, after replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I've noticed this in articles a couple times and it struck me as out-of-place spam/obsessed-fan data. Not to mention that it gives a special status and promotion to a proprietary, commercial Web site, which is utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per the above !votes, being a YouTuber is a unique career and therefore the YouTube infobox is therefore better fit for these articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As it is already said above, this template handles necessary information common to all YouTubers. And there's no substitute. If the template is deleted, there will be no way to present some essential information in a simple and visually accessible format. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is both useful and widely used. It can be improved according to some of OP's suggestions (Play buttons and catchphrase should certainly be removed, I agree). It still does the job better than a more-generic replacement. E.g., the example replacement infobox in this section above, for the Slow-Mo Guys, has the creators' names under "Born:", and calls them "entertainers." The former demonstrates an imperfect fit, and the latter is vague enough to be useless.--MattMauler (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MattMauler: are you aware that the YouTube infobox also has the creators' names under "Born:", and calls them "entertainers."? wumbolo ^^^ 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... You're right about "Born," and I was not aware of that when I wrote the post, my bad. When it describes a single YouTuber, it doesn't stick out ("imperfect fit"), but when I saw it in your example above applied to more than one person, it just seemed confusing, which is why I referred to it in my !vote. Regarding "entertainer," I have yet to see an article about a YouTuber that calls them an "entertainer" in the infobox unless it's in a string of other roles that are better (more specific) (such as "YouTuber" or "vlogger") ... but I see now that this is not an essential part of the template but something editors choose/modify anyway. Striking through my !vote above.--MattMauler (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I see that as a bad reason to delete this template, 2600:1008:B004:F20:AC9A:7E9F:4461:7BD1. I would keep this template, as it is used in many articles and also has some parts that are not included in other templates. From America, TheSmartPersonUS1 (TSPUS1) (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please keep it, just like each celebrity and singer templates, but can do some improvement. (Sculture65 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep There are many unique properties that relate to YouTubers that don't relate to other types of celebrities which are catered for by this template. It has been argued that things like subscriber numbers and views are flawed, but it is not up to Wikipedia or its users to determine that unilaterally. These numbers are regularly referred to in the traditional media when talking about YouTubers, and the numbers are verifiable, and even if they include some "spam" subscribers and views they are useful when comparing to other YouTube personalities. It is true that YouTubers move off the platform and on to other things, but that is an argument to remove and replace infoboxes from individual articles when those people become more notable for things that are not YouTube. Additionally, it was argued that the website link shouldn't be to the article subject's YouTube channel, and therefore the channel link properties (which could do with tidying up, but that's a separate issue) which are unique to this template. This argument seems flawed at best. Finally, whilst not directly related to discussing deletion, the rationale from the OP read to me to be very bitter about YouTube and the creators on the platform, and seemed to want to discredit the whole ecosystem. What I think is clear is there is no clear consensus to delete the template, but also no other template that can currently cater for the specific and widely used properties related to YouTube personalities. Andymmutalk 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a great and useful template which is applicable for dedicated youtubers, if removed, this would harm so many youtuber articles. 49.178.16.16 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — 49.178.16.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There's alot of group channels like Smosh and Dude Perfect. There's not really any other infoboxes that fit for group personalities like these. Unless you found a way to modify the music group infobox, but I doubt that.-K-popguardian (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "music group infobox". There is {{infobox musical artist}} which is for both groups and individual artists. {{infobox person}} is perfectly appropriate for groups of people. It's the same for {{infobox comedian}} and almost all other biographical infoboxes. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://theoutline.com/post/3804/inside-youtube-s-fake-views-economy?zd=1&zi=qcyzdbw4
  2. ^ https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2380848
  • Delete, or at least, convert to an embed-only template. In many cases, using this template means that we don't get to include some pertinent details, as it has far fewer parameters than {{Infobox person}}. While there are some people who do nothing outside of YouTube, there are plenty of others whose YouTube channel is just one part of their career. You can use {{Infobox person}} as a child template, yes, but this is incredibly awkward; e.g. look at how goofy the "Alma mater" field looks way down at the bottom of Tom Scott (entertainer). There is a huge variety of people on YouTube; we'd need to copy just about every parameter in {{Infobox person}} to cover every case.
Scrolling through a few pages of the transclusions list for this template, it seems to me that most YouTube personalities are famous for more than just their YouTube career. In my opinion, this template limits what is presented about those people, and gives undue weight to their YouTube career. Creators like Arin Hanson and CGP Grey are very active on YouTube, but also do much more work outside of YouTube, and I feel their infobox is overly focused on their YouTube career. Meanwhile, people who actually are focused entirely on YouTube, such as iJustine and Casey Neistat, are actually using {{Infobox person}} instead, because this template is so lacking in parameters. If we are going to keep this template, I think we should configure it so that it can only be used as a child/embedded template – it is almost always a subpar solution when used as a standalone infobox. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. I have nothing more to say. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (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:FIBA Intercontinental Cup Finals Top Scorer

[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) Hhkohh (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." The main article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer. Note, the creator moved this template to its current name after that AfD.[1] Let's prevent WP:TCREEP. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm still very doubtful about this one. The list has now been added to the main article: FIBA Intercontinental Cup#Finals top scorers. However if we look at (randomly chosen) 1978 FIBA Intercontinental Cup we can see that there wasn't actually a "final", just a round-robin. http://www.linguasport.com/baloncesto/internacional/clubes/intercontinental/IC_78.htm does mention "Final (Decisive Game)" but there is no indication that being top scorer was any particular award. The article on the top scorer that year, John Coughran, mentions that he was part of the winning team but fails to mention that he was top scorer as would be good practice per WP:NAVBOX #2. Similar issues with other years I tried. Overall, the template seems to fail most of the reasons for having a navbox. Also confused as to why it is "Finals" when it relates to a single match: "Final" surely. Nigej (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2019 (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:Team Dixie

[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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 28 February 2019 (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/2019_February_21&oldid=885863224"