Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 20

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20

Template:Metallum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds to an article an external link that does not meet WP:EL criteria for inclusion into wikipedia. — Leon Sword 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: For the record, what criteria does it fail? Also, I recall seeing that more pages used it yesterday. You shouldn't remove templates under discussion from pages using them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adbstain: as I know nothing about the site (I just made the template as a favor), I must abstain. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Encyplopedia Metallum meets the following criteria under "Links normally to be avoided" (quoted directly from WP:EL):

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

There are plenty of other websites that are reliable that could be linked to instead that could provide all the information some users claim can only be found on the user-edited Encyclopedia Metallum. I'm amazed how many people consider this website more reliable than the official website of a band. --Leon Sword 17:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of these bands just don't have a website. One example : Mütiilation, and it's a cult band.

It's not an "open wiki", as a simple user you can only provide corrections that will be moderated. Stop claiming wrong things, please.

I also find very inappropriate the fact that you deleted references to the template on a lot of articles. --pankkake 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Comment: For bands that don't have a website, you could link to the band's record label site, because even indie record labels provide info about bands they have signed. And if there is no info about the band in the record label site, there will always be online interviews and other reliable websites that provide information for notable bands.

I'm not claiming wrong things, I actually did a complete review of metal-archives.com to see just how reliable it was: I compared members information for various bands in metal-archives.com to the bands official website information - they didn't match up. I compared album information on metal-archives.com for various albums with the official booklet information - they didn't match up. I compared genre information on metal-archives.com for various bands with various interviews of those bands and the genre information didn't match up either. Furthermore, I went ahead to see how easy it was for me a new metal-archives.com user, to change information there to my liking and it was easier than I thought.

I didn't delete references to the template on any articles, I deleted links to metal-archives.com, which doesn't meet WP:EL criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. --Leon Sword 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE:Comment: Do you have evidence, or example, of a large proportion of false information found on EM? You claim to have made comparisons, but do not give examples (also, that's what reports are for, when you spot errors on EM). Also surely you realise that many official websites of bands do not get updated frequently or go frequently down for long periods of time (I remember when Summoning's official website was MIA for over a year), or have many sections "under construction" - especially more obscure bands. The same can be said even of label sites. Also, band pages on label website often have incomplete discographies because they only list the albums released by said label. Consider a band like Falkenbach, which has several releases but only 3 are listed on the official site. Bands sign on and off labels constantly, so to use them as a unique source is not a reliable way to get complete and up-to-date information. EM centralises the information regardless of labels. Morrigan 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE:RE:Comment: You're right about some official websites sometimes not getting updated very often, but then where is metal-archives.com getting their information from? There is only three places they could be getting their information from: They could be making it up, They could be getting it from another unreliable source, or they could be getting it from some reliable third party source. Don't you think we should be linking to that reliable third party source instead of metal-archives.com, which only sometimes has correct information? Like I said before, there are other reliable sources that could be linked to instead metal-archives.com and outside of a bands official website and record label site. --Leon Sword 23:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE:RE:RE:Comment: FUD.--pankkake 15:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Comment: Actually FUD does not apply to my argument, it applies to the people here who are supporting metal-archives.com. If you haven't noticed yet, I have refrained entirely from naming specific other third party sources that you could use instead of metal-archives.com, I'm not promoting any other website over metal-archives.com. However, the people who are promoting metal-archives.com are using FUD tactics to promote specifically metal-archives.com over any other websites. That could even be considered Spamming. Furthermore, since a lot of the people here who are supporting metal-archives.com, are editors at metal-archives.com, that could be a violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Leon Sword 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you FUDed again. You really want to have the last word, do you? --pankkake 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encylcopedia Metallum is an important resource for creating wiki articles on metal, just like sites like Mobygames are used for video games. This is not link spam, it's a template for quickly and easily providing a link to one of the sources for information. Does not fail WP:EL in ant sense that I can see. Maybe the nominator could be less vague about HOW it fails? DarkSaber2k 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We don't link to wikis; this appears close enough (user-editable). That, I believe, is the nom's logic. Gracenotes^T § 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Encyclopaedia Metallum isn't an important resource for creating wiki articles on metal like the above reckons, and is a fundamental reason why metal articles are so damn rubbish on Wikipedia. Discographies can be cited by using the respective band's official website. Yes it is link spam, and yes it fails WP:EL. What is so damn annoying is that now every metalhead will comment here yet not lift a finger in improving metal articles. LuciferMorgan 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopaedia Metallum is a good external link for users as it provides things Wikipedia does not provide : detailed release pages with covers & reviews, links to bands who share members (some very minor; Encyclopeadia Metallum is probably the website with the biggest number of metal bands), etc. The template is used on many band pages. If you removed the templates from band pages before any decision was made, please revert your modifications. --pankkake 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I disagree that Encyclopaedia Metallum links should be avoided. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why delete if not to avoid links to EM? -- Ben 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is this source that if properly used would greatly improve metal Wiki articles. I wrote a "response" to the complaints against the site on the WikiProject Metal talk awhile ago (hence why it isn't really a "reponse"), I'm not going to bother repeating myself here unless someone has an argument against it. Even if one doesn't need it as a source for an article, it does serve as a useful external link/additional info section. If this does get deleted....well. I gave up using Uncle Wiki as a music source some time ago. He's a bit forgetful. Ours18 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It does not fail any of the 3 points. EM has centralized and complete information about bands, factual inaccuracies can be reported and corrected by staff and external sources are used for those, and EM is not a wiki - and even if it's close to one, it does have a substantial number of visitors and has been stable and growing for nearly 5 years. Morrigan 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's one thing to link to EM as a source. It's another to have it as an external links template. This site does not appear to be free content, and thus I do not support linking to it on a large scale. Furthermore, as a source here and there, that's fine, but as an external link, it would add little a metal band article if it were an FA. I support EM's endeavor (go centralized knowledge!), but linking to it is a different matter. Gracenotes^T § 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UCSB Beta

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete —METS501 (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone attempted to retrofit my Template:UCLA for use in articles about UCSB, but apparently abandoned the effort. I have created a replacement template at Template:UCSB and transcluded it into all the relevant articles. Suggest this one be deleted as redundant. — --Dynaflow babble 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - 52 Pickup 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fez

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typing the message out is easier, in fact, and most of us don't like the fez icon to boot. — Picaroon (Talk) 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a template presumably used for clerking at arbcom. If the clerk wants to use it, let him. It's not divisive or inflammatory in any way. -N 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a quite aware of it's intended uses, actually; I happen to be clerking two cases right now, so I should know! No, it is not divisive or inflammatory, but it is unused. So I urge you to reconsider your opposition to deleting a template that I could very well speedy as CSD G6 right now. Picaroon (Talk) 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I feel there should be a standard template to show people what the message should look like, regardless of whether it's used. However I have no real objections to its deletion if the instructions elsewhere properly document what this message should look like. -N 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is unused, then delete. --Iamunknown 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it'd be substituted whenever used. What about getting rid of the image and the border, and just leaving the text with parameters for links? It would make sending notifications faster, but I'm not the one using this, so neutral. –Pomte 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it hasn't been used by any clerks because Image:Clerk-fez.png is on no user talkpages, save some unrelated discussions. As to notification itself: most of them time, the people who add the parties notify those who they add. When they don't, typing a message or two out is easy enough. It really is not that much. Picaroon (Talk) 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:POTUSgallery

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete —METS501 (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not currently being used. Besides, Wikipedia is not a mere collection of photographs or media files and we already have Commons:Presidents of the United States, etc. — Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming all the pictures are PD, it does no harm, and it could be useful in a wikiproject. -N 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the other reasons to delete a template is "The template is not helpful or noteworthy". So how would this unique template be helpful in a WikiProject when there are already pages such as Commons:President of the United States, Template:US Presidents, and List of Presidents of the United States? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Iamunknown 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it serves no purpose and I can't imagine a use for it EVER. Who would need a template for something like this? Axem Titanium 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I like all these nice pictures of presidents so much I userfied it to my userspace. Should be no problem now. -N 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BSG-Spoiler

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{spoiler-season}}. In fact, this template uses {{spoiler-season}} as a meta-template. --Farix (Talk) 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not for the reason the nom gave, but because we're cutting back on the number of spoiler templates. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for specific spoiler templates like this. --- RockMFR 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason a template with such small scope. Also, it's unused. Axem Titanium 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WWE video games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was re-write, so don't delete. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navigation template for video games based on a professional wrestling promotion. This template isn't very helpful - it's hard to navigate. It's large and poorly organized, lumping Nintendo and Sega video games together and has a "Miscellaneous" section as well. A category and/or list would be a far better and less messy way of clustering these games together. The SmackDown games could have their own navigation template, since the series is ongoing and each iteration of the series is different enough to warrant its own article. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rework - it is a little awkward to navigate but it serves a purpose. So if anything, it should be redone, not completely deleted. If separate templates and categories are made as you propose, then this deletion request should be made again. - 52 Pickup 13:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a template for a series of video games and proves useful for navigation just like any other video games series template. --Thorpe | talk 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rework per 52 Pickup. The template is useful, but it really needs to be better organized. -- bulletproof ^3:16 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rework. When I originally created the template, it was only used for the SmackDown! series as I felt that it was the only video game franchise WWE has ever had that's being going on for this long. My suggestion is that a category should be used instead and rework the template back to the SmackDown! series. -- Oakster Talk 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't be averse to having it reworked into only a SmackDown template and having the category and lists created. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have shrunk down its height a bit without removing any links. –Pomte 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Big.Pbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfied to User talk:Big.P/Big.Pbox. —Nardman1 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User-specific for one user in main namespace; subst on that one user's talk page and delete. — — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete as above - 52 Pickup 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete I don't care about the formalities- move this template wherever the heck you guys want as long as I can still have something like it on my talk page. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.