Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 22

< April 21	April 23 >

April 22 edit

Template:Jihlava District edit

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

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant and not noteworthy (unencyclopedic). Most of the contents are redlinks, therefore this template cannot be used. Therefore I nominate to Delete it. — DerRichter (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is no deadline and templates much like this are used for many other regions. If anything this encourages creation. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are hundreds similar templates for municipalities of many countries. Redlinks will be killed in the future, no doubt about it. - Darwinek (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is system of this templates for every District of Czech republic, see User:JAn Dudík/districts. I made this templates with fixed names of all municipalities, so if anybody create new article, it have correct name. JAn Dudík (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you don't like red links, stub them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I agree with Hexagon1, Darwinek, JAn Dudík. BTW, today I wrote two stubs (Věžnička and Kamenná (Jihlava District)) about villages in Jihlava District and this template was really useful. --Dezidor (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep- the template needs to be re-structured. it seems as if many links are simply dumped in the template. please improve the template. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't and won't be "restructured". It is a unified template for all Czech districts, and is used on many other Wikipedias completely the same. Gosh, I "love" these nominations and comments of one template when other fifty exist. - Darwinek (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy keep is not valid here, but perhaps a snowball keep? But yeah, these are used and they're useful, per all the others. The redlinks will most certainly eventually be created. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Hundreds and hundreds of almost-identical templates. Redlinks mean the project needs improvement, not "this template needs deletion". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind specifying which criterion it falls under? Same to Darwinek. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:50, 27 April 2008 (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:ECUPiratesFBCoach edit

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

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this {{ECUPiratesFB}} template, which makes the former redundant. . PG Pirate 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, because we do not need dublicates. --DerRichter (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superseded by {{ECUPiratesFB}}. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Apprentice UK Candidates edit

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

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that hasn't been modified since initial creation 2 years ago. Its intended purpose is already covered by Template:The Apprentice UK. — DrWarpMind (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template consists only of a brief text message that should, if necessary, be typed rather than transcluded or substed (we really shouldn't have multiple lists of everyone who has been involved with the British version of The Apprentice). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both before me, if it was to be used, could have been edited. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:11, 27 April 2008 (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:AnarchismTF edit

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

The result of the debate was move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Participants. Editors are encouraged to do the same for the other Participants templates mentioned - Nabla (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this template is for, but it doesn't belong in Template space. — Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, really?--Cast (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must this be so hard? I suppose I should elaborate, but can I be blamed for a deadpan reaction? This is a new addition to a series of templates which lists the participants of WikiProject Philosophy task forces. Just look at the way it is transcluded. If you really want to delete one of these templates, how about choosing one from a task force that isn't even populated?--Cast (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Keep, ignorance (no offence intended) on the part of the nominator is not a reason to delete content. The template is useful, harmless and belongs in template space (to be transcluded to various other pages). Skomorokh 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transclusions do not have to come out of template space. Transclusions can be done from any location. Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia namespace, preferably a subpage of the taskforce. Membership lists are normally kept as subpages of WikiProjects/taskforces, since there's no reason for project-related content to be in the Template namespace. Same for the other taskforces that Cast linked. Gracenotes^T § 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, and do the same for all other templates transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/participants#Task forces. Per Gracenotes, WikiProject membership lists should be subpages of the WikiProject page rather than templates. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, I concur with black falcon. Lord Metroid (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (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:Science High Schools (Philippines) edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I substituted the templates to preserve the appearance on the articles (after tweaking it such that it didn't dump a load of parser functions onto the articles). The list of pages which now contain hardcoded 'infoboxes' can be found here. Happy‑melon 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template with aspirations of laying out an entire article (and restricting the format) — Ratarsed (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate into two. I think it should be seperated into a navbox and an infobox.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then per Black Falcon's comments.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needlessly limited variation of {{Infobox School}}; the navbox that appears at the bottom of the page is already a separate template: see {{Science High Schools}}. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as improper use for a template. Note that it does not (only) duplicate {{Infobox School}} it actually creates the article text. A side effect of deleting will be the deletion of all the articles it creates, as substing is not really an option, because of all the template code(see my test). - Nabla (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (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:Non-free allowed in edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - redundant, confusing, and unnecessary. Happy‑melon 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty pointless and redundant template to glut image pages.The fair-use rationale for an image already says what page it is used on, while this template seems to be "giving permission" to use it on a list of pages and just repeats those fair-use rationales by requiring one to again justify each usage in each article. It isn't backed by policy nor does its usage seem to be endorsed anywhere. Collectonian (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is backed by policy - our fair use policy requires a rationale is provided for each page it is used on. This template provides a machine readable way of identifying for which pages a rationale has been provided. Admittedly the bot has been "in development" for a while, but that's no reason to delete. ed g2s • talk 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FUR templates already do that, along with the "image_has_rationale=yes" which I believe all of the licensing templates have an option for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the template page, the bot has been "in development" since 2006? Collectonian (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should jusr use it alongside rationales if the rationales are not within the template itself. ViperSnake151 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share the nominator's concerns and therefore support deleting this template if it can be done without disrupting things. It incorrectly implies that there is some policy, consensus, or license limitation against using a given image in other articles. An editor encountering the template would think that a decision was made at some time to limit image use to a particular article, or that by adding the template they could so limit the image use - when in fact the image simply falls under WP:NFCC and can be used in any article as long as an appropriate and valid non-free use rationale is added. I do understand the use of machine readable rationales but I think the templates needed to enact such a system need to go through some development and adoption process rather than simply being added ad hoc to images. Wikidemo (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, This template affects many articles, more discussion is needed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikidemo. When I first read the text of the template, I thought that it was a license tag for images uploaded under a limited use license, not unlike images uploaded "for non-commercial use only" or "for use on Wikipedia only". When it comes to non-free content, there is no fixed restriction on where in the mainspace an image may appear; the only restriction is that each use must be justified by the non-free content criteria (particularly #8 - significance). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only problem seems to be that the text implies you can't make rationales to use the image on other pages - something that's easy to fix. ed g2s • talk 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the use of the template? Adding it to an image does not remove the need to provide a fair use rationale for every use. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it perhaps should be reworded to say something like 'this image has fair-use rationales for use on the following pages: X, Y, Z. If it is added to another page, please provide an appropriate rationale or it will be removed.' That seems like a reasonable template to me. Terraxos (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need a separate template for this. We can just go based on the rationales, which are already supposed to link to the allowed articles. Superm401 - Talk 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplication and oversimplification of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Fair use media rationale}} - Nabla (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2008 (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:SchoolRoles edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. An unencyclopedic collection of links with tenuous relations to each other. Happy‑melon 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A subjective laundry list of stereotypes and purported cliques in the U.S. school system, intended to use as a navbox... unencyclopedic as it gets. Rather insulting and nonsensical in parts ("Fat kid," "Special needs student"...); not a useful template for navigating the encyclopedia. — krimpet ✽ 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or just delete the students bit. Very US-biased, and straying into cyberbullying if you ask me. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overhaul or delete. I think it could have value but, even though I have made a minor edit to it, some of the things in it do seem inappropriate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I like the revised version. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DerRichter (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the template. The purpose of this template is to group a series of related topics together for simpler navigation, thus justifying its existence. The fact that individual editors find particular items offensive is invitation to edit the template rather than delete it. However, and in response to the charge of "cyberbullying" and nonsensical-ity, research on school culture clearly shows that these topics exist, and as the template illustrates, most of them currently have articles on WP. Deleting the template will not make the roles students assume/are assigned in schools go away. The purpose of the template is clear and rational; its our responsibility to move past our personal emotional reactions to the labeling and see the point of the template itself, which is clearly to make WP easier to use. • Freechild'sup? 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I doubt anyone looking at Emo (an article about a genre of music) will suddenly get an urge to click a link labelled "Fat kid" (a link to childhood obesity) or "School diva". These articles have little to do with each other and in parts where they do intersect how about, you know, adding a link? Just because it exists doesn't mean it needs a template, nor that such a template will be useful. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at the very least the "students" bit), per nom -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 'class roles' bit at least - as vicious stereotyping. I wouldn't have any problem with a template solely for the school staff articles. Terraxos (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As requested by many members, I have removed any non-scientific terminology (except for Super Senior and Pushout). I believe the template works without the inclusion of the stereotyped roles. Rather than discuss deletion, it may be more effective to discuss whether Pushout and Super Senior should be included. Also, the name "school roles" seems vague. There are a number of roles a student can fill that are legitimate terms. I suggest perhaps altering the name, because these roles clearly reflect the norms of American primary and secondary institutions. American universities have quite a few more roles as do foreign schools. ——Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiaheroyet (talk • contribs) 24 April 2008
There's just no way I can envision keeping it. It is extremely US-centric, reliant of pop fad euphemisms and worse - 'school role' doesn't actually mean anything. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose I have no better reason than WP:ILIKEIT, but I do think that since the articles do exist as do the concepts that the articles deal with and the articles are related to one another enabling simpler navigation. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we necessarily need a template simply because the topic exists? Would you conceivably use it? Does it achieve something simple in-line links cannot? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found it useful. Madhava 1947 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL? That's not a valid rationale. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from how remarkably unencyclopedic this is, it is also very US-specific. Other cultures do not necessarily have the same system. indopug (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - is this a joke? --T-rex 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it has been improved with the stereotypes being removed, I believe it should be deleted anyway. It clearly has a non-globabal perspective, but mixes with more general roles such as librarian and principal. It is a vaguely defined set of roles/articles. --Kildor (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (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:AL LargestCities edit

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

The result of the debate was orphan and delete. --ais523 09:10, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

I nominated this template for deletion because it seems to me like this is just one organization, and the creation of this template will give precedence for creating a template for the largest cities in every similar organization. Soon a template for the 50 largest cities of the U.N, the Commonwealth of Nations, La Francophonie, the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the Latin Union, etc. Essentially it is redundant so I say Delete. — DerRichter (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that these cities are located in countries which are members of the Arab League is not among the most defining features of the cities themselves. Doing so for all IGOs would create excessive clutter at the bottom of articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-well, there already is the largest cities in the Hanseatic League, the largest cities in the world, so why not their be a Template for the Arab world, plus, the whole idea of Templates are to make relevant links accessable, and easier to find for the Readers, and reserachers, so including the 50 largest Arab populated cities, or 50 largest Arab League cities is acceptable, and doesnt need to be deleted. The Arab cities are more connected to each others then the previous debater thinks, there is the Arab Capitals of Culture, and all Arab capitals have twining with at least one other Arab city. i fear this demand of deletion is no more then a War started by anti-Arabs living within the Arab world, sadly they are pulling the political problems of real life into wikipedia, which will affect the encyclopedia's credebility and Bias... --Arab League User (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on the part of other editors (or, at minimum, do not assume malice). With regard to the template for "largest cities in the Hanseatic League", are you referring to Template:Hanseatic League? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think something needs to be clarified here. I nominated this article for deletion. I am not engaging in a war, I am certainly not an anti-Arab and if it is your business, I do not live within the Arab world. I have no political problems in real life which pertain to this template, and I think that may in fact make me a more neutral nominator. I beleive that I did notify everyone who edited the template and the talk page, in order to make sure that people who work on the article would be aware of the nomination. I apologize for offending anyone by nominating it, but this template is for the largest cities of an international organization. While I consider myself somewhere between a deletionist and an inclusionist, I feel that this template is not notable and will lead to templates for the largest cities of other organizations, as I stated above. --DerRichter (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems more like trivia than a particularly useful way of linking these articles. Terraxos (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have issues with the accuracy of this template and also the purpose. Arab League, if you created a template that listed the largest cities in the Middle East or Southwest Asia, that would be something that would be notable. It would be much better than just the largest cities in an international organization. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Even the main article of Arab World largest cities is not well written and badly referenced. A M M A R 12:36, 2 May 2008 (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:Science portalbar edit

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

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this template is very pretty, but it adds unnecessary and distracting clutter on top of portals. See the top of Portal:Biology with several rows of links for what I mean. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The portalbar does work in portals close to the science portal. Maybe this template should be better adjusted there. -- Mdd (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template has helped in improving Wikipedia's coverage on portals. the number of views of the science portals has increased very dramatically. also see Portal:Cricket, there also you can find portal bar for sports so why should we raise an issue regarding this template. Sushant gupta (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of links at Portal:Cricket is completely irrelevant. There is some advantage in having navigational boxes, but they would perhaps work better at the bottom, rather than on top, where they stay in the way of more useful information. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hence you agree that this portal bar is of importance. thank you for your kind and logical act. Sushant gupta (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all portals have them. They don't distract at all. Why not change the font size? weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having three rows of links at the top of a portal, is, I'd argue, too much. When the reader visits a page he is less concerned with navigating to other pages than he is with reading what actually a page is about. Too many navigational aids using precious real estate (in terms of reader's attention span) is bad from a usability point of view. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three rows? What resolution are you using? It shows as two to me, and the second only barely. If it got <small>'ed it would show as 80% of the screen with the height of a bare few pixels. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) PS: I've done so. One line now, and it doesn't even hit the edges of the screen. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is still two rows, with the other navigation bar being the third row. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my monitor it is just one row. i have 21 monitor. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of editors are on 1024+, and many are 1280+. I use 1280x800 and 1280x1024 on my laptop and computer respectively. And even if it does end up as two rows, it is a very useful template that links closely related WPPs, it does no harm. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. These should generally be in a "Related portals" section. The same goes for Template:Sports portal browsebar and Template:Religion browsebar and Template:Military browsebar. Could the templates be usefully adapted into a transcludable section, for just that purpose? I'd suggest perhaps relisting this tfd, to cover all 4. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to keep, because the template has been moved to the bottom of each portal or its related-portals section. (Anything that can be done to prevent redundancy, and prevent readers (non-editors) from being overwhelmed, is good.) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please compare this ratio with this one. you will learn the significance of this template. 4 times hits is a tremendous increase in 4 months. rather this template is of immense importance. i will suggest you guys to keep this template. Sushant gupta (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. When you added the science portal bar on the 8 januari the number of visits at the Portal:Biology at once increased from about 300 a day to about 1000 visits a day. This is also my experience with the Portal:Systems Science. -- Mdd (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The navigational bar made it easier to hop from page to page. That does not mean readers spent more time on those page, or that having distracting "link farms" on top is appropriate (there are better things to start a portal with, than rows and rows of links). I would very much suggest that this bar go to to the bottom, where it will be less distracting. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distracting "link farms"? This template connects five formal science portals (like mathematics), with five natural sciences portals. You as a mathematician should appreciate this. -- Mdd (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with Mdd. Oleg Alexandrov, man you are a great mathematician and brought a good coverage of mathematics subject to wikipedia. i think you should appreciate this. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such things belong at the bottom. Take a look at Portal:Biology. It is rather pointless to start such a portal with links to Portal:Systems science and to Portal:Earth sciences. They are too unrelated. Unrelated things belong to the bottom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systems science and biology unrelated!? Do you know what you are talking about? Both in biology and ecology systems thinking is rather populair in the new Millennium. -- Mdd (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Earth sciences is very very much related to system sciences. you can have a look at this Sushant gupta (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait just a minute. then why did you nominated this template for deletion. if you wished this template to be placed at the bottom then you should have discussed this issue at the template talk page. Sushant gupta (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it deleted, as it is not that useful. But putting it at the bottom will really solve the problem, as it won't be that distracting there, while still accomplishing it navigational purpose. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, if i will place the template below then will you withdraw your issue. may be to you this template might be of no use but many of us really do need this template and i was shocked to see this template nominated for deletion. and i was further shocked to see this template nominated for deletion by you. anyway thanks for your suggestions. i will place it down. Sushant gupta (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i had a preview of the portals having this template placed down. it looks very bad there. i think it just perfect above the portal sections. this temp. is of immense importance to many of us. Sushant gupta (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it look bad? It just gets shifted down, it does not affect how it looks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following issues raised are addressed. Please keep the template. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (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:Last.fm edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep. Arguments to keep are somewhat weak in parts, but there's certainly no consensus for deletion. Neıl ☎ 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPAM template. Artists' descriptions are forked from Wikipedia. Fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" — Hu12 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs: 2006 January 16 - keep and 2007 July 19 - no consensus

Delete, encouraged unuseful links. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DerRichter (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep. As the closing admin said in the last TfD: "The key question seems to be if this meets points 1 and 10 of links normally to be avoided. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on if it hits these points or not." I !voted delete last time, as I didn't see how last.fm provided "#1 ... a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
I've revised my opinion, based on the accumulated media that last.fm provides access to. eg http://www.last.fm/music/The+Shins/+videos would never be part of an article here, and provides more videos than can be found at either the official site, or the myspace page, for The Shins. Similarly, and more "encyclopedic", they provide a complete listing of past performances at pages like http://www.last.fm/music/The+Shins/+events (2007 shown). ~~And if googlehits count, they're usually/often in the first 10 results~~. Hence, keep.
However, the usage instructions should be clarified to explicitly restrict the template to instances where it does add useful information; ie, it should not be added to every band, or just because a last.fm page exists (this is the way all the Category:External link templates should work). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC) amended to weak keep at 07:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC) am still thinking about it.[reply]
- Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded.--Hu12 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it is just as easy to use the link, we really don't need a template for it. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quiddity. Kameejl ^(Talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. These links have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and any content which has not been scrapped from Wikipedia, is self-published. Here are the rules which govern this issue:

Fails Linking to copyrighted works
Fails Not Repository of links
Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
”Verifiability” — Fails Wikipedia's core content policy. In particular:
”Reliable sources” Fails Guidelines about particular types of sources. In particular:
- ”Self-published sources”

Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. I'm not convinced how these could ever be used as as a citation or source. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if we delete this one we should also delete MusicBrainz, IMDb profile, Allmovie profile and such. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on above argument. I feel this deletion motion is more of a kneejerk reaction to perceived spam. Perhaps a replacement site specific to musical content can be agreed upon, maybe in the form of the geolocate site used on location articles, which offers a number of manners in which to view the location. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to respond to a couple of quick points raised above:

Last.fm does not infringe on copyrights. All videos/songs are uploaded by their respective copyright owners (see their TOS)
Last.fm is verifiable (not as much as stringent as Wikipedia but more so than say, imdb) as it does encourage users to cite their sources such as in this page
The idea of "self-published sources" would only pertain in establishing last.fm's Wikipedia page's notability. Also, a last.fm link is never strictly used to establish an artist's notability any more so than an allmusic.com page. I don't really see the relevance here.

I think the real question is if 1) will provide information beyond what Wikipedia can provide and 2) whether the site is just spam or part of a repository of links. A lot of this is opinionated, but I think that it provides legal non-free content that Wikipedia could never host that give a better illustration elsewhere WITHOUT having blatant advertising everywhere or making the user download adware, etc.. I also doubt that last.fm is using Wikipedia as way to generate more hits more so than IMDB or YouTube is. You're free to disagree, of course, but that's what I see in keeping these links. Sasquatch t|c 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These links have no editorial oversight."8. Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights" . As far as Linking to copyrighted works the tos #1 "1 have permission to upload all of your content and make it available worldwide (without restriction) or you have obtained permission from the relevant rightsholder(s)." key concern being that the uploader needs permission from the relevant rightsholder(s). futher more there are over 3,200 of these links and this template Template blatantly misrepresents established policy--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll reiterate that the value of last.fm lies NOT in its biography pages but in the ability to supply music from the relevant artists for free and legally. To be listed, the copyright holder (artist or label) needs to contact last.fm itself and allow for the material to be uploaded. Again, Wikipedia cannot provide this service and I believe having access to an artist's music is highly relevant and contributes to a reader's/listener's understanding of that artist's work. Again, I don't see your point in trying to claim it's copyright infringement when it clearly states that all content has been released by the artist... I think that's a moot point at this point. The real debate should be whether they are useful as a supplement to the encyclopedia article or whether or not it's just an useless link that does not contribute to the article. I think you might be misunderstanding how last.fm works at this point if you're still claiming every song violates copyright. Sasquatch t|c 08:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. Kwertii (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, encourages a link which adds little to the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Quiddity and Sasquatch. They make valid points.--Thatotherdude (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond 30 second song samples, Last.fm does not provide any useful encyclopedic information. The full songs are rather uncommon. Much of their content on bands and songs is borrowed from Wikipedia. ~MDD 46 96 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MDD incorrectly stated the full songs are rather uncommon. Last.FM offers an amazing selection of songs at full length for a lot of artists. It's currently signing deals with a lot of the major record labels (fetch you the reference later when their updates page is not down). You now get to listen to a full song 3 times a day by most artists (obviously, problems have arisen with some labels, artists) and even if you can't, they have an awesome "if you like, listen to..." feature, videos, genre tags, similar artists radio, events, a lot more than wikipedia gives. Yes, their entries for Musicians are usually ripped from Wikipedia or MySpace or something, but that's because they're edited by users to stay up to date. Metty (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find Last.fm to be a far better organized and reliable website in my experience than AllMusic or whatever other things are linked. agahnim 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting... I have almost the complete opposite opinion. Last.fm feels rather disorganized and ad hoc to me. ~MDD 46 96 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --kallerna 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE This is not an argument or a valid rationale . --Hu12 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful statistics website. All band information like lineups, discographies, biographies are also there. It is not publicity, otherwise, is IMDB template publicity? Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very useful link, and the site is also completely free of copyright violations. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-25 19:17
Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY and is not a valid rationale . --Hu12 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion arguments would make a lot of sense if last.fm would be used as a reference in articles, but this is about external links, not references. We shouldn't link to last.fm wherever possible, but deleting the template isn't really needed, either. --Conti|✉ 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's not a web directory... if there's not good encyclopedic information available at Last.fm, what's the point? There are many choices for listening to music online. ~MDD 46 96 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as spam/advertising. The link to the site is spam. Undeath (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Visiting a last.fm link gives quick information on the popularity of a musical artist, their most popular songs, tags that are most associated with the artist, and so on, all on one page in one quick glance. Gary King (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — along the same lines as above keep comments. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Links are of little overall use to the article from which they point. Fire (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — It gives valuable information such as similar bands, top listened songs, tags discussions. Wikipedia should encourage these non-profit important sources. Psychomelodic (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think last.fm is non-profit, actually. --Conti|✉ 11:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it has advertisements (I don't know, I use AdBlock) but I think all features are free. Psychomelodic (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a premium subscription which adds many features to the radio, and it does indeed have ads. In addition, it is owned by CBS Interactive. It is definitely for-profit. -DMurphy (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely useful reference. Much like the IMDb --Hobmcd (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY and is not a valid rationale . --Hu12 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least as useful for music as IMDb is for movies. —Ruud 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY and is not a valid rationale . --Hu12 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the above reasons. --saxsux (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quiddity and the fact that Last.fm provides valuable data with regard to the listenership of bands. Hopefully the third TFD will resolve this matter. -DMurphy (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last.fm links are generally useful for precisely the reasons noted at WP:EL; providing information that we don't generally store in-article. Arguments that it's easier to make the link then use a template are just plain strange. Arguments that it's spam can be applied to any external link template; clearly, that does not have consensus. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - If this is deleted, then the templates for other similar websites should be deleted as well (MySpace, IMDB, etc). Also, Last.fm provides some useful information, including events like concerts. But the overviews should not be used as per WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided - #12, since they are wikis. -- FatalError (t|c) 02:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I realize last.fm is a popular site but it is not a reliable source for wikipedia to cite as a reference and so by point 2 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, it should not be included as an external link. --Bardin (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ ~~Strong keep~~ ~~Keep~~ ~~Strong Keep~~ ~~Delete~~ Comment I'm not sure. 58.105.86.25 (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Last.FM artist pages are the fastest legal way of sampling tracks on the net. Good place to see fan following as well. —IncidentFlux _{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More informative site than AllMusic/Musicbrainz, agree with Agahnim. IrisKawling (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While their is nothing wrong with the site, this template encourages it to be mis used --T-rex 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep! Very useful site as it provides videos, photos, some tracks from each and every artist! For a person who is reading about someone or some band and wishes to know more (not just information but illustrations) this is very very useful! Don't see why it should be deleted! :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as far as i know this is the third vote on this subject; It's completely stupid, annoying and childlish to refuse such decisions. How about me contacting all the people who voted keep before and ask them to revote? Maybe you should also contact the people who voted delete before too!! If we are gonna revote on each and every matter than goes on here we arent reaching the purpose of Wikipedia anytime soon! Anyway, the template should and must remain... If Wikipedia cant host stuff then at least it should link to them. By the way, we should remove all YouTube videos too from each and every Wikipedia article whether it was a template, a link, a reference, or whatever. If they are kept, then Last.fm should be kept. It features offical videos, offical photos, offical Music which can never be hosted here since Wikipedia cant afford the royalties and of course the 'unoffical' stuff which Wikipedia cant host too due to the fear of lawsuits! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last.fm pages contain valuable and legal media and accompanying biographies and other information. It contains things which cannot be hosted for wikipedia, as for WP:NOT#Repository I believe that it is not in conflict with this which I believe applies more to when a single article has many, many links and would not be the fault of the template. and WP:EL#AVOID is only a guideline, and can be treated with exceptions, and I believe this is a case for making an exception - it provides detailed information, and in some cases it can be argued that as the artist and record label have to agree to get their media on Last.fm it becomes a reliable source. Even the wiki parts are encouraged to provide sources, and unsourced statements are quickly removed. 03swalker (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINK. Link provides little, if any, use to an article. DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 04:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Link provides little, if any, use to an article." Are you serious?!! There are stuff there that cant be found anywhere else over the internet. For example, Dead Can Dance's OFFICIAL videos. Photos of 99% of the artists. You can start a radio service with a specific artist. You can listen to Music of a specific genre to know more about it!! I dont think you ever used Last.fm! If you did, you would have known its more informative than the AMG and i'm not talking about the artist's history... as i said before, Last.fm provides ILLUSTRATIONS crticial for the understanding of the subject. And by the way, AMG doesnt even provide good info. Wikipedia's Opeth article is way better than the 2 or 3 paragraphs at the AMG!!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a very important database with a unique mechanism --Eugrus (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added some usage instructions. Please improve/refine the wording as needed. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important database (with its own wiki) that has a lot of useful information for people looking to find out more about an artists. Klausness (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break edit

Weak keep - Can provide extra info on an artist and is especially useful for lesser-known groups/artists [it's better than their MySpace page!] but should not be used indiscriminately. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:46, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Delete it provides a link to the site and that's about it. Nothing helpful there. We are not trying to advertise for last.fm here. Undeath (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Whoops, I already voted. Forgot. Undeath (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning on delete. I don't like this kind of templates to a site, as they encourage over-linking and the gain in editing ease is small, but I don't mind them much either. I just point that this is a strange discussion to read, looks like the discussion is about deleting/keeping the site. It is not. Except for a few opinions, mostly deletes, very few editors discuss the template itself. I presume that just because a site has, in some occasions, valuable info to link to, and this one has, it does not necessarily follow that we should have a template for that. - Nabla (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and blacklist site, whitelist for Last.fm article. I see no way that last.fm could be used as a reliable source - since all its content is user-generated - and as such is inherently non-encyclopedic. No-one has actually addressed in what valid way last.fm is an appropriate link in any article or provided a decent reason why it should remain. -Halo (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: How come this is still open almost 3 weeks later? -Halo (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (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.