Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2 edit

Template:Frazione 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 discussion was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant infobox. Nothing that {{Infobox settlement}} can't display plus you can add a map too which features at the top per convention not the bottom. Aside from this I believe there was some consensus that frazione are not inherently notable and that more attention should be paid on filling out the stubs on communes rather than branching out into sub frazione first. Himalayan 18:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only 27 transclusions in article space. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... and Template:Infobox CityIT and Template:Infobox Province IT? --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could also be converted to standard... Himalayan 20:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox CityIT}} has been nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This, like the others Francesco mentioned, is much easier for editors to fill in. If easy to use sub-versions of {{Infobox settlement}} tailored for use on Italian settlements and administrative entities (comuni, rioni, municipalità, quartieri, città metropolitane, provincie, comunità montane, comunità collinare, other unioni di comuni, etc.), that would be better still. As to ‘Nothing that {{Infobox settlement}} can't display’—obviously that is true: just as it is true that Infobox settlement does nothing that couldn’t be done in wikitext and wikitext does nothing that can’t be done in XHTML.Ian Spackman (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the notability of frazioni. The rules for notability of settlements in Italy are no different to those which apply elsewhere. Communi are merely units of local government: sometimes it is convenient to cover each of their component settlements in a single article—sometimes they correspond to a single urban area—sometimes it isn’t. Ian Spackman (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Castelnuovo (Assisi) with {{Infobox settlement}} template... now is better than Template:Frazione for me :) --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh that template looks fine! It’s just a pain to fill in compared to more specialist templates, and there is likely to be a lack of consistency between its use in related articles. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Castelnuovo (Assisi) looks much better with a standard template I think.. Himalayan 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Castelnuovo (Assisi) is a very good example of why a specialised template (quite possibly transcluding {{Infobox settlement}}) is to be preferred. The foreign word frazione is not italicised as it should be. Nor is the field-name comune. That would not happen with the specialised template. Furthermore we should note that many editors will prefer to avoid using the word comune and instead use piped links with the words ‘municipality’ or ‘commune’. In general usage all three options are pefectly o.k.: but it does make sense to standardise on one to use in the infoboxes for Italian settlements. And that standardisation can only be enforced by using a template designed for the specific task.—Ian Spackman (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have just italicised all three words, in the {{Infobox settlement}} on that article, Please don't blame bad data on a good template, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this edit you, who undoubtedly know the template well, accidentally italicised the word ‘Perugia’—a place name which should not be italicised and which was (quite bogusly) being used as a label. What messes are we to expect an ordinary editor to make using this template on Italian frazioni? Ian Spackman (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        However well I do or do not know the template, I don't speak Italian at all, I just italicised all the labels which were not in English. But you have a point - and so the fields should be labelled in English. Another reason not to have localised forks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see: you guessed that Perugia must be the name of some class of administrative subdivision just as a Salisbury might be a thing a bit (but not quite) like a civil parish in Ghana and a ‘Dallas’ could be a group of oblasts in mountainous regions. If this over-generic template had not been used, you would not have been led astray. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you do not see at all; you merely misrepresent me. I italicised the labels, not the data fields. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please re-read what I wrote: you italicised the word Perugia which was ‘was (quite bogusly) being used as a label.’ Of course if the specialised template had been used rather than the over-generic one, that bogus label would not have been there, and the correct label ‘Province’ would not have been italicised. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I read exactly what you wrote; you accused me, falsely, of "[guessing] that Perugia must be the name of some class of administrative subdivision". I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it certainly wasn’t intended as an accusation, just as a plausible and reasonable explanation as to why you made that particular edit—one which I am certain you made in good faith. (Albeit a muddle which would not have happened if an appropriate template had been used.) So my guess was wrong: but why did you decide to italicise the label which read ‘Perugia’? Ian Spackman (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - … and added {{lang}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a larger issue not specific to the infobox. I would be happy to run WP:AWB on all articles that link to Frazione and make sure they are properly italicized, as well as, language identified through {{lang}}. The same could be done for comune or any word which is language specific (and linked). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very kind offer—but it is a one-off Windows-only solution to a problem that would not exist without the direct (rather than transcluded) use of an over-generic template. As you will see from what I wrote below during an edit conflict there are likely to be tens of thousands of similar articles added to the Wikipedia over a long-ish period of time. I fear that your generosity will not extend to doing regular AWB runs of that sort over a period of years. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - The errors only occurred because the editor used {{Infobox settlement}}: so I am afraid that the template is indeed to blame for that little mess. It is undoubtedly a very good generic template, and I have a lot of admiration for whoever developed it. If you need to do something rather unusual and complicated it will often accommodate your needs. But very, very often something more targeted (possibly transcluding it) is what we want. Now when you corrected those three errors, did you check to see whether they had been propagated by cut-and-paste to infoboxes in other articles? After all, that is usually how people create new infoboxes. Is there a simple way to discover which articles on Italian frazioni are using that infobox? As simple, I mean, as doing a what-links-here on {{Frazione}}? That will be extremely important to people trying to keep track of the thousands of articles on frazioni which are likely to appear.
      - A still more glaring error in the current version of the Castelnuovo (Assisi) infobox—which could not have occurred using a specialist template—is that where there should appear the field-name ‘Province’, what we have is the name of the province ‘Perugia’. There are other failings. Demonym is not linked. Patron saints is not linked. The label ‘Day’ (which in any case should probably be Feast day) is not linked. We have ‘Patron saints’ (where there will generally be only one), but ‘Area code(s)’. The latter is linked to Telephone numbering plan; other editors would link it to the more specific Area codes in Italy—indeed other editors would have labeled it ‘Dialing code(s)’. And note that this an example of an infobox which at least three editors (Francesco, Himalayan and myself) looked at and pronounced good-looking, without noticing the errors and problems. The errors and problems with the 50,000-odd frazioni infoboxes which are likely to appear in Wikipedia articles over the course of time are going to be very difficult to spot and correct.
      - It seems clear that, far from promoting standardisation, the adoption of the generic {{Infobox settlement}} in this instance is likely to lead to avoidable errors, unnecessary deficiencies, and pointlessly anarchic variations in usage from one frazione to another. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still blaming bad data, on one page, on a template; instead of simply fixing the data; and complaining about minor stylistic issues which can be more easily be fixed in {{Infobox settlement}} once, then in many individual templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So how are you going to fix {{Infobox settlement}} so that whenever the word comune (or its plural form comuni) appears in a label it is italicised? You could introduce a comune parameter, I suppose, and treat that parameter appropriately when it is used in an infobox for a municipality, a subdivision of a municipality, an area which spans more than one municipality. But wouldn’t that just make the template harder to use in other parts of the world?Ian Spackman (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hang on! the label "Comune" and parameters "Feast day" and "Patron Saint" do not seem to be available in {{Frazione}}! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In {{Frazione}} there is no need for a comune label: the name of the municipality (comune/commune) appears in the second line of the infobox: Frazione [italicised automatically without the poor editor having to worry about it] of {{{comune}}}. I hadn’t spotted the fact, but you are right that there is no field for patron saint: and I would argue that that is a good thing. It will be a rare frazione qua frazione that has such a thing in any official way. If it more or less coincides with a parish then that parish and its patron should be mentiond in the article. Others may disagree: in which case an optional field can be added to the template and every article which uses it will be formatted consistently. That is useful standardisation.22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        Checking three random artices within Category:Province of Perugia I find one (sensibly) using no infobox, one using {{frazione}} and one using {{Infobox settlement}}. That last one is Fighille. As you will see it includes labels for ‘demonym’ (not linked and how many of our readers will have the foggiest what that term of linguistics means?), one for ‘Patron saints’ and one for ‘Day’. None of them with any content. I am sure that the editor was cut'n'pasting with good intentions, and we have seen above that even the expert Andy Mabbett can get into a muddle when using {{infobox settlement}}: but those fields should have been hidden. We do not want to imply to our readers that we really really need those bits of data (if they exist, which in the case of the saint(s) and his, her or their days they may or they may not). Another minor mess which this over-generic template has caused. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}} 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Specific, streamlined templates are easier to maintain and to use than the bloated generic IS. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regionalised templates are more effective. Gnangarra 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There nothing false in what I'm saying, A localised template uses terms that are familiar with the people writing the articles and the people reading them, the use of US style political terminology to describe regions and forms of government is bias to a US system, the suggest replacement template requires that one needs to be able to correctly compare their forms to the US system to correctly use the template this is the BIAS I'm referring. That was not canvassing, it was advising the community that a new process was being implimented without prior discussion and if editors are interested they should join the discussions on the template talk page. Gnan garra 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly convert the template to simply pass all parameters to {{infobox settlement}}. With under 30 transclusions, I would certainly prefer delete, but could see conversion of the backend as a compromise. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Plastikspork in preferring deletion given the limited usage, but if it going to stay at least convert it to use the standardized template in the background. --RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks features available in Infobox Settlement, and does not add any other functionality.--93.45.124.128 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (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:Amg movie 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 discussion was keep with the suggestion to continue discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films or wherever discussion is ongoing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amg movie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this external link template because Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, and Allmovie does not provide substance as an external link to film articles, unlike IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Box Office Mojo. The {{Ymovies title}} template was deleted for a similar reason. Allmovie's pages do not provide any unique resources that would not already be covered by articles if they were Featured. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would remove the IMDb from the external link list before I remove this one. IMDb contains user-submitted information, while allmovie is worked on by film scholars and film critics. Writers for allmovie consist of writer for films guides such as TV Guide (Jeremy Wheeler) source, Bruce Eder who has written several essays on films for The Criterion Collection source, source and Camilla Albertson for TV Guide again.source. Just to name a few. This film database is also used other citable sources such as The New York Times.source. Allmovie also provides definition and information about genre, Awards, DVD releases, and plot summaries. This is generally the same as what imdb offers, but much more reliable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can discuss the merits of Internet Movie Database as an external link in another TfD, though I see it as a source for community interaction more than anything else. I agree with what you said about Allmovie, and what you outlined supports its reliability as a source to reference in Wikipedia articles. But what elements of a film's Allmovie page are supplementary to its Wikipedia article? WP:ELNO says to avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". Featured Articles about films would cover its kind of genre, the awards it received, and details of its DVD release(s); they would also have plot summaries. In comparison to Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes provides access to a list of reviews, more than can be sampled in the article body. Box Office Mojo provides in-depth box office statistics that are too indiscriminate for Wikipedia articles' overview of films' box office performances. Allmovie is fine as a reliable source, but Wikipedia is not about supplying readers with links to information when it should already be covering that same information. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re IMDb: At one time, I was an official, acknowledged Top Contributor to that database. The major data contributors there are serious people who contribute data anonymously and are very conscientious about it. There is no glory in anonymous contributions. They are buffs, by and large, and not film professors, but that is because they have proper careers, and not something as frivolous as film professor. Many or most of them could be considered "film scholars" within their individual areas of expertise. There is no reason to be dismissive of their sincerity or their acumen. A book I was reading only yesterday, "Companion to Latin American Film", cites a particular film scholar, someone I happen to be aware of, in another guise, as an important figure at the IMDb.
  Any data submitted then is vetted by an IMDb manager who, typically, is less knowledgeable than a Top Contributor. The main role of a manager is to curtail input from unreliable sources. But even Top Contributors there do have their input declined from time to time. Varlaam (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that Allmovie is written by film scholars for Allmovie, not just copying and pasting links from other articles or completely user-submitted. Not only that, but they have comprehensive technical information about the films. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see above; it is not about the reliability of Allmovie, it is about how it does not supplement the articles ideally. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and while I'd like to rid ourselves of quite a few of those external links it's a case by case basis here. WP:EL suggests that links should be added for "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...] or other reasons." I don't think Allmovie meets that criteria. If there's good content on it that falls under WP:SPS, then use it in the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does provide a number of things an ideal featured article would not: extensive cast and crew credits, where Wikipedia covers primary cast members and above the line crew; various technical specs that Wikipedia usually doesn't bother including, such as aspect ratio and film ratings; and methods to seek out similar films. Granted, not all allmovie pages include all of that but they're growing just like Wikipedia is. Also, since plot summaries are generally not referenced it's useful to have a link—a ubiquitous one at that—to a reliable website with a plot summary available for immediate comparison. And, despite the guideline, the vast majority of articles are not, nor are likely to become, featured and having an easy link to basic information built into the article may encourage some editors to fill out stubs from time to time. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet Movie Database also includes extensive cast and crew credits and technical specs, and I am sure there are other websites that do the same. Allmovie is not a unique resource for this kind of information, so it falls under WP:ELNO. The same "unique resource" argument applies for plot summaries; many other websites besides Allmovie have them. Lastly, it is the point of WP:ELNO to permit only external links that would add value beyond the ideal goal of the article being fully comprehensive. No one believes that all articles, film or otherwise, will be Featured one day. The "External links" sections are not intended to be "Resources to use" sections, which is what you are suggesting. That is why it falls under WP:ELNO; Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide information about the topic, not links to information about the topic that they cannot host already. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IMDb isn't reliable though. I'll take a vetted cast and crew list any day over a user submitted one. You're not arguing that point, are you? Also, I wasn't saying that anybody thought every article would become a featured article at some point, that was a preface to my third point. If I get your point, you're saying: 1, other websites provide cast and crew links, movie specs and recommendations for every film listed on allmovie, and 2, if more than one website does something we should not link to any of them. Point one, that's a big claim but I'm willing to let that slide because: point two, I think you're confusing resource-source with resource-information. If every external link had to be a unique source of information Box Office Mojo and The Numbers would cancel each other out and we wouldn't be able to link to either one of them. Ditto Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Undoubtedly, cast and crew information—to focus on one element—is widely available for many films, especially recent American ones, but there are a larger number of films for which that is not true. In both cases, however, it's helpful to present easy access to this information. Maybe allmovie can be replaced by better links in some cases but that should be done on a case by case basis, not like this. I'm not even sure Templates for Deletion is the right place for the discussion of what is essentially the deletion of tens of thousands of external links. I'll concede that external links are not a substitute for, say, listing potential reference material on the talk page but it's a happy side benefit. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points about box office statistics and review aggregate websites. I guess it depends on defining what "unique" means. I see it as "one of a kind", and Allmovie does not seem to have this qualification. My concern with this template is that it has been indiscriminately solicited across so many film articles; I highly doubt that each external link is judged on its own merit. It seems to be a self-perpetuating dissemination; it spreads because it's been spread. There are two ways about it, as I see it... cutting down on Allmovie as an external link template from where it exists all across Wikipedia, or resetting its presence and re-adding it on its own merits for each film. The latter option seems more beneficial to Wikipedia because we're never going to complete the goal of the first option. We need to encourage article-building, not offer easy escape routes from our own articles to web pages that host similar information. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just about on the same page. Allmovie provides a unique resource in cases where no other external link is providing a reliable, detailed cast and crew list, film specs and/or recommendations—all of which a featured article is unlikely to provide. It does not mean a unique resource as in no other website provides this service, only that the information is unique within the external links section. It could probably be phrased more clearly on the policy page. I agree that discretion is in order but rather than undoing literally tens of thousands of links across Wikipedia's film articles perhaps they could be vetted by WikiProject Films across feature articles—the same way you were doing with alt text—so that they can lead by example. As you say, the task will never be 100% completed but neither will Wikipedia. Nuking them and starting over would waste a tremendous amount of past and future time and effort. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing AllMovie, it does not provide cast and crew information that are any more detailed than what a Wikipedia article would contain. They are pretty much on par from the examples I reviewed. In additional, so-called specs are miniscule and not worth linking to an entire web page for. As for recommendations... are you referring to similar works? Regardless, AllMovie's web pages have much more redundancy with ideal Wikipedia articles about films with minor exceptions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've reviewed every single instance? Exceptions don't count why? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AllMovie has a common structure used by each film, and on the template talk page, I identified the elements found in that structure and disqualified the overwhelming majority of them. What's left are minor exceptions for which it does not seem realistic to provide access as an external link; readers who visit AllMovie as an external link will see the major elements, such as the plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, and awards, which are redundant with the content of an ideal film article. You will have to clarify what you mean by the usefulness of technical specs; when I looked at some samples, there was only the "Cinematic Process" field. Overall, a film's AllMovie web page is not enough of a supplementary boon to readers to be an external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to go over individual items point by point but I'd like to verify something very important first: You examined a small sample (how about a number?) and it's not that you didn't find anything useful, it's that you didn't find enough that was useful. And what you found didn't interest you personally. In my own small sample (I stopped at about half a dozen), I found them all to be useful and of interest to me. If a link is of value, however much so one considers it, removing it weakens Wikipedia. You claim no consideration was taken in placing the links in articles but you want to erase them all with total severity. Is thoughtfulness not an option? Surely within 13,000 links (I miscounted, it is 13,000) even you might find some of them well worthwhile, as opposed to only modestly so. What's your rush here? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course AllMovie is useful. It has elements that can be used to build up a film article, so it qualifies as a reference. What elements of value did you see that would supplement a film article provided that it was Featured? Like I showed in my breakdown, there is not a whole lot of supplementary detail; visitors will mainly see elements that should already exist in film articles. Judging from the arguments in the TfD, AllMovie was either added without consideration or with the wrong consideration, such as treating it as a "resource to use", contrary to what WP:EL says. There's no rush; I didn't rush to TfD the moment I questioned the value of the EL and the paired value of the template. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear from the context but I was referring to useful as in "useful to Wikipedia in that the link leads to information that would not reasonable be included in a feature article". And you've said it again: "not a whole lot" which means "some". If a allmovie contains "some" "useful"* information then deleting that link hurts Wikipedia. (*Do I have to spell this out in full every time?) Maybe this will work better with a tangible example. Please provide, let's say, one link to an allmovie page which you deem has no useful information and one with "some". You show me yours, I'll show you mine. And, really? You don't consider deleting them all in one fell swoop rushing things? If it helps, I guaranty pruning redundant external links on a featured article basis and raising awareness of the problem would take less time than this conversation has. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This website is essential for researching older movies. Here is an example. If you were to look up the 1916 movie Alibi (a movie not listed in wikipedia and a random choice on my part) you will notice that imdb has no real information on it only cast writers/director and production date. But if you were to check AMG you will find all that plus a plot synopsis of the actual movie. There are also many other features found in AMG from content flags to production notes like what type of camera was used (Super 35, etc); audio it was recorded in (Dolby digital, dts, stereo, etc); Colour type (Color, B&W, sepia, etc); countries filmed in; a critical review of the movie (when available); and a list of any awards it has received. It is a great tool to help wikipedia users expand their respective articles and as shown has more info than IMDB has to offer. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website sounds very useful to promote as a resource for editors to use to improve articles. This does not mean it qualifies as an external link. External links are to supplement the ideal content of a Featured Article. Allmovie is proper as a reference, but only in that regard. If you want, we can migrate such Allmovie links to talk pages with a template notice to say that this is an available resource to use for the elements you identified. Like I said before, the "External links" section is not a "Resources to use" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Allmusic has several unique features, including succinctly summarising a movie by using consistent genres, types, flags, keywords, themes, moods, and tones. The above Keep comments simply reinforce my view that it should remain. Further, the logistics of going through the thousands of articles that use this template, and safely removing such references without accidentally damaging other content, frankly scares the hell out of me. Who's going to do it, you? You, Erik? —Neuro (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above Keep comments ignore the reading of WP:ELNO. Allmovie is not a unique resource that would be useful to readers in the ideal scenario that an article is Featured. Clearly, this criteria means very few websites are appropriate as external links because they should ideally already be incorporated into the article body. The "External links" section is not a sandbox of resources that editors can take advantage of; the talk page is the place for such things. See Talk:District 9#Resources to use as an example. We're not going to dump these in the "External links" section because that's not what the section is for. As for the removal of the template, the template is one that presents a web page as an external link. If it is used as a reference, and I repeat that I have no issue with this, then it should already be used inline with a template like {{cite web}}, not this one. Please realize that Allmovie is completely fine to use as a reference. It is very likely that Allmovie has been indiscriminately solicited across multiple film articles with very few instances of editors actually evaluating if the relevant web page supplements a film article. It could also be argued that with the presence of this link that houses information that should already exist in Wikipedia articles about films actually deters growth because there is no incentive to build articles with such a link within reach. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. For a good article the link to allmovie is unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth expanding on your stance; AfDs are (or should be) based on the strength on one's arguments, not the number of !votes either way. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree, the link generally provides nothing that our other links don't already provide and with better detail. I cannot think of a time when I even use AllMovie when I go to those links. I believe we've let that EL section of film articles get out of hand a bit, and it's probably time to cleanse some of the unnecessary database links that we have. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued convincingly that most articles will not benefit from an allmovie link in addition to an imdb one. In addition, Erik writes above "It is very likely that Allmovie has been indiscriminately solicited across multiple film articles with very few instances of editors actually evaluating if the relevant web page supplements a film article." That is a good reason to deprecate the use of this template in these instances. It is not any kind of reason to delete this template – as it has also been noted, there are instances where allmovie is superior to imdb, and satisfies the relevant guideline. Whether or not a link meets ELNO must be decided on a case by case basis – by definition of the term "unique" – so this proposal to delete on these grounds in every case is misguided from the beginning. Keep, Skomorokh 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the consensus so far, it looks like discussion about deprecation will have to take place anyway. However, I cannot foresee a convincing way to deprecate it; even as they are removed, they will simply be re-added because of the established and fallacious mentality that they should automatically be included with every Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a suitable and accepted reliable source where readers may further expand their knowledge about a subject. AMG has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and even includes some quite nice reviews of films and actors. Kind of nice to find so much in one place without having to spend days or hours searching for others... or searching for English translations of non-English sources. The template might go, but as an external link, it serves to improve the project and a reader's comprehension of a subject.... because yes, some folks might be happy to read things other places than Wikipedia. It could be encouraged to be used as a reference whenever possible, thus putting in the reflist rather than as an EL, but to simply toss out thousands of EL's... and then require the tens of thousands of man-hours repairing and re-sourcing what was lost....? I grant that this is an idea that could be slowly worked into the system, but not as as a one-night-its-there and the next-night-its-gone. And with respects, until Wikipedia itself gets a much better reputation in the real-world for accuracy and fact-checking and reliability, it might be wiser for us to not be in such a hurry to remove links to those sources that do have that good reputation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will be nothing to repair and re-source. The template is used to format Allmovie as an external link. External links are not references to the Wikipedia articles, so this claim is false. We have been adding these templated external links indiscriminately out of habit. How would we reverse such a harmful mentality? Erik (talk | contribs) 03:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not contain more information than a good article would, but then again most movie articles aren't very good. One thing AMG contains is a plot synopsis that's not so long it would take less time to watch the movie, the way it is with most WP movie articles. Lampman (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrzejbanas. Kuralyov (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of COURSE Keep Goddamned stupid movements like these are why Wikipedia should go back to being the encyclopedia anyone can EDIT, not fart around making rules and running a tin-horn dictatorship. If it hasn't been said already, and isn't obvious to anyone who writes or reads articles: Allmovie has its own plot synopses and reviews which are often invaluable for film articles. Dekkappai (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming good faith, pardner. Please read WP:ELNO for links to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Do you not think that a Featured Article about a film will already have a plot synopsis and numerous sample reviews? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this template. -- œ ^™ 05:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why would you delete this template, Metadata is a good thing and removing this template would remove valuable metadata from a good number of articles. I know I should assume good faith but this is a textbook abusive nom riffic (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely keep. Allmovie is a great source. If you want it deleted, why not just delete the IMDB and RottenTomatoes links? Hell, why not just impose an outright ban on external links?! (note: sarcasm) This is as absurd as the IWF blacklisting incident. It's not as if the external links are there in place of the article- they're article supplements. Some movies don't even have Wikipedia pages, so in some ways Allmovie is a better source than Wikipedia. Nm3yt (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not an excuse to keep; you are welcome to put up external link templates for IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. I consider Allmovie more problematic as an external link. Can you explain how you think Allmovie supplements a Wikipedia article? Most of its elements are what would already be included in an article if it was Featured. Also, if movies don't have Wikipedia pages, then where can Allmovie be included as an external link? ;) Anyway, taking another editor's advice, I will start discussion for deprecation on the template talk page and provide a link here soon. Stay tuned. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: At the template talk page, there is discussion for deprecation. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template, like any other, is just an editorial convenience or shortcut to make our life easier. Its use in any particular case depends upon the merits of that case and we cannot judge that in a broad-brush way here. Identical external links may be used without the template and so the usage of Allmovie does not depend upon the template. As the template is widely used and removal would be disruptive, it should be retained while it continues to be used extensively for this purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment and move to close or be withdrawn The template was listed as policy violation. The discussion on both sides has concerned guideline interpretation and external link redundancy, which is not under the prerogative of TfD. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to shut this TfD down and continue the discussion elsewhere. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are superlative, so overarching policy argument is that templating AllMovie as an indiscriminate external link contributes to an inappropriate repository of links across film articles. We can interpret this policy generally, but we have the external links guidelines for guidance; no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to arguments for and against. I disagree with closing the TfD preemptively because it does those who support deletion a disservice. Considering that multiple arguments focused for some reason on the reliability of AllMovie as a reference rather than as an external link, it is not an open-and-shut case. Let the closing admin judge the validity of everyone's arguments, and if deletion is not the outcome, I have prepared discussion for deprecation, linked above. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a giant leap, Erik. Is your concern really this specific template? Or is it allmovie overlinking? If the template's deleted you're assuming the links will be deleted and not reformatted, which is also a leap as that hasn't been discussed at all. "Aiding" is not "doing". I can "aid" a horse to water... I'm on board with dealing with external link redundancy, I only think you started the discussion in the wrong place. The prospect of nuking tens of thousands of links isn't the best of conditions to start a discussion and a show of good faith—not everyone is going to assume it, that's just life—may aid a more friendly discussion. My two cents. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to use TfD to start a discussion for deprecation. My goal was to both deprecate and delete the template, like what was done for the {{Ymovies title}} template. AllMovie has no evidenced merit as an external link, so the EL template was questioned. Editors are perceiving AllMovie as a reference or a reference-in-waiting, where neither is the purpose of an external link, especially when it is indiscriminately proliferated via template. I take no issue with any editor here; I only take issue with the arguments that have been put forth. I'm not sure why there is a question of good faith; deletion is not inherently a negative act. Tradition is in effect here; we are accustomed to seeing AllMovie so widely dispersed and have never really questioned why. A year ago, I would not have considered challenging AllMovie as an external link. Change can be tough, and judging from the opinions so far, it is not going to be one step for change, but the first of many, considering the thousands of articles to which the template has been so thoughtlessly slapped on. When one looks ahead, a change like this deletion seems fearsome, but in hindsight, such a change is often realized as no big deal, and the encyclopedia can move forward. So the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses my point. (Incidentally, attempting to sum up this discussion for me wastes both our time as I've read everything already and repeating the same points over and over to so many people likewise implies that you don't think they read the discussion.) I appreciate your long view on things but I'd also appreciate it if you could zoom in here for a moment: The only point of the template is to streamline the process of inserting a widely used link with long standing concensus. The template is not an article, it does not have an external links section: it is incapable of violating the policy you stated. Without a policy violation it should not be listed here. Claiming it contributes to a policy violation is a stone's throw from WP:GAMEing. The depreciation route is a much better way to go about this but I've been burned by decentralized discussions in the past and find that discussion extremely unhelpful while this TfD is ongoing. And in that saying, it begins with a step, not a mis-step or non-step. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need me to clarify how it violates policy, I can do so. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. It is currently a repository for AllMovie, which I have argued does not have merit as an external link and detracts from the purpose of Wikipedia. Deleting the template that displays AllMovie on so many film articles will make Wikipedia less of a repository. That's my take, and I ask you to assume good faith. I started discussion because I was in the mood to gather information and respond to the arguments made here. I suppose I could have waited till after the TfD if the outcome was not deletion, but if anything, it solidified my stance of how AllMovie does not qualify as an external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I've never questioned your faith, only your logic and methods. If you explain anything, let it be how you made that leap. However, this isn't going anywhere and the closing admin can render their verdict on our readings. In future, I hope you'll consider beginning something like this, a mass deletion affecting 13000+ film articles, at WP:FILM, where it will get the most eyes and hands. The template could then easily be deleted if the eternal link really were deemed harmful and depreciated fully. Also, I trust you understand the benefits of a centralized discussion as I've seen you encourage such at WP:FILM several times. We can at the very least centralize our debate above. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this little power play/drama show is going on, thousands of Wikipedia pages are defaced for the readers. This is what comes from letting editors play rule-maker. Anonymous editors who would not be trusted to add "The sky is up" to an article without a citation to an authority are free to spout out purely original researched/personal opinion about what they feel in their heart of hearts is "reliable", "notable", etc. Meanwhile editor time and megabytes in talkspace are wasted in the fallout from whatever "consensus" of like-minded pseudo-authorities they can muster to their side, and the Wikipedia mainspace suffers from defacement and, disgustingly too often, the removal of valid information and sourcing. Dekkappai (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can multi-task. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The point of the template is an editorial convenience to assist in providing consistency of presentation. Whether AMG links ought to be permitted as External Links is a separate discussion. I strongly believe that they should be, as they provide links to a useful repository of information on a movie that might not be present in the article. But that's neither here nor there. The template provides a useful benefit to editors. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following on your discussion above with Andrzejbanas - external links are often useful as potential sources. You (the nom) agree that Allmovie is a good potential source, so, from one perspective it sounds like an issue regarding placement of links. Eventualism might favor removing any link to Allmovie from the EL section, once it has been used as a reference within that article; but deleting it immediately would be an example of Cutting off the nose to spite the face (aka overenthusiastic Immediatism). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not potential sources; please read the first paragraph of WP:EL about pages containing further research. The "External links" section was never supposed to be a place to put potential sources, and because AllMovie is such a source, it does not qualify as an external link. Contrary to popular belief, external links do not "grow up" to be references. Potential sources belong on the talk page for discussion and incorporation, like at Talk:District 9#Resources to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally/prescriptively, you are correct. Practically/descriptively, you are incorrect, because imperfect humans (thousands of untrained volunteer contributors) do use it as a dumping ground. The problem then occurs when someone decides to delete a useful link (or template...) without moving it to the talkpage or References section, first. Thereby deleting something to satisfy a guideline, not to improve the encyclopedia. Hence, it could be boiled down to immediatism vs eventualism. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea to copy the links to the talk page... I have no issue with that approach. We can identify with each copy the common elements that could be found at the page and used to flesh out the Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is useless and should have never existed in the first place. This isn't an attack on the use of AMG in the External Links sections of articles, though, and people need to realize that. Seriously, you could just do the link in standard formatting without using this roundabout template. The only problem I could potentially see with deleting it would be having to transfer the instances of the template in use to normal links, but sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and cut your losses. They shouldn't be in use now, anyways, so there's not really any harm done. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standardised templates are used partially so that when a site changes its url structure (something large repositories do annoyingly frequently), we can update all the links at once with greater ease. See Category:External link templates to get a better overview of how we use them here. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Here and at the deprecation discussion, Erik has already spelled out more thoroughly that I can why this template should be deleted, and I cannot see a single valid reason not to delete it versus "deprecating" it. A bot can easily go remove it from the just under 13,000 articles where its included, same as any other deleted template. Allmovie just does not meet WP:EL for the greatest bulk of pages where it is included, and few, if any, even bother evaluating it. It has become an "auto link", added because it has a template and "all other articles have it" I know I myself have had some rather heated discussions on some articles where I didn't include the link as it had no new content that even the existing article had (much less what an FA would have), and people would continue to argue its "required" or "standard". Deleting the template goes a long way to removing this misconception and quickly cleaning up the overly excessive, overly useless links that have propagated though Wikipedia because of this template. Link templates should only exist where the link is legitimately valid for the bulk of its usage, not when the bulk of the links it creates are not valid nor useful.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on board with Erik, I'll put these questions to you too: In what way does this template violate a policy? And if you agree that allmovie may contain some useful information which would not reasonably fit in a featured article, how is deleting all of them indiscriminately a good idea? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I believe that the argument for deletion is facetious. It states that "Allmovie's pages do not provide any unique resources that would not already be covered by articles if they were Featured." This does not cover all uses for the template. If an editor uses the template with the intention of citing Allmovies as a source then that information should be retained. I think that if a reference is used in the creation an article then there is an obligation to cite that source unless another is cited that provides the same information. To do otherwise it to commit plagiarism. The argument implies that there is no need to cite current sources because at some point, when the article becomes a featured article, citations will be provided. If this seems convoluted so is the argument to delete. Don't forget there is not always a clear line between a general reference and an external link especially for the inexperienced. –droll [chat] 04:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template should never be used for citing a source, and Allmovies is rarely a good source for anything. And no, lists of credits are not copyrighted nor should anyone be copy/pasting anything from Allmovies or any other website. Nothing Allmovies provides is anything not available from the actual film itself. And any editor that knows enough to use this template should know enough to do at least a bare reference. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then by your own argument there should be a citation template for Allmovies? –droll [chat] 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this and clicked through random samples to see if the template was used in any place other than the "External links" section. I did not see any such usage; instances may be in the minority. I don't think that kind of template works well for referencing; {{cite web}} template would be better. It would be nice to find a way to catch which instances are being used as a reference and not as an external link. Maybe seek out the templates in "External links" sections only and convert the other instances? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a line of thinking among Deletionists that if a subject is "notable" (in their biased/OR definition of "notable), then original research at the article is not only acceptable, it is required. This, of course, is total bullshit, and just shows the shoddiness and self-importance of Deletionist-thinking. Copying credits off a film, rather than sourcing them to an authority is just as much original research as writing/evaluating a plot synopsis based on your own viewing, rather than from a film scholar or critic. This is something the Deletionists cannot seem to grasp: We are editors here, not authorities. This kind of pseudo-authority which the anti-content, anti-sourcing, pro-original research people propose here is totally opposite to some of the best ideas upon Wikipedia was founded. God save the project from self-important jackasses... Dekkappai (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - If Allmovie doesn't deserve a template, then neither does IMDb. If anything, Allmovie is, in many ways, a far better site than IMDb.--66.177.73.91 (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A somewhat incoherent nomination, and thus difficult to address. Lack of substance sounds like an aesthetic, has been asserted but not shown, and while it can be asserted that it is preferable to have a single source for each desired type of information, I cannot see that ever being proven; it certainly has not been shown here. The preference for a single source is an aesthetic relying on another aesthetic, and an assumption to boot, that Allmovie is the inferior source of its information type, rather than the other examples.

At the risk of scuppering many arguments that might be relying upon "keep it, because it is better than IMdB":

It cannot be said often enough, until the misinformation is considerably decreased, that IMdB is not user-edited. User submissions are sent to IMdB. IMdB reviews them, and considers whether to add them or not.

I do wonder whether this erroneous view of IMdB can ever be enlightened; look at User:Varlaam's comment at the top, explaining in detail the IMdB system, all ignored by the following editor's assessment, "completely user-submitted".

Concur with the many stating: would remove IMdB before this, only it would be Rotten Tomatoes before IMdB before this. RT's system is inherently flawed by the fact that they are attempting a statistically-based analysis of aesthetic-based reviews. Assuming that was okay, RT cheats. Cherry picking is insufficient to describe the overwhelming preponderance of percentage values corresponding to 'good' (89%), 'bad' (20-30%), and the very rare 'somewhere in between' (49-59%) three-star system posing as a percentage system. Try and find a percentage rating in the 60-69% range on RT. RT also contains numerous errors, in which RT lists reviews of other movies with the same name, such as the listing for this one for the The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, in which a review of The Messenger (2009 film) is the very first review listed. Broken links are the rule, rather than the exception...Rotten Tomatoes is extremely overrated. Anarchangel (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are external links that provide access to many more reviews than a Featured Article could sample. If there is an issue with referencing RT as a reliable source, that could be discussed elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all reasons given above. There is a question if IMdB is better or not: IMdB is not a trusted site, it's users' based ant not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should consider to delete IMdB entries as well. I was thinking to bring this in a centralised discussion. Here the discussion will be lost. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The votes to delete this template focus on AMG's use as an external link, which is red herring in a discussion over whether to delete a template. Templates are used as an easy and consistent way to cite a source. Whether it is used inline, in a bibliography or in the External links section is irrelevant. Delete the template, and AMG can still be cited in all the usual places, just without the convenience and standardization that a template provides. The real intent here seems to be to ban the use of AMG in favor of Original Research (plot descriptions), and reliance on Primary Sourcing (cast listings copied off film credits). This is, of course, against Wikipedia's policies on Original Research and Verifiability, and for several good reasons. Original Research plot descriptions are magnets for personal interpretation and extremely difficult to detect vandalism/misinformation. Citations to a Reliable Source plot description, such as AMG is the proper way to prevent this kind of Original Research. Dekkappai (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Amg movie}} template is an external link template. The documentation has reflected this forever. To properly reference AllMovie in the article body, different methods at WP:CITE, such as the {{cite web}} template, can be used. There is a world of difference between a link being in the "References" section and the "External links" section; a link in the latter section means it has not been used in the article. Also, plot descriptions are not original research; WP:PSTS clearly says, "Primary sources that have been reliably published... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.... For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Plot descriptions, as long as they avoid interpretations, are not original research. The argument for vandalism and misinformation is irrelevant; anyone can change information even in a sourced statement. The key is to check the information against the source, which in the case of films' plot summaries are the films themselves. In addition, what is the problem with listing cast members? It is not a problem to identify the actors and roles using credits from the primary sources, the films, though any additional context should come from secondary sources. There is no original research issue involved here; the only issue is the template that goes against Wikipedia's policy of not being a repository of links. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again we see arguments against AMG, not against the template. And if the law says plot description based on the personal observations/research of editors-- rather than by film scholars-- is acceptable, then the law is a ass. I wonder who wrote that law? Authorities or editors? Dekkappai (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template solicits AllMovie, which does not qualify as an external link. Why make such a distinction? They are intertwined. As for plot descriptions, sounds like a good discussion to have at WT:OR. Let me know if you start one. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has to seek out the template to add AMG. The template does not solicit itself nor AMG. The removal of the template does nothing to prevent AMG's addition anywhere within an article. Again, the arguments are against AMG. Neither you nor anyone else here has given a reason to delete the template, only reasons that you personally oppose the use of AMG. Dekkappai (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the AMG does not qualify as an external link, why use the template? I outlined the reasons, none of them personal, why it does not qualify as an external link, and by extension, the template should be deleted. Deleting the template betters Wikipedia by making it less of a repository of links, especially unqualified ones. That's the purpose of the TfD. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of your argument seems to be that AMG can only be used in a formal External links section, and that this template can only be used there. Nonsense, of course. Literalistic, circular arguments like this are the reason editors who write articles rarely visit the rules discussion pages. And this is why the rules are written by literalistic, circular editors, to the harm of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia succeeds in any area, it is always in spite of thinking like this. Good day. Dekkappai (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMG is not appropriate for an External links section; I'm not sure what you mean by formal. The template is an external link template; it is not how editors would reference AMG if they cite it inline. Are you suggesting that writing <ref>{{Amg movie|356351|Quantum of Solace}}</ref> is appropriate? New editors don't always write out references perfectly, but this template standardizes constriction on information that can be added. It's better to write <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.allmovie.com/work/356351 | title=Quantum of Solace > Overview | work=[[Allmovie]] | publisher=[[Macrovision Corporation]] | accessdate=September 8, 2009 }}</ref> This template was never intended for referencing, and we should not pretend it can suddenly assume that role. We should consider ways to encourage AllMovie as a usable reference rather than slap it on as an external link via template. Another editor had an idea to copy the URLs to the film articles' talk pages, which I would support. Any approach like that that we could use to assuage the template's deletion? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have the idea, I just pointed out that this is a standard part of our best practices for building an encyclopedia (to move content that you're unsure about to the talkpage, instead of just deleting it). It's not just a good idea, it's one of the ways things ought to be done.
Out of 10 FA film articles I randomly checked, all 10 used the template.
Even if it weren't prolific in our high-quality articles, if it contains info that helps build a stub up to FA quality, then it should be left in the article until it is no longer useful; not deleted now because it won't be useful in the future. (I think that is part of what Dekkappai is trying to explain)
This template is recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. I'd suggest asking for further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, if the above doesn't convince you. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2009 (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:FilmUkraine 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 discussion was withdrawn by nominator Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template shorcut. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more such templates at Category:Cinema of templates. The templates seem prolific, so perhaps there is a primary contributor or several to inquire about their purpose. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the overall Category:Cinema of templates. These have been created to link directly to the cinema of country and to remove flag icons in the infobox, per the manual of style. Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This in infitting with the series of template to link to cinema articles. Himalayan 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I didn't know of the existence of this serie of templates. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:26, 2 September 2009 (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:Deletion policy list 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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletion policy list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not in use on any page, so I merged it with Template:Deletiondebates. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to the merged template; not used.--Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to be precise, this template is used on a handful of user pages, which could be a significant type of use for a template with this content. However, there are very few using it, so I'm basically indifferent as to whether this stays or goes. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I changed the templates on all 5 of the Userpages and 1 Wikipedia page to Template:Deletiondebates. This was insignificant usage though. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Skier Dude (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2009 (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:Gallery2 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 discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gallery2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I wonder if we still need this template. The talk page says: "Intended to be a supplement to the original gallery template. gallery2 accepts an optional size parameter for the thumbnails" but {{gallery}} supports such size calls as well now. This template is also used on only 4 pages. I think it has served it's purpose and is no longer needed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems completely redundant now. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Switch it out with the other template on the few pages that use it, and it can retire having served its purpose. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gallery w/width works just as well (working on the 4 uses of this one now). Skier Dude (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2009 (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:Citations missing 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 discussion was no consensus to delete, but could possibly be merged or redirected or deprecated/marked as historic. That discussion may, and perhaps should, continue at Template talk:citations missing or Template talk:unreferenced. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations missing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{unreferenced}}, should just redirect there. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. {{Citations missing}} and {{Unreferenced}} are similar, but not redundant. "Unreferenced" is used specifically when there are no sources in the article. "Citations missing" is more general and can be used if there are sparse or inadequate sources. Citations missing is actually more similar to {{Refimprove}}, except that it allows for an additional argument to describe in more detail what needs to be improved. Perhaps some consolidation is in order, but I think it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles before any specific proposals are made here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Documentation describes this template as "vague and ambiguous" and suggests using another alternative, which says it all. Redundant to either {{Unreferenced}}, {{Refimprove}}, {{No footnotes}} or {{More footnotes}} depending on the situation. PC78 (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I use it often and find it useful as an alternate to {{nofootnotes}} in those situations where {{unreferenced}} isn't quite accurate and {{nofootnotes}} is a bit overkill, like if there is one or two general references but no inline cites. Or for those older, well-written articles without inline citations that could do with a less visible tag (because of its smaller size and terseness) to just nudge an editor into providing some inline cites but not distract from the content. I would place it somewhere midway between {{unreferenced}} and {{nofootnotes}}. It's been in use for a long time now and its placement is deliberate in many articles. -- œ^™ 00:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see the distinction you're making. "Smaller size and terseness"? Really? An article with general references but no citations should be tagged with {{no footnotes}}, plain and simple. The wording of {{citations missing}} is far to wishy-washy, IMHO. PC78 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I can't see how you think it's "wishy-washy". The wording is concise, succinct and to the point. I suppose the distinction I was trying to make was that it's stylistically not as much of an eyesore as nofootnotes; a two-line tag vs a three-line tag makes a noticeable difference in my eyes. <shrug> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. -- œ^™ 05:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But then, can't we just change nofootnotes to say something like "Please help improve the referencing of this section by adding precise, inline citations where appropriate?" ViperSnake151 Talk 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well we could, but then we won't have the mention of specifically "a list of references, related reading or external links", which is normally when I use the nofootnotes template.. when there is a further reading and/or external links section that could also potentially be used for referencing. -- œ ^™ 03:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The description is too vague and as said above redundant with other missing ref templates. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what would deleting it accomplish? A huge sea of red links in the thousands of articles that use this template. Read carefully the nom, he proposes to redirect not delete. And if it is to be redirected it should be to the more accurate {{nofootnotes}}, rather than {{unreferenced}}. But if it ain't broke why fix it? This template has been in use for years and it's nice to have alternatives. -- œ ^™ 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, something was wrong with my mind. But I would prefer it to be redirected to {{Refimprove}} instead of {{Unreferenced}}. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{nofootnotes}} is a much more accurate target if it must be redirected. Read about the differences between the templates. -- œ ^™ 02:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But an article may miss EL (or something else) but having enough footnotes, there you can't put the {{nofootnotes}} notice, I still tink that {{Refimprove}} is a better target for redirecting. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Mark as historical, and replace with other templates on a case-by-case basis. We can't mass-replace this template with another one, because it's used for several different purposes - sometimes as a substitute for {{Unreferenced}}, sometimes for {{Refimprove}}, and sometimes for {{Nofootnotes}}. That ambiguity - the fact that it's redundant to newer, more precise templates - is why it's time we got rid of it. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have marginal preference to keeping this, however less is more in terms of the hundreds of maint templates and thousands of redirects. I am just wary that if we delete someting for which there is a need (even of there ought not be one) it will get replaced. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question Is this nomination valid when the template page is not tageed to inform about this discussion? Debresser (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template differs from {{Unreferenced}} in that it sorts into Category:Articles with unsourced statements, while {{Unreferenced}} sorts into Category:Articles needing additional references or Category:Articles lacking sources. The difference being that this template is used when only a few statements or paragraphs in an article are lacking sources, as opposed to all statements in a section or article for {{Unreferenced}}. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (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:Playstation.com 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 discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playstation.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xbox.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this discussion, these templates fail WP:EL in that they don't provide sufficient information to warrant including the link in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the nature of the prior discussion here, these templates are being relisted separately from the others. Please voice (or revoice) your opinion regarding these particular templates here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have a problem with these, a link to the official site of the game system seems reasonable and the information presented on the site may be sufficient for some but not for others, it falls on the reader to decide. -- œ ^™ 01:21, 4 September 2009 (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:Xbox achievements edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xbox achievements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this discussion, these templates fail WP:EL in that they don't provide sufficient information to warrant including the link in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the nature of the prior discussion here, these templates are being relisted separately from the others. Please voice (or revoice) your opinion regarding this particular template here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Requires registration. External links requiring registration are specifically discouraged by WP:EL, and I don't know of any exception (such as being an official site) that would apply for this site. --RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RL0919 above. Robofish (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (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:Ttg 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per this discussion, these templates fail WP:EL in that they don't provide sufficient information to warrant including the link in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the nature of the prior discussion here, these templates are being relisted separately from the others. Please voice (or revoice) your opinion regarding this particular template here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything particularly special about this website that means we should have a template for it. This one's only used on one article anyway. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (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.

MLS Cup templates 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLS Cup 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2002 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLS Cup 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to a discussion at WikiProject Football these templates should be deleted. Black 'n Red 18:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Oh brother, here I go again defending another article/template I made from being deleted, I spent a lot time and hard work to make these you know, but their probably going to be deleted anyway because I'm never successful at saving a page I made from being deleted. But that's not the case right now, the case is why/why not they should be deleted. Anyway, my vote is to Keep. Not because of what I said above, but MLS is a NORTH AMERICAN league. And if you look at what other North American sports leagues are doing, they all have templates for championship teams. For example: CFL: Template:96th Grey Cup, NFL: Template:Super Bowl XLIII, MLB: Template:2008 Philadelphia Phillies, NBA: Template:Los Angeles Lakers 2008–09 NBA champions. But if the majority wishes for the MLS Cup templates to be deleated, than do what you believe is the right thing to do. This isn't the first time this has happened to me btw. Jimbö^V1 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. please don't think I'm a jerk by what I said in my opening sentence; "oh brother, here I go again...". I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything else like that. It just gets annoying when things like this happen to me a lot. Jimbö^V1 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not a sports editor, so I don't know if my opinion counts...but I am a fan and I have used these templates. I find them the best way to navigate between players with a common background year and team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabiona (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not a huge fan of these templates as they do tend to clutter pages. However, I vote to keep as I do see their usefulness in navigating between members of teams. Plus, if you delete these templates, then all templates of this sort should be deleted and I don't see that being useful. Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to navigate and if you were interested in say the 2000 MLS champs and wanted to see where are they now, these templates are the easiest way to do so. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely agree with the opinions of Shootmaster. Although they can cause clutter at the bottom of the page, they are also useful in finding related players, coaches, etc. from a championship team. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Stanley Cup and the NBA Playoffs, winning the MLS Cup is not the pinnacle of worldwide achievement in soccer, so I see no reason why MLS Cup-winning squads should have their own navboxes. At a push, I could see a reason to have them for the winners of the FIFA Club World Cup or the UEFA Champions League, but I doubt that many at WP:FOOTY would agree with me. – Pee Jay 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per PeeJay. It is a well established consensus at WP:FOOTY that squad templates should be restricted to World Cup, Continetnal tournamnets, Olympic squads (at international level) and at club level only current squad templates. These navboxes would create a huge amount of clutter at the bottom of the most successful (therefore the most viewed and most important) biographies. A few examples of articles that could suffer are Ryan Giggs (part of 29 championship winning teams) Paolo Maldini (23), Phil Neal (23), Phil Thompson (21) etc. Another reason is that templates should not be used as an alternative to text. If it is considered important to list the squad details for MLS Cup 2000 for example, surely the place to do it would be on the MLS Cup 2000 article (which currently does not), then linked to in prose from the player article, then anyone interested in the roster could easily navigate to the appropriate place to find the content rather us cluttering up a load of biographies with excessive amounts of templates. King of the North East 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JimboV1. The other North American major sports have similar templates, and while I am aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, these templates have never (to my knowledge) been brought up for deletion. Basically, these templates are wonderful for navigation, as others have mentioned, and as far as I'm concerned, it's no different than #1 songs having navigation boxes at the bottom. The reason for those is so it's easy to see that it was a #1 song. Well, one of the reasons for these templates is so you can see right away that he was an MLS champion. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you, JimboV1, Shootmaster 44 and JohnnyPolo24 are missing is that the MLS is not the pinnacle of worldwide club soccer, unlike the Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA Playoffs and the Stanley Cup, and so is not deserving of such navboxes. – PeeJay 23:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how that matters any. Yes, it is true that MLS is incredibly low on the tier system of professional soccer leagues, but MLS is the highest level of soccer in the United States (and Canada). It's not fair to dismiss the MLS because it isn't of the qualify of the Premier League. For one thing, the highest level of English football (the Premier League under a different name) was founded in 1892, while MLS was founded in 1996. So that could be a reason it's not of the same "glory". But mostly, MLS, while not one of the four major team sports in the United States, is still the highest tier in America. It doesn't need to be compared to European football. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody is dismissing it because it's not of the "quality" the Premier League is. --Jimbo^[online] 09:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed! No one is even suggesting that the Premier League is the highest level of football (but thanks for the thought ;-) ). On a global scale, the FIFA Club World Cup is technically the highest level of club football, so much so that it actually takes two years just to qualify for it! – Pee Jay 12:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive use of templates for a relativly minor national level tournament. --Jimbo^[online] 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Everyone reads an article differently. For example, I would prefer a list of honors and wikilinks to the teams' seasons articles at Sigi Schmid instead of the template. These templates run the risk of being an extra trophy section at the base of articles but I'm not going to discount how anyone else navigates between pages.

The deciding factor for me is the additional competitions an individual MLS team, player, or coach could potentially win. The supporter based "cups", regular season supporter's shield, open cup, MLS cup, a couple levels of regional based international competition, and maybe even (don't laugh) the FIFA Club World Cup templates could easily not be maintained and clutter articles.

This also has the added concern of setting a precedent or confusion for non US teams if a player has the MLS Cup template but not the FA Cup template. Peyton Manning will not finish his career overseas but who knows where Fredrik Ljungberg will finish his.Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clutter that isn't needed. As KOTNE rightly says, such templates will build up and build up on the articles of super-successful players - they are basically an eyesore! Giant Snowman 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PeeJay and KOTNE, and as said above they only clutter the screen. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JimboV1. – DakPow e rs (Talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, I don't know whether to say "Keep per Jimbo" or "Delete per Jimbo". If WP:FOOTY has established that they're probably not a good idea, I'm tempted to agree that they're overkill Weak delete. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These types of templates are nothing but clutter. Teammates in any random season, even a championship one, are not defining of a player. Reso lute 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this concept is fair enough in the major American sports, where winning the championship is coterminus with being "world champion", but this does not apply to the MLS. If this principle applied to Scottish football, there would be many players with literally dozens of templates and clubs with hundreds (Rangers F.C. have won 110 major trophies). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Locos, PeeJay, Jmorrison, Resolute, ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:16, 10 September 2009 (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.

Non-free state government license/source tags 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 discussion was Delete all. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free USStateGov-AK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-AL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-AR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-AZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-CA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-CO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-CT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-DE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-FL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-GA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-HI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-NJ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-NY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free USStateGov-OH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Varios non-free licene and/or source tags (it's not entierly clear, they are generaly used as stand alone license tags, but most of them say that an extra non-free license tag is needed in addition). As a license tag they are not nessesary, they do not explain or document a free license, having dozens of different tags that just say the image is non-free is not helpfull. The more non-free license tags we have the harder it is to ensure universal machine readability as required by the non-free policy. None of the images tagged with just one the the above templates would have been added to Category:All non-free media for example (I fixed that while nominating, but it illustrates the point I think). As a source tag they also fail, they only state that the image is the work of an employeed of the state goverment, this is not spesific enough to be usefull so uploaders still need to specify exactly where it came from, but often fail to do so because they assume a tag like this is sufficient source. Finaly most of these are only only one or two and at most a handfull of images each, making them rater pointles anyway. --Sherool (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just recalled a recent debate about Florida works, Template:Non-free USStateGov-FL might not actualy be accurate. Images using that tag should probably be re-tagged using {{PD-FLGov}} instead assuming they don't fall into any of the exception categories noted on that template. --Sherool (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - All of them categorizes the same and seems redundant but perhaps they fulfill an attribution requirement or something... Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could merge these templates into one template, perhaps Template:Non-free USStateGov, and have it accept a flag, for example "CT" which then adds the state seal and the words "State of Connecticut" to the presentation of the template. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I boldly merged them as suggested by Hammersoft. If they are still unnecessary/inappropriate, then please feel free to nominate that template for deletion. As a result, the individual templates now have no transclusions. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Plastikspork! Some documentation added to the template's page would be nice. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now with basic documentation. I didn't want to get too carried away if it was just going to get deleted later. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be really nice is if transclusions using "FL" (for example) noted that the template is being used improperly, since some states (FL in this example) have public domain clauses on such works. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, right now there is no checking to see if the license actually matches with the state's policies. I was hoping to get some experts on the subject to chime in here. I left notices at least three different high traffic areas, but so far not much luck. It would be easy to have it throw an error if someone tries to use it for a state which has only public domain material. One would just need a list of such states. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida is one. I think California is another, but not sure. Massachusetts is one as well (recent debate about a mugshot confirmed that). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida is "public domain unless the legislature has said otherwise". California is "some images are public domain, some aren't, it's impossible to make blanket statements". --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2009 (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.