Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 4
March 4 edit
Template:WikiProject Artix Entertainment 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 Deleted per G8. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC) WikiProject Artix Entertainment has been deleted, so there's really no need for this WikiProject banner any more. Reach Out to the Truth 20:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I deleted it and two redirects pointing to it. No pages were put in this project with the template or its redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Flixster 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) 03:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Flixster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Flixster uses the same reviews as Rotten Tomatoes (they now own RT). Using this in external links when a RT template are being used across film articles is unnecessary and pointless. Further, I'm afraid that this site is being spammed by this user. —Mike Allen 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was kind of wondering about that when I saw flixster links starting to go up. I don't really use either of their sites often but in looking at them quickly now, I can't say that I see much that one has but the other doesn't. I don't see any reason to keep the template given that the links to RT for reviews contain all of the same info (local show times etc.). Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete because it does not supplement a film article well. Rotten Tomatoes provides access to more reviews than can be sampled in the article body. However, Flixster seems more user-oriented, and I don't find it appropriate for Wikipedia for that reason. Erik (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete excessive and unnecessary. As already noted, fairly redundant to RT just with less content and usefulness. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep because it's relevant. Actually look at the movie page instead of glancing at the top and jumping to conclusions. Take Alice in Wonderland for example. Right now Alice in Wonderland has 5 external links, all with basically the same information. Why do they add? Not much. Looking at Flixster(http://www.flixster.com/movie/alice-in-wonderland-2010) they have summaries/cast (which all other links basically share) along with RT and user reviews , trailers, photos, videos, and news. It is a much richer resource for users. Please put your biases behind you. It's not only RT reviews, it's much more. Plus this template itself doesn't meet any of the actual reasons for deletion. -- Arturnt (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Alice has all those links because YOU added them. And it is not a "richer" resource than the others. It does not have the history nor consensus for use. And yes, the template does meet reasons for deletion. It has no support by the film project, and the link itself has no consensus nor support thus far for its being included on most articles. Without such support, this template is inappropriate and should be deleted. And quite honestly, anyone would be suspicious of a brand new user whose only edits were to make this template then dump it on a bunch of articles. The only uses for this template are the ones you yourself implemented. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't add those other links.. I just added 1(go check the log). If you want I can add all the movie links to each relevant movie page. Moreover:
- Your argument is ad hominem: just because i'm a new user my edits are not relevant? You were a new user at some point, no? I'm obviously taking my time to defend my edits on here. I'm not spamming and running away. More than anything making the commentary that you should be including Flixster links on your articles because they are relevant and a rich resource(you don't have an argument against this fact).
- So it's only a rich resource not by it's intrinsic value, but by your subjective decision? Doesn't that go against the values of Wikipedia?
- I didn't dump it on a bunch of articles. I just put it on a few, and only because I think it's relevant.
- Arturnt (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, all of those links should NOT be added to every article. Take some time to read WP:EL and WP:MOSFILM. And yes, I was new, and I didn't start out by making a template and immediately implementing it to promote a website. Just because you are still here does not mean the links are relevant. Again, you are the only one who feels Flixster providers a "relevant and rich" resource. There are MANY film websites out there. FYI, we do not automatically link to Yahoo! Movies either which is no different from Flixster. Again, what does this site provider BEYOND the already consensus accepted links? Nothing. RT is focused on the film, while Flixster is clearly a community/social site. Of the two, RT is clearly the better for an encyclopedia to use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know that you don't want all of those links(it was a thought experiment). I'm just wondering why are they there then? I'm making a point: what makes Flixster worthy of deletion amonst all those other lesser templates? Was also surprised that you accused me of putting them there. I don't think that all user patterns should be the same. Each person is going to edit articles differently. One is no better than another. So the comparison between how you edit and I is not fair. I think there is a lack of education and fear of the unknown. While Flixster is community oriented, a lot of the content is referential mixed-media. By the comments in this thread, no one really even looked at the entire linked site(just the top), so I feel no one is judging the link by it's intrinsic referential film value it ads to the film article. Arturnt (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please refer to the more general guidelines here: WP:ELYES#What_to_link. These meet the criteria in this section and do not meet the criteria for links to be avoided. Arturnt (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is not that the site itself is not "welcomed" on Wikipedia. The point of this discussion is to determine if the template is needed or not. EL already include IMDb, AllMovie, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and sometimes a Wikia. Flixster doesn't offer anything new over those sites, and it even has its own Wiki part. Your intent may not be to promote the site that you review on, but you signed up to create the template and all your edits that followed were adding it to EL. Red flag. —Mike Allen 05:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know that you don't want all of those links(it was a thought experiment). I'm just wondering why are they there then? I'm making a point: what makes Flixster worthy of deletion amonst all those other lesser templates? Was also surprised that you accused me of putting them there. I don't think that all user patterns should be the same. Each person is going to edit articles differently. One is no better than another. So the comparison between how you edit and I is not fair. I think there is a lack of education and fear of the unknown. While Flixster is community oriented, a lot of the content is referential mixed-media. By the comments in this thread, no one really even looked at the entire linked site(just the top), so I feel no one is judging the link by it's intrinsic referential film value it ads to the film article. Arturnt (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, all of those links should NOT be added to every article. Take some time to read WP:EL and WP:MOSFILM. And yes, I was new, and I didn't start out by making a template and immediately implementing it to promote a website. Just because you are still here does not mean the links are relevant. Again, you are the only one who feels Flixster providers a "relevant and rich" resource. There are MANY film websites out there. FYI, we do not automatically link to Yahoo! Movies either which is no different from Flixster. Again, what does this site provider BEYOND the already consensus accepted links? Nothing. RT is focused on the film, while Flixster is clearly a community/social site. Of the two, RT is clearly the better for an encyclopedia to use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't add those other links.. I just added 1(go check the log). If you want I can add all the movie links to each relevant movie page. Moreover:
- Delete The link doesn't add anything new, information-wise, to articles that links currently supported by WP:FILM do. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: The single useful thing on Flixster is the critics' ratings which are the same as RT, and if you want to read all the reviews, they suggest you go to RT. The rest of it, with all the user ratings and fan rants/shoutouts, feels like a community site. As for the cast/production info, we already have imdb and allmovies. So I don't see much point of keeping it. --Artoasis (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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.