Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9 edit

Template:Welcomeip 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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Welcome-anon. CattleGirl ^talk 07:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE (starts with whining about having no username, then jumps straight to complicated policies, and then finally one link to a tutorial), and redundant to Template:Welcome-anon.. Sala Skan 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Both seem to have a long history and linked from many pages. The wording of Welcomeip may be questionable. But that's not something a merge-redirect can't solve. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no problems with using this template, and the only possibly bad wording I see is in bullet point 4. This can be changed. Just because the wording is not effusive and bubbly does not make it a bad welcome template. Gracenotes^T § 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problems with this. It is not a violation of WP:BITE.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is the advantage of this template to {{Welcome-anon}}? Why not just redirect it? Sala Skan 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are very similar. But the difference between these two templates is as slight as the difference between {{uw-v2}} and {{uw-t2}}. I disagree with your criticisms of the template, but would not cry buckets if it were redirected. Gracenotes^T § 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Welcome-anon}}. I tend to use {{Welcomeip}} when reverting vandalism, because of its harsher language. But I admit that both serve the same purpose, albeit with different language. There is no need for two different templates. The question is which template should survive, and in retrospect, I would prefer {{Welcome-anon}} since it assumes good faith in editing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I don't really care about the wording, but I use the template for welcoming IPs all the time because I can never remember any of the other ones (so at least leave a redirect). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is a bit biteish, and redirects are cheap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Welcome-anon. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to the above Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Welcome-anon}} per nom. I prefer to use {{anon}} because show more benefices to register than other templates. Carlosguitar 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:London stations live 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete. CattleGirl ^talk 07:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusued and superseded by Template:Infobox London station. — Regan123 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is unused and redundant. Pit-yacker 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete housekeeping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish per nom Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 05:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a now outddated template. Acalamari 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should have nominated this myself when I incorporated its functionality into Template:Infobox London station last month, but I forgot. --DavidCane 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Surreal Life series 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was keep. CattleGirl ^talk 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

basically a redundant list of cast members who appeared on the series that is already served by the main page and categories. This template has been copied over to all former cast members, despite the show being limited run and for the most part, a small/lesser-important part of their careers and the template makes it seem that it is the most important project they've ever done. — Biggspowd 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.--James, La gloria è a dio 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove transclusion from actors Precedence: {{Matrix}}. IMHO, I believe the general rule for template like these should follow these rules:

Articles that cannot exist without the series transclude the template (e.g. the movies, the main articles about each series, the characters)
Articles that can exist without the series do not transclude the template (e.g. the actors)

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of templates that follow the exact same template design. -The Real One Returns 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most reality series templates list the participants, and links on the articles of the various cast members. IMO, this is a rather silly reason to delete an otherwise practical templant.NineElevenSevenNine 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like commonly accepted usage for templates of series. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- As has been mentioned above, this template's format is standard. --- Stavdash 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have similar templates to reality shows that are of the same standard as this and this one is of similar format as those. Chris 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to say that I strongly disagree with all the keep votes, and you need to take a deeper look at the template. It's for a cable, limited run television show which is a very small part of all cast members careers. Why should this template be pasted on every cast member who was on a cable TV show for 6 weeks, when they have been known for far more notable things? I can understand a template for the series, but does it need to be pasted on every cast member's page? I think not. Reconsider your votes please. Biggspowd 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what network the series airs on, or if it does only represents a small fraction of the participants careers. The bottom line is that show exists, it's been quite successful, and these celebrities have been cast members. My position to Keep stands, and it was quite petty of you to even nominate this template for deletion in the first place. NineElevenSevenNine 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NineElevenSevenNine was created on June 3, and the only contributions are this TFD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all transclusions on cast articles and keep the series and spinoffs only. The connection between these people is too tiny and specific a part of their career in many cases. The articles are not related to the topic in any significant way; there are mostly trivial mentions of their appearance on the show. How many readers would find it useful to go from someone from Season 1 to someone from Season 6? To browse these articles in a systematic fashion, use The Surreal Life or Category:The Surreal Life (although the latter appears to be overcategorization and should be deleted). –Pomte 07:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is like many others for Reality TV shows on Wikipedia. - Avenger2G 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spoiler-about 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 page.

The result of the debate was Mainspace transclusions merged, talk space transclusions redirected. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Spoiler and functionality should be merged there as well. We don't need all of these variations. --Farix (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be so controversial? Can't you just Prod them and be done and over in five days. Evilclown93 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Templates aren't subject to the Prod process. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, I just feel all these spoiler template debates with ones like these three are more of a waste of time. Evilclown93 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Herostratus 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge extra functionality to Template:Spoiler, then either delete or redirect this one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What extra functionality? An article should ideally only contain spoilers about its own subject. 81.104.175.145 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, that's true, but there may be occasional scenarios where more specificity is desired, and there's no reason the extra function need interfere with normal use.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more specificity is required, then either the article needs work or we fall back to our default position of "there are things in Wikipedia that may eat your babies or cause your head to explode". Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of weak, fragile minds who haven't seen the last week's Battlestar yet. Currently, it is used on 1 article (and lots of userpages, where perhaps it can be subst'd), Silent Hill 2. In this instance, it refers forward to allusions made in Silent Hill 4. This information shouldn't be in the former article in the form it's in now, but it certainly should be in the latter. Of course, there will be people who have played SH4 but not SH2, but that's another matter. 81.104.175.145 16:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and add functionality per my comments at Template talk:Spoiler#Merging spoiler-about. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I originally reviewed the use of {{spoiler-about}}, in every case, it was either redundant to the section heading or {{spoiler}} could have easily been used in its place. I would say that the functionality isn't really needed in the long run. --Farix (Talk) 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Template:Spoiler-about has 3 transcluding pages. Template:Spoiler has 2896. Nothing wrong with adding this optional parameter to Template:Spoiler. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might as well clean up others. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'll have more work templates to sort through. --Farix (Talk) 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge functionality into {{spoiler}} (something made possible by the introduction of conditional syntax). I created this template for situations in which the material being "spoiled" otherwise isn't obvious. For example, an article about an author might "spoil" one of his/her works. As another example, this tag replaced one called {{whedon-spoiler}} (which warned that an article contained "plot details or endings of some or all of the Whedonverse productions Buffy, Angel, Fray, etc.").
FYI, this template was used in numerous articles, so I suspect that someone went around orphaning it as part of the controversial spoiler warning purge. Ah, it appears that TheFarix did that earlier in the week. It would have been nice if he/she had mentioned this in the nomination.
Here is a link to the deletion debate from June 2005. —David Levy 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the use of {{spoiler-about}} on the Buffy articles was just ridicules boiler plating. In every case, the template was redundant, but {{spoiler}} would have worked just as well in those articles. --Farix (Talk) 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, other editors disagreed, so this is a matter that might warrant further discussion. (I'm not a fan of these programs, and I have no personal opinion.) My point is that the tag was used in many articles (some since 2005) until you virtually orphaned it less than a week ago. You then nominated it for deletion without disclosing this fact (thereby creating the appearance that the template had gone almost unused for the past two years). —David Levy 01:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with added functionality, which should be used very seldom (only if there's something really surprising from another work). Gracenotes^T § 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with {{spoiler}}. The "functionality" this template provides is not in any way necessary. 81.104.175.145 00:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{spoiler}}, the functionality must exist but it can be solved with conditional statements. Hymyly^T@C 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spoiler-other 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete as redundant. CattleGirl ^talk 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Template:Spoiler. We don't need all of these variations. --Farix (Talk) 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be so controversial? Can't you just Prod them and be done and over in five days. Evilclown93 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Templates aren't subject to the Prod process. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, I just feel all these spoiler template debates with ones like these three are more of a waste of time. Evilclown93 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Herostratus 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much text replacement. -- Ned Scott 19:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, unused by main space. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this template, but it ended up going largely unused (in favor of the more versatile {{spoiler-about}}). —David Levy 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original comments and nom. Evilclown93 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom is exactly right. We only need one spoiler temp. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another spoiler template that's un-necessary. --Haemo 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed. Acalamari 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spoiler-ending 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete as redundant and no longer needed. CattleGirl ^talk 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Template:Spoiler. We don't need all of these variations. --Farix (Talk) 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be so controversial? Can't you just Prod them and be done and over in five days. Evilclown93 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Templates aren't subject to the Prod process. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, I just feel all these spoiler template debates with ones like these three are more of a waste of time. Evilclown93 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Herostratus 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. redundant and apparently unused. -- Ned Scott 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and unused by main space. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original comments and nom. Evilclown93 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no longer needed. Acalamari 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Derby 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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect, only one transclusion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly-meaningless collection of links, which includes a couple of villages, one or two suburbs, and some London links. 81.104.175.145 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Suburbs of Derby. I have tidied it up a bit but there appears to be a lot of duplication with the suburbs of Derby template. Pit-yacker 17:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Regan123 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Template:Suburbs of Derby per above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Template:Derby to Template:Suburbs of Derby as redundant. The latter has a more conforming style. –Pomte 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Settlements on the A38 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete all as indiscriminate templates. CattleGirl ^talk 07:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat indiscriminate collection, not well-defined, doesn't suggest whether it deals with settlements directly on the road, settlements near the road, settlements bypassed by the road, etc. Generally, not a useful unifying characteristic for a navbox. — 81.104.175.145 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the same reasons, but also redundancy:

Delete all as random collection of information. Regan123 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from article then delete indiscriminate collection of information. Imagine what would London or New York City have if we allow a template for each highway/expressway.

In addition, I would vote for deleting all that start with "Settlements on":

Template:Settlements on the River Stour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Settlements on the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Settlements on the Staffordshore and Worcestershire Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per nomination. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable type of template. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Yearcat1 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete. CattleGirl ^talk 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Was one use. Replaced by {{Decade category header}} — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This TFD is related to the one below. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated. –Pomte 07:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Category1900sheader 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete all as all are replaced by a single template. CattleGirl ^talk 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally per nom. I also replaced all instances of the templates in question with the generic one. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This TFD is related to the one above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with replacement, a.k.a. delete. Delete speedily if possible (WP:CSD#G6) Gracenotes^T § 04:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated. ~~I figured there was already a template for this considering all the works-by-year decade templates.~~ –Pomte 07:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:United States Squad 1992 Summer Olympics 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all three. Daniel 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant consensus against all national squad templates except for World Cups. Neier 07:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Also adding:[reply]

Delete all - Some other recent TFD results can be seen at this page - Neier 07:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Will these things never go away! Daemonic Kangaroo 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from articles then delete I happen to agree with the consensus and the precedence. A player often participate multiple games. If we were to have a template for each game x country pair, we would have thousands of templates with much overlaps. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChoChoPK. This type of template is unmaintainable. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — consenses from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is clear that only World Cup squads should be used in these style of templates, but no other tournaments. Andrwsc 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the Wikiproject would know best, and their logic is compelling. --Haemo 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Amazon.com item 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (G7 - Author Request). I brought this template into this world, and I can take it out. :) Considering the fact that community consensus confirms my own doubts about it, I'll just go ahead and delete it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds a link to the page at amazon.com where an item can be purchased. Per WP's policy on links normally to be avoided links to sites which primarily exist to sell products or services are disfavored. Amazon.com is not a reliable source, and people are generally aware of it, so there's no need to link it from articles. Additionally, this template is only used in 9 articles despite being 9 months old, indicating that it would not be missed if it were deleted.-— Butseriouslyfolks 06:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is also spamming products which is a violation of WP:SPAM. I also agree that it certainly wouldn't be missed! Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Isn't Wikipedia:ISBN good enough? Neier 08:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from articles then delete Wikipedia:ISBN is enough. And if you really want, you can follow the google link there, which can lead you to multiple online bookstores. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and WP:SPAMy. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh Can't say as I'm surprised about this... I only created it due to a request for it, but even then, I had some doubts... [1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge all instances - definitely spammy in nature, not useful as a template. EVula, I understand, don't worry about it. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and purge, basically spam. Enhancing one's purchasing experience is not what we are about. Herostratus 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox London 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Was one use. Properly replaced. Possibly turning into a redirect due to a large number of links into it. (user talk pages mostly) ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ¿Weak? keep - While it is a one use template, it also keeps a massive amount of code from the wikitext of a high-profile page when used. As such, it's probably useful. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 06:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time I checked, "hides ugly code" was not a valid reason for single-use templates. 81.104.175.145 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that sections of an article are often spun off into their own articles to keep the article size down, in this case it could be considered a valid rationale. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This deletion will not change how the London article is viewed. Just where the parameter names are. It is better to actually have the parameter field names (which are not really code; the code is at {{Infobox Settlement}}) inside of the article itself. It is easier for an novice editor to edit to that way. —MJCdetroit 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a job for the table namespace. -- Ned Scott 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote that specification with templates more complex than this in mind. But the table namespace does not technically exist; if code needs to be simplified, just remove the blank parameters, and delete. Gracenotes^T § 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The infobox is part of that article - no need to fork efforts and discussion. –Pomte 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Moby developer 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Raul654 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Templates used for the sole purposes of systematic COI spamming. See WT:WPSPAM#mobygames.com and WP:COIN#MobyGames/ Flipkin for more discussion, which explains it better than I can. The latter has had a prior TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Template:Moby game. WP:CVG's endorsement of this template does not override WP:EL and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. MER-C 06:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - MobyGames is similar to IMDb for the games industry, and contains information that wouldn't be included in a FA-class article - developer names and so forth. I don't see how it's any less reliable than Wikipedia, or is any less of a profit engine than IMDb. For what it's worth, I've used MobyGames far longer than I've used Wikipedia. --Colage 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a soapbox.--James, La gloria è a dio 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as to game, Delete as to developer. As to both, mobygames.com is a wiki-type site, so it fails WP:RS. I'm sure people looking for games or game developers will stumble across mobygames through google, so there's no need to link articles here to their counterparts on mobygames. I am particularly troubled by the game links, as they not only direct users to ad-laden pages, but they also have links to purchase the items. While mobygame users may not consider the site one that "primarily exist to sell products or services", I bet its owner does, and I would think there's a huge amount of revenue going into his pocket generated by these spammy links. So these links fit criteria #4 in the list of links normally to be avoided. The fact that the owner of the mobygames site is involved in propagating the template is just icing on the cake. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is irrelevant whether one is making money through MobyGames. What matters is that the site might be useful for our purposes. Wikipedia itself is also used to generate revenue by some third parties, as we all know. We will have to tolerate such things. Instead, we should be worrying about writing a complete and comprehensive encyclopedia; the question should be: is this template useful to us? —msikma (user, talk) 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather is the extra work cleaning up convenience spam caused by the template more or less than the work the template causes? --BozMo talk 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually very relevant whether one is making money through the link, because WP:EL instructs us to avoid links to primarily commercial websites. If you think WP:EL should be changed, this is not the proper for that discussion. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." is what MobyGames is? Please don't twist the words of WP:EL. MobyGames is a project that intends to provide documentation and information about games. It is in no way a site that primarily exists for purposes of selling materials or services; sites like eBay or Shopping.com are. By what you're saying, we should also not link to sites like Google, as apparently having anything to do with commercialism at all is grounds for being avoided under the terms of WP:EL, which is just nonsense. —msikma (user, talk) 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Although some links to MobyGames are ok, these templates have been used to spam thousands of WP pages by a few individuals including with strong COI. Deleting these templates and allowing existing edits to link where appropriate is the best way forward for everyone. --BozMo talk 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's not used solely for CoI spam. Excuse me, I don't quite follow. The links to MobyGames are okay but a convenience template isn't? How exactly, then, will deleting a template help get rid of the spam? How exactly does it not inconvenience people who use the template legitimately? I feel this is a wrong solution to a problem that could only be solved by adding a new checkbox to the edit form that says "I solemnly swear these external links don't violate CoI and are absolutely not spam" Get mobygames.com to the spam blacklist first, then we can discuss deleting this template. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these templates definitely lights up WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. They need to be deleted. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These URLs are rather redundant as the content (platform, release info etc.) within these links is readily available from our video game infobox (see {{Infobox VG}}). Combination 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very useful/informative site, due to relational database backend, and extensive references and screenshots for most games (see http://www.mobygames.com/game/doom/ vs Doom). Template/site is equivalent to {{imdb}} or {{amg}} or {{KLOV game}}. Deleting all uses seems to be incredibly muddleheaded, and the members of WP:WPSPAM (who initially suggested this nom) didn't bring the issue up with WP:VG first as they probably should. Barely any advertising on the site, so even the CoI issue is small: interlinking of sites for the purposes of sharing useful information is why we have external links. --Quiddity 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not familiar with KLOV, but neither imdb.com nor allmusic.com are wikis. Allmusic in particular retains complete editorial control over its entries. (I know this because I've tried unsuccessfully to get things changed.) So both of those websites are inherently more reliable and linkworthy than mobygames. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, MobyGames is not a wiki either. MobyGames is a database based on user-contributed information, exactly like IMDB. MobyGames likewise maintains the ultimate editorial control over the user-submitted content; I know because I've tried submitting cover scans and screenshots and they're very picky. And, being based on user submissions, both sites have factual quality issues (Ye gods, lock me in a mental institution if I ever wander anywhere near the trivia sections in IMDB) - but you can usually trust Moby cover scans and screenshots to not be doctored. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not a wiki. That would explain why the copyediting is so tight.

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=freind&p=-1

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=moyb&p=-1

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=qoutes&x=19&y=7

Actually, it is a wiki, it just requires an "approver" (i.e., an admin) to approve all changes.[2]

--Butseriouslyfolks 07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like IMDb, then. What exactly is your point again? --RoyalFool 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The majority of our Wikipedia:Featured articles#Computers and video games link to mobygames, from either the external links section using this template and/or from their references section. The nomination doesn't fit any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD), and no attempt was made at the template's talkpage to discuss 'misuse', or to contact the related wikiprojects. --Quiddity 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the users here wouldn't mind, I'm going to do an FA count, for interest's sake.
    - Articles with the template: Chrono Trigger, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 2, Donkey Kong (video game), Doom, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, F-Zero GX, Final Fantasy X-2, Half-Life 2, Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Iridion 3D, Katamari Damacy, Metal Gear Solid, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee, Perfect Dark, StarCraft, System Shock (20 Count)
    - Articles without the template: 3D Monster Maze, Chrono Cross, Devil May Cry 3, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XII, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, Shadow of the Colossus (15 Count) Geuiwogbil 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And 4 of the articles without the template refer to mobygames in their refs. Of the ones that don't, most could be improved with the addition of mobygames as a reference. Look at the credits section of shadow of the colossus or better yet the complete credits list.... --Quiddity 06:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Really? Which ones? Geuiwogbil 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can click 15 links and do a text search as fast as I can, if you don't believe me... --Quiddity 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just thought you'd have them on hand, since you gave them a number...What do they use them for? Cast links, like your Shadow of the Colossus example? Geuiwogbil 06:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because I actually use it. --HanzoHattori 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both templates. There are 6490 mobygames.com external links on Wikipedia and there is strong evidence to suggest that more than 4000 of those were added by the MobyGames cofounder. This is a serious WP:COI abuse that was allowed to happen because of the stealth nature of the template and the WP:AGF of the WP:VG community. The blanket spamming of mobygames.com is also a violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. Deletion of these templates will prevent future abuse. (Requestion 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I don't see why we really need such a tiny template. Why can't it just be typed out? The Ohio Townships wikiproject recommends that a section with specific wording (seen here) be placed on virtually every township article, but we don't need a template for that, even though it's a lot longer. Delete because it's such a small bit of text that can easily be copied and pasted in. Nyttend 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, these templates are handy in maintaining consistent external linking appearance: "Game Name in MobyGames" instead of "Game Name in Moby!!!!!!1!" in every other article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be 5000 MobyGames links in Wikipedia article space? This is just funnel spam to a website article of questionable notability. If you tried to add MobyGames links to the See also section of 5000 articles they would be quickly deleted. Besides, Atari and Sega don't have this level of exposure and they are far more significant. (Requestion 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For the same reason there are thousands of links to IMDB, one from every single movie/actor/director/etc article.

I don't understand why you brought up the See also section, it has nothing to do with that. --Quiddity 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a problem if the owner of the IMDB personally added 80% of all the imdb.com external links on Wikipedia? Seems like a straight forward WP:COI to me. (Requestion 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The problem in this case is not how the links were added but why, and this template is the how part. The problem also has nothing to do wither the links should be kept. If the owner of IMDB would come here and add tons of links, I'd just bring that to the people's attention, ask the person to Not Do That Again Or Else, then keep whatever links are deemed necessary. This is ultimately an user conduct problem, not a content problem, and there's absolutely no reason to punish people who use this template legitimately. You don't quit eating apples forever and ever, just because this year's batch is mostly rotten. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is that the moby template has been horribly abused. The MobyGames founder has ignored multiple requests to stop. The WP:VG project has been unable to control proper usage of this template. We are now in the "Or Else" stage. Template deletion is a viable solution that can control this self-promotional spamming. (Requestion 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That founder is no longer with the organization, but that's all moot because the template was created by a *user* with no official ties to MobyGames. It was created because the community wanted it. I agree with Gerry later in this discussion, who wrote "Deleting the article and then saying the links are okay is basically inconveniencing hundreds of editors for the sake of posturing." I still haven't seen a legitimate reason for deleting the template. --Trixter 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... let me phrase this other way: Why are we debating here a giant big mess that would be better left on better venues? So far, I've seen links to a few random spam board discussions. Where's the RFCs? If you could point us to a dispute resolution discussion that even hints that it's not just the user who's causing problems here, and the template is evil, that would be swell. We're discussing too many things: foremost of which is a question of user conduct, second is appropriateness of MobyGames links at all, third of which is whether or not we need a template to link to MobyGames. This is the venue for the third part and nothing else. As it stands, from a template point of view, there's little wrong with it compared to other such templates. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template has an external link to mobygames.com and an internal link to the MobyGames article. I brought up the See also section because that's a place where an internal link would typically go. My point was that 5000 internal MobyGames links seems to violate the spirit of undue weight. That many MobyGames links would never be allowed under normal circumstances. (Requestion 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's not a good reason to bring something to TfD. Maybe you could discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:External links or the village pump, because there are dozens and dozens of other templates that use this convention (e.g. {{amg}}, {{imdb title}}, {{last.fm}}, {{musicbrainz}}, {{Memoryalpha}}, {{Rotten-tomatoes}}, {{Mojo title}}, {{Sww}}, etc etc etc) --Quiddity 06:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I forgot to mention, these kinds of templates are useful in case the site's internal linking changes. Consider the case of IMDB, which has had, uh, at least four or five different URI schemes over the past 10 years or so. MobyGames has had two. Instead of needing to change n+5 bazillion external links to the brand new format, you mess with the template. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been discussed over at WPVG, and the general consensus if I remember correctly was to only link to MobyGames if the MobyGames page contained more information than the game's page here, or contained information that is informative but can't be in Wiki articles (such as credits, etc.). Unless you have a problem with that, I vote keep, for my reasons above and Wolf's convenience argument. Green451 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you're going to link for the reasons of having more screenshots or credits or so on, shouldn't the link be to GamerWiki, which is a Wikimedia project and therefore more directly linked to Wikipedia? Tim (Xevious) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GamerWiki is not a Wikimedia project, it just uses Mediawiki software. --Quiddity 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Well, it was 1am ... Tim (Xevious) 10:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps a bot could be used to strip all the existing uses, and then concerned individuals could monitor the template's re-addition. This would mean the template could still be used, but its current spam use would be eliminated. While some MobyGames entries are very detailed, a large number (especially concerning older and/or obscure games) have even less information than the equivalent stubs on Wikipedia. Garrett^Talk 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the situations in which Mobygames is actually more informative than us is rare at best, and more often than not it's simply a waste of space in the external links section. Nifboy 23:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sometimes the link is useless, but if the moby page contains credits (as many do), then that would count as "informative" in my book. Green451 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; as informative(?) as full credits are(?), the remainder of most MobyGames pages consist either of noise or redundancy, and credits don't strike me as any justification for thousands of links. Nifboy 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A very usful template and widely used? why would it need to be deleted? Jonesy702 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then reinstate if links to MG are decided to be better than any other site through a discussion on the CVG project page. Tim (Xevious) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no reason why MG's reviews should be linked to for so many games and not other reviews. There is no proof that MG's reviews are "superior". Also, I'm not exactly sure how much advertising is "too much" for a site to be linked to from Wikipedia, but there is a link to eBay and amazon on each game's page there, as well as google ad links on half of their left nav bar - more advertising than on most sites with similar content. Miles Blues 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not debating policy, just the helpfulness of the template. But if we were, I would like to point out that the links aren't to "reviews", they're to the main page for a particular game. There's a hell of a lot more information at MobyGames than just a "review". --Trixter 23:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template formalizes a common link from the video game pages, and Moby games is not a spam site. Judgesurreal777 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is a bit complicated. Remove the template from all articles in which it appears, and then reinclude the template from the ground up, and only where appropriate. External link templates are common and simplify things (with all due respect, I disagree with the "we don't need a template to link to sites" argument, and it is also contrary to practice). Linking to this site does not seem harmful. Only reinstating the links where useful should take care of any spam allegations that have made the template appear unattractive to several delete voters. Gracenotes^T § 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. I guess we have hit an issue four or five time above about whether given the majority of links are spammed the best way is to delete all the links and then allow bottom up addition. Deleting the templates of course is one way of effectively achieving this. Agreeing on removal by a bot is another. --BozMo talk 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is standard procedure for a template's transclusions to be removed before it is deleted, and almost always by a bot. So I am suggesting doing the same thing, but not deleting it. Gracenotes^T § 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mobygames is a pretty consistent spammer of Wikipedia; the site isn't great, and the fact that the owner of the site spams most of these links himself is suspicious. Neil ╦ 11:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note - the thought of linking 5000+ times to mobygames, a for-profit ad site, when mobygames has less than 25 links in return, is worrying. IMDB is a recongised authority on movies. Mobygames is not even that - I would suggest GameFAQs, Gamestop, allgame.com and IGN all have better video game coverage (if not all necessarily as broad). Neil ╦ 11:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. GameFAQs, Gamestop, AllGame and IGN do not have the same encyclopedic scope of coverage as MobyGames does. The only thing allmedia guides are good for is music, and yet I have idea why an AMG link exists in Template:Infobox film. - hahnch e n 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MobyGames is a recognized authority on Video Games. Also, there are more than 25 links back to wikipedia. Additionally, anyone can add links back to wikipedia if they want. If someone wants to go add 10,000 links back to Wikipedia we wouldn't reject them or consider it spam. --Bhirt 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)— Bhirt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No offense Brian, but inviting us to your birthday party doesn't mean we'll invite you to ours. You're guidelines for linking are probably much different than Wikipedia's. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take offense. First, I was replying to the original comment that somehow our linking back to wikipedia was relevant to the discussion. "the thought of linking 5000+ times to mobygames, a for-profit ad site, when mobygames has less than 25 links in return, is worrying" That quote certainly implies that it is important, but now I know it has nothing to do with the argument to remove. Second, and more importantly I want to point out that we are a very widely recognized authority on Video Games in the Video Games industry. Bhirt 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've not seen any strong arguments why removing this template would improve Wikipedia. I've clicked on the "mobygames" link from several CVG articles on this site and found it useful. Any spamming by Mobygames promoters should not detract from legitimate use of the links. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Zagrebo 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many reasons why one would want to have a template for certain content, and this doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary. Quiddity put it nicely: interlinking of sites for the purposes of sharing useful information is why we have external links. MobyGames is a good website that contains lots of relevant information that may be used either by the reader of the Wikipedia article, for purposes such as assessing whether the information he read on Wikipedia is correct, or simply for reading more about the game in contexts that would not be appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion (such as reviews). To the editors, it's useful to point to MobyGames because it contains a lot raw material with which to write articles (after verification, of course). The template itself encourages good and consistent formatting of the links; using a template to prevent writing things multiple times is always a good idea. —msikma (user, talk) 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A hell of a lot of useful relevant information is found at MobyGames. Even though I initiated one of the conversations linked from the Wikiproject Spam page, my problem isn't with the links themselves in many cases, but with the nature of the editing (SPAs etc.) - hahnch e n 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MobyGames has quite a bit of good information. Sure, it probably is a COI and a bit spammy for the co-founder of the site to have added this to a significant percentage of our game articles, but we should have many of these links. --- RockMFR 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I will agree that quite a few of the linked MobyGames pages have hardly any content at all. I generally remove these on sight. --- RockMFR 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Deleting the article and then saying the links are okay is basically inconveniencing hundreds of editors for the sake of posturing. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is Brian Hirt, I started MobyGames back in 1999 along with Trixter as a community driven collaborative documentation project. The goals and aims of MobyGames are very similiar to Wikipedia. To document knowledge and share it with the world for free. I disagree that these links are spam. Lots of people who participale on MobyGames are also wikipedia contributors. We provide a very valuable resource in the Video Games space, and are the only site with comprehensive credits. As to complaints that we don't meet the notoriety requirement, I would like to point out are very well known and respected in the game industry and have also been nominated for a Webby award. In response to reliable sources, MobyGames is a very reliable source. We also have many professionals that work in the game industry who volunteer to make sure information contributed is accurate and reliable before it is published on our site. If there is confusion about what MobyGames is, I'm happy to answer these questions -- Brian June 10th 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhirt (talk • contribs)

Note to closing Admin: this and some other votes cast self declare as Moby Games people and are in violation of WP:COI so should be disregarded. --BozMo talk 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Flipkin was previously identified as David Berk and Bhirt is Brian Hirt. Could you add a reference supporting the claim that they are the same person? --Krótki 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you get the Idea that Berk and myself are the same person, that's crazy. There are 4 founders of MobyGames. Me, Dave Berk, Trixter and Corn Popper. I'm not sure it matters anyway. I suspect most everything I say here will be ignored. I only became involved in this conversation because I feel there is a lot wrong "facts" stated here. My note to closing admin is do whatever you feel is necessary, but there are a lot of inaccuracies here about MobyGames and the use of this template. Obviously Dave did add 900 links to MobyGames, but that's not in question here. The question here is should the template be deleted. The template was around before Dave created an account and he was instructed to use the template by others when he added his first links. The template was around because it was wanted by people at Wikipedia, not because MobyGames created a SPAM template. There are other people that have added links to MobyGames and editors here have called them MobyGames staff which is NOT true, because we have no staff. It's a 100% volunteer content driven site like Wikipedia. It's true that there are many people who have both Wikipedia accounts and MobyGames accounts and contribute game information to both projects, but that does not mean they are MobyGames staff and spammers. Also we have never encouraged any of our users to contribute links to MobyGames from Wikipedia. This whole conversation makes it seem like there is widespread spamming going on by MobyGames, when in fact the only links contributed by MobyGames were by Dave Berk and Corn Popper. If you read flipkins talk page, he was thanked and encouraged to add links which he did. I take issue with the fact that people keep talking about how we were "figured out". Nobody ever tried to conceal their identity. Bhirt 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more quick note. All four of us are considered founders, but Dave and Corn Popper came on a couple of years later. Just Trixter and I originally started it. I think maybe that might be part of what's causing the confusion on the Dave and Brian are the same person thing. Bhirt 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I agree with Green451, this has already been discussed and resolved over at WPVG. It is assumed that a link to MobyGames was done only if the MobyGames page contained more information than the game's page here. This was already kept via Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Template:Moby game so why is this being brought up again? The only thing up for debate is whether or not the template is useful. It is, simply because deletion of the template will require hundreds if not thousands of edits to turn the links back into "regular" links. I can't see how deleting the template would somehow make things easier for editors. --Trixter 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: this and some other votes cast self declare as Moby Games people and are in violation of WP:COI so should be disregarded. --BozMo talk 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the vote should not be disregarded, since this is not a poll. The idea is to find community consensus, and looking over some of Trixter's contributions, he seems to be part of our community. This issue was brought up in an Encyclopedia Dramatica AFD, where one editor tenaciously pointed out almost every single comment made by Wikipedians who participated in ED. Gracenotes^T § 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenotes: Please see: WP:COI "How to avoid COI edits ...avoid... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." Anyway its up to the closing admin to work out which votes are which. --BozMo talk 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've already commented above, and I often link to Mobygames in my articles. But it would be great if you could be up front about such blatant spammers such as User:Ravimakkar. Every single edit of his is a mobylink, until he got blocked. Is he an employee? - hahnch e n 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wwwwolf: Whether someone with a Conflict of Interest is using the template to spam Wikipedia is totally irrelevant to whether the template is useful. MobyGames is the IMDB.com of the computer gaming world, so editors will often add MobyGames links to articles, so we might as well have a template to help them do so easily and neatly. CWC 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete associated spam: The template itself should be kept or merged, as there are other templates of similar type e.g. Template:GameSpot. Associated spam by the individual should be removed. CVG's endorsement of this site should be reviewed, since individuals associated with the site have actively spammed using the template. --Voidvector 07:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MobyGames is the IMDB of computer games, a highly reliably source. Removing a MobyGames link would be detrimental to the quality of articles. Why didn't WPSPAM get in touch with WPCVG before making this nomination? If they have a problem someone's behaviour, discipline the user, don't wreck videogame articles to make a point. 62.31.67.29 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a blacklist discussion. The question is whether the template generates more cleanup work from its convenience use by spammers than it saves for serious editors who are free to link to this site either way. "Useful" is all very well but it is abundantly clear that the editors on this project agree they haven't kept the spam in check and many of the links are inappropriate. Should we keep the balance of convenience then in favour of the spammers when the editors for whom it is creating more time don't seem to be using that time to do the clean up themselves? --BozMo talk 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the template hardly makes spam easier - both the template and what it expands to are a single line of text that can be copied and pasted and the name of the game replaced. Finding the "see also" section takes longer than pasting the line. On the other hand, it makes maintenance of valid MobyGames links easier for non-spamming editors; it applies a consistent style to the videogame articles and allows for easy updates should the MobyGames URL system change. 62.31.67.29 15:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People need to stop comparing Moby Games to IMDB. This is a discussion about Moby Games and its template, nothing else - please let it stand on its own merits and not others. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a useful comparison. MobyGames is pretty much "the internet videogames database". I use the reference to IMDB as it's a neutral way of saying that MobyGames is not just an anyone-can-edit wiki. 62.31.67.29 15:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain that then. For one, not everybody gets the comparison without explaining it, and then you could just explain instead of referencing IMDB. Two, I saw this a whole ton for the Esperanza delete discussion, people start comparing what they want to stay or go to indispensable or despicable things on Wikipedia. "What?! You want this template to go? But it is EXACTLY like this other thing that everyone else agreed should stay!" Then it isn't a discussion about the item for deletion in question but about what you can attach it to outside the discussion. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A useful template. If there are COI-related problems, they should be solved in other means than deletion. --Jannex 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like this discussion is over whether or not we should allow wikilinks to MobyGames or not, not about the template itself. This has been discussed to death in other places. The template itself does not present a CoI problem, but the site itself. I, for one, often link to MobyGames and use the template because they normally have gads of screenshots, where we may only have a few. Useful for the reader. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don't think it has been discussed to death. There have been lots of fragments of discussions (there is a list of ten on the Wikispam page), aggressive statements on talk pages and references to definite "community decisions" but I cannot see any substantial argument prior to this one which explains why we should have these links discussed with reference to policy. An example is above where a MobyG owner says this TfD has already been discussed and dismissed: go look at the last time where the closing admin on the "very weak keep" says explicitly there was no proper discussion, because the TfD was deleted off the page after ten minutes and the issue was to be left open. Hard to assume good faith about that summary. HOWEVER personally I am more than happy to cede the "should we blacklist the link" issue to those who work on the Games pages and want to link: which is why this discussion IS about a template which has been used by you Frecklefoot and a few others to link thousands of articles without apparently checking the linked target carefully. --BozMo talk 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem for me is the complete lack of attempt to mention the issue at either of the templates' talkpages, or to change its instructions to regulate usage to only useful Moby entries. The instructions for TfD state: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." --Quiddity 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not be bold and do it? As for changing instructions, a much wider community worked on WP:EL so perhaps you could just link to that. But we aren't talking about odd innocent editors. We are talking about the systematic addition of mainly shallow links to thousands of pages by a group of people who aggressively reply to queries with "its all agreed". I don't think there is any chance at all that this gang would be influence by comments on a template, even if you just posted "see WP:EL" probably it would just get deleted. Most communities on WP are a bit better at self regulation on these kind of things. That's how it should be --BozMo talk 06:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wp:point is, why didn't you?

I only noticed this TfD by accident, and am dismayed and disappointed at the zealous/crusading/confrontational attitudes towards other editors (e.g. this comment by BozMo, this initial comment by Hahnchen, ignoring things like the 2 warnings Flipkin gave User talk:69.139.77.86, etc) and towards a free, community-driven reference-project (sound familiar?). More so than that, I'm frankly disturbed at your current discussion of a law-in-your-own-hands solution at WP:COIN#Proposal.

As Lendorien states: "Hate to say it, but someone has been going around deleting all the mobygames links from every game article, regardless of whether mobygames link has more or useful information about the game. In some cases, the mobygames link has been the ONLY SOURCE for the article.--Lendorien 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)" Is that going to happen again?

And now you are seriously, nay, eagerly, contemplating razing Wikipedia of links to an incredibly useful resource. Slash and burn should only be a last resort solution, where the vast good will outweigh any harm, and that is not even close to the case here (see the thread about featured articles, above. and that's just the featured articles...).

It reminds me of the theory about how police officers should be required to regularly spend a little time working with innocent children or animals, instead of just criminals all the time. You're all displaying a bad attitude, that is not helpful to anyone concerned in the end, and that needs to be made abundantly clear. --Quiddity 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of reply was posted in one of the other places you expressed this opinion here: WP:COIN#MobyGames.2F_Flipkin. I think if you reflect you will see that these comments which amount (aside the personal bits) from saying there is some unwritten protocol to consult you on any incidents on the CVG pages are probably not completely fair. --BozMo talk 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a well-known site, at least for me!--Pejman47 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to closing admin after thinking again:I don't have any other reseon other that was mentioned above, feel free to uncount my vote; cheers!--Pejman47 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It is clear what this was created for, and Wikipedia is not meant to advertise other websites. While Moby has more images, many could be added here anyway and eventually will, and Wikipedia tends to have much more actual content for games. -- Cyborg Ninja 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Many MobyGames entries have dozens of screenshots. It is a very rare game article that has at least one dozen. It's not just screenshots, full credits and other info that we usually don't include are also available on the site. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the links to the site have been ruled acceptable (which they have) there is no valid reason why a template for the links wouldnt be acceptable. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruled acceptable: who/where/when? It has never been formally proposed for blacklisting for which as a heavily spamed site it is eligible. --BozMo talk 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. MobyGames is not a spam site, the template just formalizes already-accepted links to the site. Xihr 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames appears to be a serious project like the international movie database (IMDB) but for game developers and video games. Like IMDB does Moby have a editorial system to ensure accuracy. If the database is maintained very well and should be used to reference video games and people and companies that are involved in the creation of video games, just as it is done with actors, directors, editors and movie studios and IMDB. IMDB.com is a commercial site which is today owned and monetized by Amazon.com. Wikipedias reference to IMDB is in fact a promotion or endorsement of IMDB. If the same rules apply to everything the same, MobyGames should be used as the counter part for IMDB in the video game sector. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop comparing Moby Games to IMDB. This is a discussion about Moby Games and its template, nothing else - please let it stand on its own merits and not others. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. A comparison to IMDB is absolutely valid, because both sites have more in comon than you think. Additional note. I think this discussion User_talk:Cumbrowski#MobyGames can be considered comments for this one. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An useful template for consistently linking to a site which often provides additional information which couldn't be added to Wikipedia. Where it does not, the individual uses of it should be deleted. Same goes for robot-like link-spamming. BTW, deletion of the template would in almost no way fight link-spamming problems and makes only legitimate use harder. Don Cuan 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Disclaimer: There is a mobygames link on the page about me. I did not create the page about me, and I did not put the moby games link there. The statement that the template is only used for COI is therefore a bit offensive to me. It's one thing to argue that a moby games entry does not by itself establish notability (just like with IMDB), but that doesn't mean MobyGames isn't a reasonable external link. I was unaware of the spam issues discussed here, but Garret's idea to use a bot to clean everything out and start over seems more effective than removing the template. Capmango 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record IMHO neither you nor Frecklefoot are remotely conflicted by having a page about you at Moby, nor are MG contributers. COI applies to owners/founders/employees only. Also, personally I agree if we can solve the practicalities of reversing the linkspam campaign by bot it is probably the best solution but how to do this (in terms of procedure/agreement) is beyond me. --BozMo talk 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ElbridgeGerry. SashaNein 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I consider links to MobyGames useful and usually add them myself when there is none yet, but see no use or convenience in the template. It does not adhere to the general Wikipedia convention of italicizing titles, and it may intimidate new users who might easily get the impression that using the template is the "right" way to add a MobyGames link, and doing it directly is "wrong". Templates are okay for complicated things like infoboxes, for things as simple as a link they might become counter-productive.—Graf Bobby 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As someone who uses Wikipedia to look up games, I find a link to the relevant MobyGames page often saves me time, rather than going to the site and looking it up separately. Plenty of people use MobyGames as a reference tool just as Wikipedia is used, so it stands to reason that one would, and perhaps should, link to the other. Yes, the template has been abused. The answer here it to tighten your belt. If someone takes food out your fridge, you don't throw the fridge in the bin. --Squirminator2k 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagrebo. I totally agree with what he says. Korax1214 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might sound rude for many of you but this is absolutely against the policy, WP:SPAM and not WP:NOT#soapbox --Andersmusician $ 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you just have to add the links manualy if necessary.--Andersmusician $ 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do what actions are required to stop the now-exposed linkspam, but please do not disrupt articles to make a point. --Kizor 22:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This delete brought to you by the department of redundancy department. Kuroji 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because despite theory,[3] URIs do change. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Honestly, Moby spammed us using the template both as a user and a sock, and socked this very discussion. The template was clearly used for spam by Moby. If we tried the "compromise" (using a bot to delete what currently exists, but keeping the template itself,) we'd probably be spammed again. If Moby hadn't spammed us to begin with, I'd say keep, because it really would would be the users' contributions, but Moby (and its socks) dumped that template all over the place. A clear violation, and just plain rude.Durty Willy 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kizor. The links to MobyGames are very helpful, and they provide valuable information that Wikipedia doesn't have. Ranks ~10,000 on Alexa. Someone else creating massive linkspam (using these templates) doesn't mean that the entire template should be deleted. However, the SPA accounts should disciplined. --FlyingPenguins 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete. I personally have nothing against linking to game websites. However, this is a clear instance of spamming and COI. Creating a template to make it possible to place links on literally hundreds of pages that added little to no information is nonsense. The links may make sense in some instances, and if the issue were not so rampant, then it might be possible to review the instances. However, in this case, it is necessary to remove now, and then replace should it seem necessary. Pages have links to MobyGames when links to other, more popular and frequented game sites would do as well-or for that matter, no game site. It is clear that these webmasters, who created and spammed the templates, just wanted their site to be more visited. Wikipedia is a common target-it is a popular website, and anyone can edit it. Adding hundreds of Wikipedia links is easier then getting the top ranking on a search engine for every game ever made, and since Wikipedia commonly gets top ranking on searches, just as effective. The ideas here are wrong-while the links, in a small amount, may have been acceptable, this overload of links is clearly not. Dylan 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "webmasters" you mean the founders of MobyGames "created the templates" then that's simply not true; check the edit history of the template. No MobyGames founder had anything to do with the template. --Trixter 05:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is convenient that sites which have become de-facto references on the web have a consistent linking syntax. IMDB links appear on thousands of pages, with little apparent controversy. While these links should properly be added (or removed) by the usual editors of the articles and not by persons affiliated with the reference site, such is a content question and outside of the scope of this vote. Quatloo 06:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralWhat's the point in this anyway? If an area has a links page, it can be put in there. Although, some people can't be bothered...
Comment. We have reached WP:SNOW. This TfD is not going to sanction deleting the templates, since that would require a clear majority. Consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Proposal, and many comments above seem to support an automated revert of most of the linkspamcampaign links and then moving on. I suggest an uninvolved admin closes this now and that we get on with implementing that; unless there is serious disagreement (which should be posted there I guess).--BozMo talk 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of the keep arguments are based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. IMO, these are not valid reasons to keep a TfD. Maybe the closing admin will feel the same way? (Requestion 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Neutral TfD is not the place to discuss a guideline on external links. --User:Krator (t c) 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with this template. The links it creates have no problem with WP:EL (accessible, proper, functional, what should be linked #3) It is possible that the usage of this template has been in violation of WP:SPAM and/or WP:COI, and it seems to me like the proper recourse is to punish the offender(s) if applicable, and evaluate whether the links placed is appropriate. The template is not the problem. McKay 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example. What if some overzealous Amazon/IMDB marketing employee wrote a bot, and without authorization, added IMDB links to all of our movie pages that didn't have them. Yes, what was done was technically against WP:SPAM, and WP:COI, but that doesn't mean that all of the links using that bot should be removed. That's just silly. "Let's be anal and say that unless people follow all of our rigorous rules, you can't make meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia." That is antithetical to the fundamental principle of wikipedia -- "ability for anyone to edit". McKay 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abusively used spam template created inappropriately, and used wildly inappropriately. Sometimes this site merits links. Sometimes the linked to articles are a complete joke. External link templates should have widespread consensus, not "it exists because there is not consensus to remove the cursed thing". 2005 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SPAM: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. We cannot let any company spam wikipedia, even if in some of the cases it adds a certain amount of useful information. nadav (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:SPAM. The template itself doesn't do anything. If anything, if the community decides to remove all external links to Moby or any other site, templates will make it easier. The relevance and WP:SPAM value of some links can be debated, but the template itself it just a tool to present links in the most consistent and tidy form. Spam - bad. Templates - good. Maurog 09:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't address the matter at all. If we remove all occurrences of the link to Moby, then why would we need a template that links to Moby? If certain editors then believe that a specific article is benefited by linking to the site, then they can add an external link without the template. Deleting this is the fastest way to get rid of the thousands of moby links that were added in an automated fashion using this template. nadav (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely illogical. Why not make a template for every site on earth then, or at least everyone that someone will spam 900 links with? Let's get reasonable here. There is nothing good about templates per se. In this case, the abusive use of the template and the obvious lack of any consensus to have it makes it plain it should deleted. In fact, those people with ownership in moby games should be the ones asking for its deletion if they don't want their website to be tarred with the reputation of spamming the Wikipedia. Let any valuable links from that domain be added in good faith by editors in the same fashion any other external links are. 2005 10:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My entry addressed the subject of discussion (the template itself). TfD is not the right place to discuss anti-spam policies, nor enforce them. If an automated bot edited the template out of the page that brought me here stating "a consensus have been reached to remove links to Moby considered as spam, see discussion here", it would make perfect sense. Instead the template itself is proposed for deletion, causing people to discuss spam policies in a place that has nothing to do with spam policies. Maurog 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue here is that these moby templates have been horribly abused in a spam and COI manner by the MobyGames website founders. Rough estimate is that 80% of all moby template additions have been performed by moby SPA's. The stealth nature of the template and WP:AGF of the WP:VG community have allowed this abuse to continue unchecked. A template is a powerful tool, and if it can't be used responsibly it should be deleted. (Requestion 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Delete. Has per above. --SkyWalker 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now been through every instance of {{Moby developer}}, to verify that each is useful, cleaning up or removing if needed. ~~I'll try to do the same thing with {{Moby game}} over the next few days (hopefully with assistance from one of the VG wikiprojects).~~ struck, not enough time in near future. --Quiddity 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the second one I checked at random was Dave Ellis (game designer) linking to [4]. There is no pic, no bio and just a list of "games credited": this list (which could easily be taken into the article and is presuably on other external links listed like his homepage) is what justifies the link? --BozMo talk 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it supplies additional information that the article does not. It could be moved into the references section if you'd prefer? Especially if you integrate the information into the article... --Quiddity 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe this entire TfD was handled quite badly in various ways, as I've tried to point out in various places (e.g. not trying to address the root of the problem by fixing the template's instructions, inadequate/non-existent warning of any of the named COI/Spam violators prior to the TfD (See the pointform evidence 1 screen down from WP:COIN#3 comments), no talkpage notices of the TfD at all (even the template's creator), a lot of WP:Point arguments in this TfD, an admin-led discussion of unilateral action at WP:COIN#Proposal, and lots of bad faith and bite throughout). As none of the parties at fault have expressed acknowledgment that these problems are legitimate, I'd request that the closing admin give some feedback to those concerned. Thank you. --Quiddity 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those concerned including you, you mean? FWIW I think we have been sympathetic to your complaints; and I have kind of apologised for any infringements to your personal protocols. Out of interest if someone had spammed 50 links over three months I think the kind of reaction seen would have been out of proportion, but actually starting with a final warning when you find someone who has spammed 900 links to their own site does not seem to me to be out of proportion. --BozMo talk 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 900 spam links is obviously grounds for blacklisting the site. It is only out of respect for the legitimate users who value the site that we are not diligently pursuing that result. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about Flipkin? He was welcomed and encouraged, up until 8 days ago, which appears to be the first note of complaint he heard all along. The only actual concerning accounts I can determine from the list of suspects (or "socks" as you've collectively labelled them), are User talk:68.46.123.33 and User talk:69.139.77.86, the edits by those two accounts could legitimately be reverted en masse.

All the other suspects have extenuating circumstances, or didn't know there was anything wrong at all until a day before this TfD was announced! I keep trying to point out that highly-relevant context is being ignored, the result of which is that you are being blindly rude, from the perspective of the newcomers you're 'accusing'.

I don't know how many other ways I can explain it. I'm trying to be helpful, not a hindrance, but I'm not getting any signs that I'm being understood. I'm not some politeness-freak, or someone who enjoys chastising people for not looking closely enough. I'm simply trying to correct an injustice I think I've stumbled upon. --Quiddity 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my actions are concerning, then feedback is welcome. I would heartily invite more eyeballs to this issue, as I truely believe that many of the editors concerned are being hostile to newcomers. These aren't "personal protocols", but behaviour guidelines: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As an admin, you in particular should know better. --Quiddity 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have said, MobyGames is the IMDB of video games. While mainstream gamers probably don't care a whole lot about credits, i.e. the people behind the games, those names are of interest to people within the industry and to historians. Furthermore, it seems like this nomination for delete is based merely on the quantity of links, rather than a claim that such links are actually intrusive or unwanted. In cases where editors have removed a moby link, did the moby founders add back their own link, or was it added back by other users? That is a relevant question. At any rate, MobyGames is a well-respected site amongst gamers and there needs to be better cause for deleting links to it. Ham Pastrami 05:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "In cases where editors have removed a moby link, did the moby founders add back their own link, or was it added back by other users?" They have been added back abusively by editors who claimed that Moby games should always be linked from game articles, largely because this template exists. "That is a relevant question." Yes, and you have again made clear why the template should be deleted. "At any rate, MobyGames is a well-respected site amongst gamers and there needs to be better cause for deleting links to it." That's not the issue, so let's stay on the topic please. The issue is the template is inappropriate, has zero consensus to exist, leads to abuse and has plainly already led to abuse. Moby games being a nice site and often deserving links is entirely irrelevant to this discussion so lets keep it on track. 2005 05:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep okay that this template is not indispensable, but there are no reason to delete it --DrugoNOT 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a long existing template just because it was used to spam something is nothing more than WP:POINT instead of actually dealing with the problem through proper channels. --Powerlord 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete For one, MobyGames shouldn't have to be shoved down everyone's throats by putting it in practically every modern-day game article. (Seems like they're advertising with all of these annoying spam links...Wikipedia is not for advertising, unlike what these founders think.) Two, MobyGames is basically what Wikipedia is without being able to edit it--in that case, I wouldn't mind references being linked to MobyGames (not every), I just prefer not to see some link to MobyGames in every article. If people really wanted to find out about a game we didn't cover that much, could they not just do a search on AltaVista or whatever search engine they use and likely see a MobyGames link? Seriously, if some site like MobyGames gets to put a link in every article, why not GameSpot, Gamespy, IGN, and all of those others? Aren't they much more informative already? Or aren't they special enough? C. Foultz 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: MobyGames is no more special or important than any other gaming related site on the internet. If we have one for MobyGames, why not a template for every other gaming site out there? In essence, everything I came here to say was already said by C. Foultz, so in the interest of not creating redundancy, I'll stop here. The S 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Probably the only external link I click on Wikipedia. Very helpful because of pictures. It's impossible for Wikipedia to have as many pictures as Moby games has, and having them on Wikipedia would just spawn more problems. Plus, I found out about Moby games here for the first time. If they don't know we use it, we should ask them. — 89.212.23.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Doesn't any other gaming-related site like GameSpot or IGN do that though? And the point to posting so many links is what reels people in in an advertising scheme like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Foultz (talk • contribs)
  - That's rather ignorant of you to say, since MobyGames is very unique. It has far more entries in its database than any other game archive on the web. It lists games accurately by release date, developer, publisher, genre, platform and other categories. IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy and other sites don't come anywhere close to what MG has to offer. The amount of data they have on hand is invaluable to the gaming industry. --RoyalFool 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is Mobygames.com considered an acceptable site as a reference? Yes, I would say so. Is it useful as a reference to many articles? Yes. Therefore, I consider this a valid an acceptable template as it forms a reasonable function for Wikipedia editors. Is there a potential problem with spamming and COI? Maybe, but if so, the way to address that is by dealing with the offending editor, not by punishing the innocent. Now it would be one thing if people were arguing that all Mobygames.com links should be removed, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They should all be removed according to the spam guideline, since thousands of them have been added by people associated with the Moby games website. Getting rid of the template will get rid of the links in one fell swoop, which is what we need. Afterwards, editors can re-evaluate the importance of the links on a case-by-case basis. nadav (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't make any sense. If thousands of them were added by specific people (called spammers from now on) infringing various WP policies, then the spammers' contributions should be subject to pinpoint removal. Nuking the whole template which was used way before spammers in good faith is unacceptable, unless you get a consensus on blacklisting Moby altogether, in which case I will be the first to support it. In the meantime, it makes sense to template all Moby links in case this happens, because tracking templates is much easier than tracking links. Maurog 06:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone creates a bot to remove the thousands of spammer created links, then that would be better. I don't know much about bots, so I don't know how easy it would be for it to distinguish between the legitimate moby links and the spam ones. If that's not possible, then deleting all the links (through a bot or through deleting these templates. There's not much of a difference in tracking since we have special:Linksearch) and then letting the video game experts re-add certain ones on a limited scale is the way to go. On the blacklisting, I don't think the video game wikiproject members will ever allow that. nadav (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Therefore, I consider this a valid an acceptable template as it forms a reasonable function for Wikipedia editors." You have to be kidding. Ever site that qualifies as reference and could be linked on many articles should have a template? 2005 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if it's linked on a lot of articles, it should have a template. That's what templates are for. Maurog 06:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's just silly. And what pray tell is "a lot". Three? Nine? 87? 4632? 2005 09:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, what's silly about using a template for something that's going to be repetitive? That is indeed what they're for, as they save work and increase consistency. I leave the question of whether to make one to the people who find themselves doing the task. FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So in other words you have no answer. An external link on an article is not repetitive. It's completely inappropriate to suggest that every site with more than a few external links should get a template. External link templates should not exist out of habit, but rather active choice based on a need. This let them eat spam attitude is precisely why a fairly useful site has now disgraced itself via hundreds of poor quality links, and hundreds more of pure spam ones. External links should almost never get templates, and they certainly should not get one primarily to make promotion of a website easier. 2005 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There are dozens and dozens of other templates that use this convention. E.g. {{amg}}, {{imdb title}}, {{last.fm}}, {{musicbrainz}}, {{Memoryalpha}}, {{Rotten-tomatoes}}, {{Mojo title}}, {{Sww}}, {{FOTW}}. Possibly a hundred of them? It's a fairly common standard. Check the Media and Computers sections of Featured articles in particular. It's so that when a site with many incoming links changes its site-structure, or the php string format in their url, it's easy to fix a template instead of dozens/hundreds of links. --Quiddity 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously, and more obviously there are tens of thousands of websites with multiple links and it is ridiculous to say all should have templates. That isn't the point of templates. The original comment was silly but should not distract from the real issue of whether having this template is worth the abuse that it has encouraged. 2005 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, it seems that the concern is that some of these links may not be acceptable. Fair enough, feel free to look through them yourself. However, unless you believe that Mobygames should be absolutely purged from Wikipedia (not something I believe is viable at all), there's still a use for the links and still a use for the template. FrozenPurpleCube 17:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we delete this, it will force us to look at each link. Remove the spam, keep the worthy stuff (it's going to be a huge job no matter what happens). Perhaps we could make a similiar template under a new name for conveince, but only include where it's useful. It's late and I may be crazy and tired, but it seems we (WP:VG) got caught with our pants down. Deleting this is like buying a belt for the problem. BTW, what's an example of a good moby link? One final thing; if keep becomes consensus, maybe we should make a category of something like "nonverified moby links" and you remove articles as you check them. I don't know.--Clyde (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: MobyGames is a very important site, it lists tons of obscure games, their different versions, developer and publisher credits and lots of other info, not to mention cover art and screenshots. Just imagine how much of the stuff in wikipedia game articles has been taken from there (you can debate if it's a reliable source or not elsewhere, the fact is that MG has had a tremendous effect on the quality of wikipedia game articles). It is, like others have said, the IMDB of video games. Removing this template serves no purpose at all other than to inconvenience editors. --RoyalFool 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links to it are useful, I find myself clicking them often, particularly for the screenshots which are sometimes hard to come by on a google (lots of cruft). Cctoide 01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- some links have been added in good faith, but others have been spammed. A template such as this implies Wikipedia endorsement which would just make it that much easier for COI spamming in the future. This template may be in Moby's interest but it is not in Wikipedia's. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Moby Games is the IMDb equivalent for videogames, a very important resource when finding information about old and new video games. If this template is deleted, I think IMDb-related templates should be deleted by some similar reasons. I see this deletion proposal will be very negative for information purposes, as Moby Games covers specific video game information Wikipedia lacks. This template makes a lot easier for the wikipedia editor to add links to MobyGames for more detailled information about other aspects like a screenshots gallery, reviews and a more complete credits section Timofonic 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subpages of template redirect 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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete all. CattleGirl ^talk 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orpahed, unsued template subpages, which the parents now redirect to Template:Infobox Settlement, except the last two, which the parents don't exist. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - artifacts of a less efficient system. Gracenotes^T § 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems inefficient to have all of these. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete. –Pomte 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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