Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9 edit

Template:Musician-info-footer edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. lifebaka++ 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are for internal links - They are not to spam external music links in articles without consideration of there content. Moxy (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE User:Lashuto has moved this template to Template:SearchMusic during this discusion. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote this template. It will help to reduce all the clutter building up on musician pages. It is becoming obsolete to go chasing all these database id's: the big web sites have URL-style searching for artists by name now. This will elegantly segue to utilize that emerging reality.--Lashuto (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, external links go in the "External links" section, not in a navbox which is for navigation. In particular, there should be no suggestion (without a widely notified RFC) that the proposed external links "must" be added to an article because some purpose-built template/navbox exists. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We want genuine external links to actual references to the subject of the article, not a navbox of places which may say something about them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This little template is still in its infancy. I might be able to update it so that you can say which engines you want listed if you simply cannot stand showing the default list of sites.--Lashuto (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's missing my point - I don't think we should have a navbox of engines at all, even if they can be selected by parameters. External links to actual info (in the External links section), yes, but a navbox with lists of places that might be worth searching, no - navboxes are supposed to be for navigating around Wikipedia articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh*. I hope I do not have to copy some of the navbox functionality to something that is *not* called navbox (maybe called ELbox) just to dodge these rigid characterizations. That would be a waste in duplication but...--Lashuto (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop sighing, because you have again misunderstood my point. The navbox policy is not specifically about something that is *called* a "navbox", it's about what we want in the kind of boxes that fulfill navbox-like functionality. If you can get a consensus for extending navbox-like functionality to cover generic "there might be information here" external links, that will be fine whatever you call it. But currently there does not appear to exist a community consensus for that type of functionality and it would not get my support - that's what my comments are all about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss my (implied) point. It does not have to look exactly like a full-width navbox. This is just a quick mock-up. My 'nother point is: these musician pages are all full of templated EL's to these sites, all in a hodge-podge order. Why not set up a regular order and a grouped-together look-and-feel for them to appear in? That might make it much easier for many users. That way, the remaining EL's can indicate the more unique info.--Lashuto (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not talking about what it *looks like* either, but about our navigation and external links policies - if general search engine and non-specific commercial site links are excluded by our policies, then they're excluded, no matter what the "look and feel" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
?!? That kind of discussion does not belong here. It belongs on Template talk:Musician-info-footer . Are some of those links too commercial for you? No problem. If you are not up to doing it yourself, then put an {{editrequest}} on that talk page and I wil gladly rip them out on your behalf.--Lashuto (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion belongs right here where we are discussing for deletion a template which inherently violates WP policy on external linking. As to your "Why not set up a regular order and a grouped-together...? Because the multiple links which you have in the template do not necessarily belong en masse in each and every article, and I would say the none of them belong in many of the hundreds of articles you have already spammed them to [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto, if all you can do is descend to petty sarcasm, my conversation with you is over. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever you call this, it is against the current guidelines on external links, which Lashuto really ought to read, to indiscriminately add links to search engines and commerical sites in articles, and especially via a template, which allows for mass addition of multiple links. Each link added to an article must be evaluated on a case by case basis according to the guidleines as to whether that link is appropriate to that particular article. Wikipedia is not a link directory, another guideline that he really ought to read. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he cares at all / or simply has not read any link provided - Hes here to advertise music sites in any format he can do it in. We now have Template:Allmusic artist and Template:BAE band. looks like hes here to help sell albums not improve Wikipedia. Moxy (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, bring it back a little here Moxy. I realise you're frustrated with this, but don't let that get to you :) Let's not ascribe any motives, there doesn't appear to be any. As I see this it appears simply to be a misguided attempt to be useful. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know Moxy, for a {{Senior Editor III}} you do not seem to know how to check for simple, current 2011 realities about Wikipedia and other things. Wikipedia has a full complement for Allmusic templates if you would just bother to use the existing prefix tool that I am sure you are already aware of. Now that this is plain to all, what is your problem again? As usually, I welcome at Template talk:BAE band if that is your problem, were you can provide your {{Senior Editor III}} input, if you can just enunciate with clarity and precision and accuracy the issue that is rolling around in that old noggin of yours. Sorry if my tone is somewhat objectifying, but I am currently figurig out every last rotten detail of how to code for an ELbox that I expect you to TfD a femtosecond after I save it. Ugh!--Lashuto (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an online directory of external links. External links should be checked on a case-by-case basis and only added if there is additional useful information there that is not contained in the article. That's not what would happen with the use of this template.--Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break for sanity

I created the article online music database and attempt to distinguish between and online music store to help see if we can figure out which external links are appropriate and which are not. I have re-purposed this template and put a big warning saying to not use it in articles. Now, how is it that {{Help desk searches}} is OK and this TfD'ed template is not? For clarify, I have renamed it to {{SearchMusic}} in the style of {{SearchBooks}}. I hope this resolves some of the earlier concerns mentioned and that the closing admin will take this into account for the earlier Delete votes.--Lashuto (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the links not to use in articles are basically search-type links - it's not really the nature of the site that's the issue (and the demarcation is not always clear), but the nature of the link itself. So, for example, an IMDB link to a person's actual page is ok, as the actual contents can be carefully checked at the time, but I'd say there are problems when the link is effectively to search results, which will always be changing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we are going to be-able to keep up. Template:Folkinfo search - Template:Moozone artist - Template:Qriocity artist - Template:Grooveshark artist - Template:Harmony Central. Moxy (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto's two-sentence recently created completely unreferenced article online music database is utterly pointless. It merely repeats some of the material already in List of online music databases, which is far more complete and he has already started linking to it in articles. Not to mention the redirect he's created OMDb which misleadingly implies it's an article about a specific site such as IMDb and IBDb. You are now starting to be seriously disruptive. Instead of this template and article creation spree, why don't you join an appropriate WikiProject including Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and run those ideas past the other members, get some feedback, get some consensus. Or take your general notions to WP:Village pump. You're getting nowhere fast with the current tactics you're using and you are wasting a lot of editors' time. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: , I get the impression that Wikipedia is super-duper in love with Internet Archive because of link rot and stuff. Yet, archive.org has the most global and blatant copyright violation I have ever seen on Internet, such as http://www.archive.org/details/Abba-Arrival . See that? The the whoooole album: playable, downloadable; the works! And you can still pay MONEY MONEY MONEY for that thing if you follow the IRL rules. If that is not copyright infringement then I do not know what is. YouTube would yank such CV stuff in a heartbeat. And archive.org has got terabytes of that CV stuff. Almost worse than Napster. Why isn't archive.org on WP:ELNEVER ? I and probably Metallica are hyperventilating already!--Lashuto (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why an external link should only go to a non-infringing specific page, and why these multiple indiscriminate search templates you are creating, including ones which are basically selling music with no encyclopedic material are entirely inappropriate, a point you resolutely refuse to get. Wikipedia is not here to point readers to commerical sites places where they can download music. Most of these templates do not belong on talk pages either. Furthermore, you cannot link to infringing material anywhere on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but for some reason you guys do not make such fine, gentle distinctions when in comes to excoriating you favorite Romper Room clown punching bag AKA YouTube. Why is that?--Lashuto (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. So let me get this straight. We can have {{SearchBooks}} {{SearchCath}} {{SearchCollege}}, {{SearchFilm}}, {{SearchImages}} and even {{SearchTV}}. But {{SearchMusic}}? Oh never. Why, such a template might lead to (goodness!) energetic dancing and other sinful behavior.--Lashuto (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:WAX. As a rule we shouldn't be linking to search results (WP:ELNO#EL9). There may be cases where we have agreed to make an exception to that, but that's not an excuse to ignore the rule entirely. Furthermore, a quick examination of those other search templates you've listed shows that they're either used exclusively on projectspace (i.e. not in articles), or, in the case of {{SearchImages}}, just as inappropriate as this one (I've now taken that template to TfD). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you meany bully you. Da template wudnt doing nuttin to nobody and you get all nasty about it. Oh well, these days I only at the images at http://www.lenaturisme.fr/ anyway. Do as you see fit. L'anima offesa si vendicherà! Why don't ya go pick on somebody you size. Go TfD last.fm . Again.--Lashuto (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume from this infantile response that you've nothing further to add here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's just been indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dresian. Voceditenore (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Non-FIFA governing bodies edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-FIFA governing bodies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only has 2 links, no possibility of expansion. Added links to 'see also' section of both pages so no longer necessary Stu.W UK (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not everything needs a navbox. Doesn't really make navigation easier.. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 02:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, not everything needs a navbox but I think this one needs. There is aslo Template:International Non-FIFA tournaments. And there is possibility for expansion (third link), see Non-FIFA_football#Organizations. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator suggests, adding the other page (or possibly even two) to the "see also" section of the few articles which relate to the subjects in question is preferable to having a largely-empty navbox at the bottom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I don't agree, because navbox is at the bottom and some users "search" it at the bottom for easier navigation. "See also" section doesn't have a heading like "Non-FIFA governing bodies" and we don't know why something is in "see also" section, so that navbox is much more useful. I don't believe it can bother, because it doesn't take much room ("see also" would take the same space). Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add the links to the Non-FIFA section of {{International football}} or, if on one of the governing body articles, to a "See also" section. — Bility (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: User:Pelmeen10 has added the links to {{International football}}. — Bility (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2011 (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.