Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 31 November 2 >

November 1 edit

Template:28DayCalendarStartingOnFriday 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) 14:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:28DayCalendarStartingOnFriday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:28DayCalendarStartingOnThursday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:28DayCalendarStartingOnTuesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:28DayCalendarStartingOnWednesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:29DayCalendarStartingOnSaturday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:29DayCalendarStartingOnWednesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnFriday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnMonday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnSaturday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnSunday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnThursday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnTuesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnWednesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnFriday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnMonday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnSaturday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnSunday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnThursday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnTuesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:31DayCalendarStartingOnWednesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

these templates have long been replaced by template:January calendar, ..., template:December calendar, and are no longer needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]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:BLP IMDb refimprove edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but some consensus to merge this with a more generic template, say with a "IMDb=y" option. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP IMDb refimprove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is largely redundant to Template:BLP sources. The only difference is specifying IMDb as the unreliable source in question. Such comments should be made on the talk page, not in the template. This template only has 3540 tranclusions. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (see below for my updated opinion) and it's 3540 useful inclusions - I can't believe you used "only" in the count! I'd argue that we need a full re-allignment of all the referencing tags into four groups:
  1. "has no refs, and we mean zero, zilch, nada", which should align with the BLPPROD rules
  2. "has only possibly unreliable refs", which the template in this TfD is a very common one, but we also need a "probably unreliable" tag for facebook/myspace/own website etc,
  3. "has some refs, needs more", which BLP sources covers and
  4. "has ref formating issues, such as no footnotes, bare links etc
See also the previous TfD which was heading for a speedy keep before it was withdrawn.The-Pope (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments for deletion are much different from the previous TfD. I used "only", because to most cleanup tags, this one has very few transculsions. This template's parent, Template:BLP sources, has 48,000+ transclusions. We don't create individual cleanup templates for every possible unreliable source, that is why they all say "Details may be on the talk page", or some other variant. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CONTENTFORK of Template:BLP sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Too many editors, particularly casual ones, take IMDb as gospel and don't realize it consists of anonymous and almost entirely unedited user-submitted hearsay, rumors and other claims — all of which are supposed to be verified by some outside source, which IMDb doesn't footnote or reveal. If such sources really exist, we should be citing them instead anyway. Because too many editors don't realize this, an IMDb-specific template is of high importance in order to educate them and to get WP:FILM's IMDb policy more widely known. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any gain we get from deleting this? None that I can see. Is there any harm that results from deleting this? Well, it makes it more difficult to quickly explain to users why IMDB is a poor source. No potential gain combined with potential problems ==> Keep. NW (Talk) 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template cites a failed policy as the reason. That really doesn't explain to new users why IMDb is unreliable. WP:ELNO might be a better target to cite, but then the template is basically Template:External links or Template:BLP refimprove. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A template isn't required to explain policy in depth; it need only link to the pertinent policies, which it does. As NW asks, "Is there any gain we get from deleting this?" No. "Is there any harm that results from deleting this?" Potentially. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All our templates cite a policy or guideline. In fact, this template should probably be Speedily Deleteed because it misrepresents policy.
As NW asks:
  • "Is there any gain we get from deleting this?":
"yes" because this prevents an infinite number of narrowly specific templates from being created, as creators will cite this template as the reason for their needlessly specific template for existing and claim it is a good reason for existing
  • "Is there any harm that results from deleting this?":
"no" because this prevents an infinite number of narrowly specific templates from being created, as creators will cite this template as the reason for their needlessly specific template for existing and claim it is a good reason for existingCurb Chain (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I say below, it's a false dichotomy to say we should not keep this one particular template, addressing one particularly immense problem, because that automatically means we have to create "a template for every possible variation." It does not. And alarmist, emotional phrases such warning that addressing this specific, large-scale problem will result in an "infinite" number of templates. Infinite? Really? I get very wary when one side of an argument feels the need to exaggerate and use hyperbole, since it suggests to me the argument can't be made purely on a dispassionate, logical level.
Also, while you believe it's "needlessly" specific, others might say that this problem is unique and is specific enough that it requires a specific solution.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a particularly immense problem. Assuming it is even a problem, you are using templates to educate editors? That is specifically not what templates are used for. The essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists explains this concept: In the case of this template, to allow this template to exist is to allow editors to make templates for narrower and narrower uses ad infinitum.
I want to make this clear: templates and templatespace should not be another venue to educate editors on policies and guidelines.Curb Chain (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Wikipedia:Other stuff exists does not give any indication of this whatsoever. And unlike oft-ignored policy pages, new editors actually see templates. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've run across this template a few times, and it does seem to help new editors understand that IMDB isn't a reliable source. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We remove incorrect material and we should be providing notes on the talk pages for education, not invalid templates violating WP:NSR.Curb Chain (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you realize that NSR refers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, right? I think you might have given the wrong link. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this template is removed I am certain people will consider IMDb a reliable source, and you can expect a long drawn out argument on EVERY SINGLE PAGE. PeRshGo (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if this template is deleted, I am equally certain that people will not consider IMDb as a reliable source, and I can expect that a long drawn out argument will not be on EVERY SINGLE PAGE.Curb Chain (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep: I have been contributing to IMDB before, and I do not sell false information to IMDB. However, the website is user-contributed and unreliable without reliable sources within databases. Using IMDB as a self-reference to articles is either insufficient or irrelevant to good quality: for example, Star Trek: The Original Series has IMDB entries, but the rest of the article, with or without IMDB sources, helps improve the quality of that article. --Gh87 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "gain we get from deleting this" is that we take a more consistent approach to flagging articles for unreliable sources than we do by special-casing what is only one of millions of unreliable sources articles use at present. I have seen no good reason at all why we are trying to educate readers and editors as to the unreliability of IMBD through a cleanup template of all things. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per Tenebrae,[1] who echoes my own thoughts, and with particular note of many of the keep comments at the previous TfD. This is a useful template and it would not be of any benefit to delete this. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's usefulWP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument to keep templates, as used by almost all the !keeps here.Curb Chain (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being "largely redundant" is not much of a reason to delete. The simple fact is that isn't completely redundant. It serves a specific purpose additional to {{BLP sources}}, which is to encourage use of better sources than IMDB, which is a big problem here that requires a lot of work by editors to repair. When one particular bad source keeps getting used over and over again, despite those efforts, we need to do something to help the effort, and this template does that. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:ITSUSEFUL.Curb Chain (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I even tried Wikipdia:ITSUSEFUL. ;) It doesn't alter my opinion. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are kidding, aren't you? WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY CLEANUP TEMPLATES OTHER THAN BEING USEFUL!!!! Cleanup tags do two things - provide onscreen advice as to how to improve articles and categorise articles into cleanup cats so that those interested in fixing the problems can do so effectively (as we've shown over the past 20 months with the elimination of the WP:URBLP backlog. Putting notes on talk pages is inefficient, slow, unsortable and will not be done. I want to click once on WP:TW to mark an article as needing work, not then go and expand more on the talk page.
Can everyone stop thinking like experienced editors or wikilawyers for a minute and try to think like a new editor. You've just watched your favourite TV show and there is a new character on it. You jump on here to see where they came from and find nothing. So you think you'll try to create an article for them. Google the name, up comes IMDb showing that their DOB, home town, the three previous shows they had guest roles in and you whip up a page, and having heard something about verifiability, not truth, being important here, add the IMDB link as a ref. 3 minutes later, it gets hit by a NPPer with a bunch of tags - needs cats, tone is wrong, and Unreferenced. You look into the cats thing, work them out, add them. Remove the "is the cutest actor ever" section to improve the tone. But then you think, they must have pressed the wrong button, it has a ref. So you delete the unreferenced tag too. Then someone else comes along and adds {{BLP sources}}. You read that one (but get bored by the third blue link and stop at "additional citations for verification" and then add links to the show's website, a facebook fan page and the actor's twitter feed, you even work out how to use the strange <ref> and {{reflinks}} tags. They then all get reverted with some strange message about being "not RSs" and you get accused of vandalism and threatened with a block, so you think "stuff this, you guys are weird, I'm going back to blowing stuff up on my PS3". Compare that story to adding this tag. It clearly states what the true problem is.
So I thinking more...Merge/Rename to {{BLP unreliable sources|IMDb=yes}} (note that we already have {{Unreliable sources}}, but not {{BLP unreliable sources}} and create other flags such as |Social Network=yes (for myspace/facebook/twitter refs), |user contributed=yes (for other databases - maybe common ones like the Anime one need there own?) and |primary=yes by rolling {tl|Primary sources}} into it too and maybe more options that I can't think of at the moment. The wording in the template needs to be carefully worded, but what we have in the IMDb tag is pretty good ("may not be a reliable source), adding the other parameter options may take some smart template coding. The categories that the articles get assigned too will obviously be linked to the optional parameters, with all going into the BLP sources cat too. We have to stop trying to fix the cleanup tags bit by bit, and start again from a virtually clean slate. There is huge confusion over unreferenced vs refimprove, refs vs ext links, reliable vs unreliable, and after reviewing thousands of BLP articles over the past two years having clear and unambiguous tags as I listed above would be a huge improvement. If others agree, but disagree that this is the right forum for the idea, then please discuss where the discussion should be held.
In conclusion, we cleared out 50,000 UBLP articles over the past two years by a lot of hard work by a fairly small and dedicated team, mainly because we saw it as a major problem, and there was the implied threat of possible deletion at some future fate. Clearing out the 48,000 articles marked with BLP sources WILL NOT EVER HAPPEN, because people don't see it as a major problem. Rolling 3500 articles back into it is just hiding them in the haystack. Keeping them on their own means that one day, a film buff or WikiProject, might actually be motivated to try to improve/check/delete them. The-Pope (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Can everyone stop thinking like experienced editors or wikilawyers for a minute and try to think like a new editor." - How about just one of our readers. They generally have absolutely no idea of the reliability of internet sources. They will have an idea of the reliability of IMDB with this template in the article. The upmerge proposal is certainly worth a look. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this template helps educate users about a false assumption. I myself thought IMDB was reliable until I saw this tag on an article. The only delete argument I've seen here that templates shouldn't educate editors about policy (even tho no reason is given why not) and the slippery slope fallacy (the fallacy that it forces thousands of other specific tags). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting policy is a reason for deletion per CSD T2. As stated multiple times, specific issues for a specific source should be mentioned on the article's talk page, it should not be mentioned in the template. Just because a few users find it too hard to take the extra minute to leave a specific reason for the tagging, doesn't mean we need to make a special template to accommodate them. We have thousands of instances where facebook is used as a source, yet it is unreliable. We don't have a custom template for facebook, nor should we. The facebook links are either replaced, removed, or brought up on the talk page. The same is true for IMDB. There are millions upon millions of specific unreliable sources, how could possibly create one for each problem to educate new editors. We have the generic template for this purpose. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more. Just because one specific website is proliferated throughout Wikipedia as an unreliable source more so than other websites does not mean we need to make a separate template for it. What is wrong with a generic unreliable sources template and then informing any editor who objects to see WP:Film for more info on why IMDb is unreliable? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha, how does this misrepresent policy? Where's the policy that specific sources should be discussed on the talk page? Do we really need to have the same discussion thousands of time on all these various film related discussions? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo and Metacritic, IMDb is one of just four sites that appear by convention on virtually every single film article. That ubiquity makes these four sites almost unique among all reference sites cited by Wikipedia. Because of that ubiquity, having this template — which seems to have majority support here — helps keep us from getting into long, drawn-out, redundant discussions about why IMDb is unreliable and why its use is discouraged. Most editors, even new ones, however, tend to accept a template at its word. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...which is precisely why you can use the {{Unreliable sources}} template in its place, and in your edit summary, a hidden comment in the article, or on their talk page, you can them link them to a page on WP:Film that specifically addresses this particular website (and any other websites that may pose a similar problem in the future). No one is asking you to spread the news about IMDb's reliability one article and one edit at a time. You simply are refusing to see the potential beyond the way you currently have it implemented. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic. The vast majority of editors never look at the talk page. I've been working on the merge backlog for a long time and I usually see "discuss" links to talk pages with no discussion, or non-existent talk pages, or one user proposing the merge with no comment in three years. There is almost never an actual talk page discussion. Putting a talk page link on the template doesn't change anything either (after all, the merge tags have that). This is why we have article status templates - unlike talk pages, people actually read them. Mentioning IMDB's issues on the talk page does no damn good, because very few editors will even read it. You can tell me they should til the cows come home, but that doesn't change reality. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors do use the talk page. Yes, users who do drive by tagging often do not use the talk page. Just because they don't care enough about the article to leave specific reasons, doesn't mean we make custom templates to accommodate them. This template meets CSD T2 because it cites a failed policy as the reason for the source being unreliable. This template is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. It doesn't matter if WP:ITSUSEFUL, it violates policy. Unless that changes, it needs to be deleted, no matter how many users !vote keep. By changing this template, you will likely come to realize that it is overly redundant existing templates. We don't make custom templates to educate new users, we educate new users by explaining things on the article's talk page, or on the user's talk page. That is just plain fact. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, completely independent of this discussion, the use of the category generated from this template was suggested as the next target for the "UBLP backlog team" to attack. See Wikipedia_talk:URBLP#Moving_Forward. If this template was deleted or merged into the BLP sources one, then this would be an extremely difficult and complicated task, using AWB or catscans to try to create lists. Having explanations on talk pages doesn't help you create lists to attack. And WP:ITSUSEFUL should have a great big exemption for cleanup templates, as being useful is their only task. The link to the failed policy can be easily modified to link to the standard WP:RS page, which is what would happen if the template was upmerged to a generic unreliable sources template with certain extra specific parameters available. Your comments about "drive-by taggers not caring" is unwarranted and underestimates the scale of cleanup problems. Cleanup only works if everyone helps out in whatever way they can. Most drive-bys edit in waves - tag one week, fix another. It works and is better than only marking a fraction of articles, ignoring a great deal more. The-Pope (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a useful template which highlights the unreliability of much IMDb content, especially bios and reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template is useful and deleting it would serve no useful purpose. It is helpful to categorise the articles needing more sources so that editors can work on the areas that interest them most. Taking concerns to the talk page is largely irrelevant because it is much more likely that one of the articles with this template on it will be sourced by someone going through the category than by someone who happened to glance at the article. Most of the pages tagged with {{BLP sources}} do have at least one reliable source added, unlike the pages in this category. The fact that the template links to a failed proposal does not make it a blatant misrepresentation of policy, since the statement that "IMDB may not be a reliable source for biographical information" is entirely in accordance with community consensus. If it's that problematic then change it to something like Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites rather than nominating the page for deletion. The concept of WP:CONTENTFORK doesn't apply outside article space. Hut 8.5 09:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly specific templates like this are exactly the way to go. General templates such as {{cleanup}} are useless because nobody knows what exactly is supposed to be cleaned up. This templates clearly states what the problem is how it can be addressed. Yoenit (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I acknowledge that this template could be replaced with a combination of {{BLP Sources}} and an explanation on a talk page. However, IMDB is really a special case. It is the best known / go to destination for movie information and justifies a separate template. It isn't your average unreliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: IMDb is a special case, but seems like a substansial copy of {{BLP Sources}}, and we could add a IDMb parameter for this. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template serves a useful purpose, related to but distinct from other {{BLP Sources}}. The argument that it "cites a failed policy as the reason" has now been dealt with, by the amazingly simple trick of removing that citation from the template. The argument that if we keep this template then it will cause people to create loads of other excessively specific templates is just silly. The argument that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument to keep templates is nonsense: what other reason is there for having a template, other than that it is useful? WP:ITSUSEFUL applies to articles, not templates. The argument that we are "special-casing what is only one of millions of unreliable sources articles use" misses the point that IMDb is a special case because it is used in many thousands of articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This discussion should be SNOWed obviously. IMDB is one of the user-submitted websites that have been used by Wikipedia editors. I do use IMDB, but I never consider it very reliable. --Gh87 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This template was created as part of a badly misguided effort to paper over the unreferenced BLP problem by declaring generic external links to IMDB to be references even when they aren't cited for any specific claims (and, too often, didn't even support any of the claims in the unreferenced articles). Anything used to artificially minimize the extent of BLP problems here is bad for the project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not Template:BLP IMDB unreferenced? Is IMDB to you reliable? I mean, BLP articles have been taken from user-submitted data of IMDB. --Gh87 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can someone please explain to me how putting almost 4000 into a nice, neat category of "these articles all have the same problem" is "papering over" anything or "artificially minimising the extent of any problem"? It is actually highlighting them, making them more obvious and available for interested editors to start the clean up, something that will be completely glossed over if it is deleted and merged into BLP sources. And a tip - the WP:URBLPR team isn't going to spring back into action if Category:All unreferenced BLPs jumps up from it's steady state 100-200 up to 4000. The-Pope (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would have been Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove. Oh, but now I see that only=yes is kept. That's one part that can go because it's against WP:BLP, otherwise it's OK. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see a case for deletion. • "Only used X times" is not an argument for anything; it's just a number. • Some overlap with another template doesn't mean this one is completely redundant. • The specter of "if people see this, they'll create more narrow-scope templates" has been raised. That is not a foregone conclusion, nor has it been demonstrated that many narrow-scope templates would be a bad thing. • The use of the talk page as an alternative method of communicating has been raised, but that's solving a problem that this proposal creates. Why should an editor have to re-state the same basic fact ("IMDb != WP:RS") every time they encounter the problem? A template saves that trouble of that; that's why templates are for. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:44, 14 November 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:Film IMDb refimprove edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but possibly some consensus to merge this with a more generic template, perhaps with a IMDb=y option. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film IMDb refimprove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is largely redundant to Template:Unreliable sources. The only difference is specifying IMDb as the unreliable source in question. Such comments should be made on the talk page, not in the template. This template only has 11 tranclusions. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Too many editors, particularly casual ones, take IMDb as gospel and don't realize it consists of anonymous and almost entirely unedited user-submitted hearsay, rumors and other claims — all of which are supposed to be verified by some outside source, which IMDb doesn't footnote or reveal. If such sources really exist, we should be citing them instead anyway. Because too many editors don't realize this, an IMDb-specific template is of high importance in order to educate them and to get WP:FILM's IMDb policy more widely known. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous argument. Should a specific template created for every issue so new editors become or educated?Curb Chain (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One is certainly free to disagree. I'm sure it's possible to do so in a mature and civilized manner without resorting to insulting labels. One might, if one were so inclined, be tempted to say it's ridiculous to assume a one-side-fits-all argument from someone intellectually unable to differentiate or acknowledge that specific large-scale, widespread problems might require specific solutions in order to be most effective. But I wouldn't name-call like that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 tranclusions is hardly wide use. Cleanup templates are intended to give a rough description of the issue. Specific issues are supposed to be brought up on the article's talk page. Creating a template for every possible variation is extremely redundant. Not many users bother to memorize specific template names, which is why we have WikiProject Stub sorting, because we have a stub tag for everything conceivably possible. This may work for stubs, but adding this to templates is unnecessary. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is widespread. Whether use of the template is widespread or not is another story, but that has no bearing on whether the problem is widespread and should be addressed vigorously.
And it's a false dichotomy to say we should not keep this one particular template, addressing one particularly immense problem, because that automatically means we have to create "a template for every possible variation." It does not. This is one specific, large-scale problem that needs to be addressed specifically. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. Misspelling in articles is a widespread, specific, large-scale problem. It would be equally ridiculous and useless to create a template indicating that tagged article has misspellings.Curb Chain (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just reductio ad absurdum.
The IMDb problem is one of the biggest facing WP:FILM. Let's not be misleading by comparing it to relatively harmless misspelling, which doesn't risk creating factual inaccuracies and misimpressions that get copied and carried forward. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument of teaching newbies of this policy using templatespace is equally absurd.Curb Chain (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might need to review WP:CIVIL and stop insulting people who disagree with you, which, judging from the 3-2 "Keeps" vs. "Deletes" here is the majority of those in this discussion. Reductio ad absurdum is an established, very common Latin phrase simply describing a debate tactic; it has no relationship to insulting someone by name-calling, as have done at least twice now. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you are the creator of this template, the way I use adjectives to describe your arguments, not you as the person, nor have I 'labeled' you or called you a label, can seem to be a personal attack.Curb Chain (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Creator" is stretching the point — the template wording came directly from the existing BLP template, which has strong "Keeps" above. Repurposing for all other film articles beside biographies is not the same as creation.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"creator" is the occupational noun form of "creation", and since you did create the page, you must be the creator of the page. There's no stretching the point. What thereThere here is here is your attempt to circumvent the fact you did create the template.Curb Chain (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm putting it in context. Facts without context can be made to mislead. I did not create the phrasing; I edited it and gave it a new title. Similarly, if I were to take a single-blade ax, undo the blade, and replace it with a double blade, am I creating a new ax? No. In any event, this isn't relevant; I'm simply one of multiple editors opting for "Keep," with no more or less voice than anyone here.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to hide the fact that you created this page, and this can explain your defesiveness with your accusations of my making personal attacks at you. Most creators of pages at deletion disclose this, but seeing as you intend to continue to hide this fact is poor form.Curb Chain (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. In the interest of us two not monopolizing the page, I am giving you the last word, with your comment immediately above. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this template is removed I am certain people will consider IMDb a reliable source, and you can expect a long drawn out argument on EVERY SINGLE PAGE. PeRshGo (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if this template is deleted, I am equally certain that people will not consider IMDb as a reliable source, and I can expect that a long drawn out argument will not be on EVERY SINGLE PAGE.Curb Chain (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template helps people realize: IMDB is less reliable. Although 11 articles use this... or 12, counting George and Mildred (film), IMDB is a popular external link, and it is also user-submitted. Too bad it is used as a reference which may hurt an article's quality. --Gh87 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup templates are not public education systems. If only a dozen articles use this then there's little evidence suggesting it needs to be a standalone template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of articles using this template is of limited relevance. It takes a while for editors to become aware of new templates and to get inthe habit of using them. And I would say that every clean-up template is educational by its very nature. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So exactly why does the template need to be so specific for this unreliable source? This is a reductio ad absurdum because a potentially limitless number of templates will be made because a source is unreliable and we need to apparently educate editors not to use unreliable sources by warning them through a passive triage method.Curb Chain (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Potentially unlimited number of templates"? First, that's hyperbole, which is one of the last refuges when an argument doesn't hold on its own merits. If you have to be hyperbolic like that, that should tell you something.
Argumentum ad populums are almost never relevant to deletion discussions; compare WP:ILIKEIT.Curb Chain (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second, as I've already said but evidently you've chosen to ignore, there's no automatic mechanism whatsoever that says that this specific template will lead to "potentially unlimited" similar templates. As, indeed, it has not. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed it has.Curb Chain (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't. If it has, show me the template that has actually been created, rather than an essay that sorta suggests that it could happen someday. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pages of recreated material are deleted all the time under Speedy Delete criteriaCurb Chain (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't think anyone here is saying "keep it because we like it" — the "Keep" majority is making merit-based arguments. Second, I'm saying just the opposite of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I'm not sure what specific thing on that long essay page you're pointing to. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reasons as the other nominated IMDB template. I did not know about IMDB's unreliability until I saw a template like this on a page. Slippery slope is not a reason to delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT isn't either.Curb Chain (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how I Like It is relevant. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the fact you have provided no policy/guideline related reason.Curb Chain (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to {{Unreliable sources}}, which accomplishes the same goal without being specific to IMDb. If editors have questions about what specifically may be construed as unreliable sources, they should be directed to WP:Film for specific information about IMDb's reliability. A template should not be used to educate editors about a specific website's reliability or lack thereof. There are a number of unreliable websites that are proliferated throughout Wikipedia as sources, and they don't have their own specific templates (nor should they). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not fimilar with what policy says on the matter nor do I care, I am of the opinion that the specificity of the template greatly helps educate new editors and improves articles which is the ultimate goal. And before anyone takes the time to respond to this comment beware I am only expressing my opinion in this single post and do not wish to be engaged in a drawn out discussion. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: a useful template which highlights the unreliability of much IMDb content, especially bios and reviews. And as stated above it has a useful educational value. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of templatespace is not to allow editors to use them to campaign against a cause.Curb Chain (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And where is that policy or guideline, please? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOXCurb Chain (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly specific templates like this are exactly the way to go. General templates such as {{cleanup}} are useless because nobody knows what exactly is supposed to be cleaned up. This templates clearly states what the problem is and how it can be addressed. Yoenit (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If such a problem is identified, {{Unreliable sources}} should be used. Considering this template has 8 uses, down from 11 transclusions, it obviously is not useful or being used properly or that claims that it is helpful are doubtful.Curb Chain (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I gave Curb Chain the last word (above, 22:15, 3 November 2011) so that he and I would not monopolize the discussion. He and I each made our points, and I backed away for the sake of peace and to give other editors their say. Yet he continues to go after every single person who votes Keep. This strikes me as a little obsessive. I will also note another debating trick he uses, which is to presumptively claim his opinion is the "obvious" truth. Clearly, the majority of editors here disagree with him and want to keep this template. I hate to keep responding, but if he's going to use tricks to try and make his point, it means he can't make his point on its own merits. His is the only voice being so relentless to delete; others have voted Delete, said their piece and let other editors discuss. I think he should stop trying to monopolize the conversation. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or generalize I don't think we need one specifically for film articles. A generic "IMDB refimprove" would be OK, I guess. Gigs (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The only complaint I really see in the above is that this template is highly-specific. I don't get why that's a problem? It serves a useful purpose, and would create additional work on talk pages if it's deleted. An editor should not have to re-state the same basic fact ("IMDb != WP:RS") on talk every time they encounter the problem. • That said, I think Gigs (talk · contribs) makes a good point, in that making this film-specific isn't useful. It might be a good idea to merge this ({{film IMDb refimprove}}) with {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} above. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:51, 20 November 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:Cleanup-spam edit

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. There is clearly a difference between this and {{advert}}: this asks for removal of promotional additions, while {{advert}} asks for rewrite to remove promotional tone. Oddly enough, Bruce Hall's "delete" !vote is the best "keep" argument presented here: it clearly lays out the two different promotional content situations and makes a good case for separate templates along exactly those lines to deal with the two. That said, there may well be opportunity for clarification in the language of both templates and/or in their instructions, and the side proposal to rename the template to remove the word "spam" could certainly be considered. Anomie⚔ 05:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-spam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is overly redundant to Template:Advert. The only difference between the two templates, is this template explains advertising a bit more. This template only has 133 tranclusions, and it would be very easy to merge with Template:Advert. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's also the difference that Template:Advert is about "[rewriting] this article from a neutral point of view" and Template:Cleanup-spam is about "[removing] any content which is not encyclopedic, and any promotional external links". It seems important to have a template with which to tag dubious-looking external link sections so that editors with a better knowledge of the subject can address the problem. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have Template:External links for the purpose of warning readers about promotional external links. Then we have Template:Advert to warn readers about promotional content. Why do we need templates for every possible combination of issues. We already have Template:Multiple issues for this purpose. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Alpha Quadrant says, this appears to cover two different issues: tone problems (dealt with by {{advert}}) and "spam" (presumably external links) dealt with by {{external links}}. Furthermore, the use of "spam" is overly pejorative for a standard cleanup template, and it's not obvious how that could be fixed. Happy for this to be deprecated until such point at the existing transclusions are re-pointed to one of the other (or both) of the alternatives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inappropriate tone (look at it from the point of view of a good-faith editor who just doesn't know the guidelines). If we try to re-word it, we would probably realize that all we need is {{advert}}) or {{external links}}, or the two used together. – Wdchk (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename {{Cleanup-promotional}}. This covers the use of promotional but not advertising material. The distinction is quite important from the point of view of motivation - someone who thinks an entity isn't covered on Wikipedia might use promotional material, or mistakenly create promotional material, without it being a downright advertisement. Linkspam is another matter entirely, and the two should not be confused. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
I like the rename. How about merging Template:Advert and Template:Cleanup-spam into {{Cleanup-promotional}}? --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that Template:Advert is better than Template:Cleanup-spam. Many of the articles that fall into these categories are written like promotional pieces, probably because the content was cut and pasted from a promotional website. I think that there are two issues here. First promotional material that does not have the tone of an encyclopedia in part because editors often cut and paste from promotional websites to save time, or because they work for the organization which created the promotional website. And second, people who deliberately come to Wikipedia to promote their own websites, providing links with or without a "covering" paragraph or two. Therefore there should be ideally two different templates -- one for rewriting promotional material in a neutral and encyclopedia tone; and one for removing material who sole purpose is to point to or at a minimum promote another site. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see very much overlap between the Advert and Cleanup templates, although I believe they could be merged. The Spam template is useful for those pages that started out properly but were cluttered up with promotional crap. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:19, 12 December 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:Rom edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{transl}}, according to its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:T3 has a 7-day waiting period... --NYKevin @091, i.e. 01:11, 3 November 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:Db-movedab edit

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. The only rationale offered for deletion is that of WP:CSD#T3. While this is a special case of {{db-move}}, it is generic enough to be generally useful and is specifically recommended for use by the project dealing with the special case it targets. There also seems to be little opportunity for a merge or redirect, as the difference between the two is entirely in the prefilled values for the parameters of {{db-move}}. Anomie⚔ 05:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-movedab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deleted by Fastily per WP:CSD#F3WP:CSD#T3. Contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 31. Procedural nomination. NW (Talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F3? I think T3 is what must have been meant. No comment on any of this, except to say that Fastily is on a month long Wikibreak right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. NW (Talk) 12:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is suggested for use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, seemingly without difficulty. To me this looks to have been a completely mistaken deletion. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, why is this needed separately from {{db-move}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The serpent seems to be eating its own tail when speedy templates are being speedy-deleted! I don't know that {{db-movedab}} is needed. At some level neither is {{db-move}} needed — {{db-g6}} or {{db}} could be used or I could put a polite request on a friendly admin's talk page. The only rationale for deleting this template had been that given in the speedy: "T3: Unused, redundant template" and both these claims are wrong. If you are suggesting WP:TfD reason "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" then that could well be valid after the pages actively referring to {{db-movedab}} have been rewritten. I do not know enough about templates to be able to do this confidently myself. Whatever we do, we should not be knowingly leaving red links. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly agree that the deletion wasn't handled properly, but that's quite a different matter to opining that the template be kept. This is redundant to {{db-move}} (which is itself only a sub-case of G6, but a widely-enough used one that it makes sense to have a specific template to make the call easier for admins carrying out the task), and so at the very least it should be redirected. Now that we're at a formal TfD, I suppose that means this should be closed by re-pointing any existing links at {{db-move}} and deleting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the templates are both used in the same way with appropriate defaults (I am embarrassed that I do not even know that), your suggestion would seem fine to me. Thincat (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after updating existing links. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 15 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_1&oldid=1091625568"