Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6 edit

Template:Postmortem 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this template. It seems to fall into being a Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and I thought the policies here were against that kind of warning. I was looking but the closest discussions I can find are those about Wikipedia:Spoiler which is somewhat relevant but barely. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep — I don't disagree that this currently looks like a spoiler, but don't we have other templates to say photos are at the linked page? I don't really see the harm in telling what information is included at the link in question. It seems as useful to a reader looking for this as to one wanting to avoid it. It could be made less of a warning, though, such as by making the red text black. Just in case I'm missing something, I make my !vote tentative, and will welcome other comments to change my opinion. If it can't be changed to meet the disclaimer policy or there is a better way to describe the target page's available media, this should be deleted. —PC-XT+ 17:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as too specific. On second thought, we probably don't need a template just for one kind of media, even if it wasn't a disclaimer. —PC-XT+ 04:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. We don't use disclaimers. WP:DISC covers this. ~ Rob13Talk 03:45, 15 July 2016 (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).

Template:WoS pub 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).

The result of the discussion was orphan and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasoning as other template: Unnecessary external link template. It links to World of Spectrum (currently up for deletion), a website dedicated to the ZX Spectrum, which is a home computer. MobyGames and the template {{MobyGames}} already cover most (if not all) video games, so why make the exception for one website dedicated to one platform? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other WoS template links to a game's page in the World of Spectrum repository, while this one links to the publisher. It's not often useful, considering that the database only lists certain kinds of games and not the complete list for the publisher. Delete sounds good, and as a secondary option, it could merge with the below template.   czar 18:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge with the below per Czar —PC-XT+ 17:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick clarification @PC-XT, Czar, and Soetermans:: By delete, are you saying substitute and delete (removing the template but not the external link from articles) or orphan and delete (removing all external links using this template from articles)? ~ Rob13Talk 03:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way is ok with me. The links don't seem to be as useful as other options. We could substitute to leave it to article editors, if there's a question, but orphaning sounds appropriate. —PC-XT+ 04:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orphan and delete—the issue is that these pub links weren't useful in the first place czar 06:17, 15 July 2016 (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).

Template:WoS game 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus without prejudice against removing transclusions which violate WP:LINKVIO. If that winds up being almost all links, a follow-up nomination may be useful, but for now it's not clear how many transclusions are useful and how many aren't. Arguments for keeping are reasonable unless it can be shown that almost all links are violations. ~ Rob13Talk 17:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary external link template. It links to World of Spectrum (currently up for deletion), a website dedicated to the ZX Spectrum, which is a home computer. MobyGames and the template {{MobyGames}} already cover most (if not all) video games, so why make the exception for one website dedicated to one platform? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeez, that AfD is a shitshow. I've written several articles on ZX Spectrum games, which is the specialty of this repository, and similar to MobyGames, I only link WoS if it has further materials worth noting. For example, if I exhaust all linked reviews, then the reasons for keeping the link become weak. It is, however, a great repository, and has all other kinds of stuff besides the basic materials if you view it as an archive. Could we convert the template to individual instances for when it is useful as an external link? Sure, but I think it'd be a waste of time—at least we can track which pages link to WoS this way. czar 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I usually !vote to keep such external link templates that actually could be useful, because even though we have Special:LinkSearch, templates seem to be easier to track and remove misuse. —PC-XT+ 17:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this is weird, @Czar: and @PC-XT: after Fogartylee (talk · contribs) kept using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Spectrum as a forum, I issued them a warning. In response, they've blocked any links to World of Spectrum from Wikipedia. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I actually do get a 403 forbidden error now. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new apogee for pettiness on Wikipedia. Well, I left a message, but if the links aren't restored, yeah we should kill the template... czar 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to get info for Star Control, now, from that link. (Off topic, I think I've played that game or similar on SEGA Genesis or SNES. It was fun in two player mode. haha) I'll make sure my browser is sending a referrer header. If that's working and it is still blocked, I'll also change my !vote to delete. —PC-XT+ 01:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 03:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: and @Soetermans: I don't know what's blocking my referrer. It says it's on, but I'm not sure. I tried in other browsers, as well, and it seems to be working for me, so I haven't changed my !vote, but if it still doesn't work for everyone, it's kind of lost its benefit as an external link. —PC-XT+ 03:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have the Internet Archive Wayback Machine [1] which we could use in the template to overcome this short term or as an archive, if that would be best... —PC-XT+ 04:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue has been resolved czar 08:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two important reasons for deletion:
  • guidelines for external links specify that "each link should be considered on its merits", however a WP:SPA, User:WOSlinker, was created with the sole intention of adding these links (presumably for self-promotion), and their contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/WOSlinker&dir=prev&limit=500&target=WOSlinker) show that the links were added so rapidly - sometimes several per minute - that absolutely no consideration could have given to whether the link was useful.
  • many of the links are WP:LINKVIO. Although the site claims to have permission from some copyright holders most of the downloads on the site do not. For example, there are links on 720° and Pang_(video_game) but their permits page does not show US Gold, Tiertex, Ocean Software or Mitchell as having granted them permission. Furthermore the specific publisher pages on the site for US Gold, Tiertex, Ocean and Mitchell have a blank space where the 'distribution' status should be displayed which indicates that the site does not have permission to distribute those titles. MrMajors (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:WOSlinker was originally created to add these links, but serveral per minute is a bit of an exageration. There were not created for self-promotion as I'm not affiliated with the site in any way. It's just that when I registered I had to choose a name and picked on that matched the purpose for which I was on Wikipedia at the time. After that initial editing, I then branched out in other areas and rarely do anything on computer games these days. At the time when these were added, many of the links to Moby Games didn't contain very much useful info either, so it didn't seem that bad added another link to another site. I don't think it matters much either way if the links to the World of Spectrum site are done through a template or are just done directly. What does matter is that they are reviewed to see if they contain relevant information and if not then the link should be removed from the article. In raiseing this TFD, User:Soetermans states that since Moby Games exists, there's no need for any other external links. I don't think there should be a preference for any particular site and each game article should be judged individually as to which external links are relevant. So in some cases, a link to World of Spectrum will be more relevant than a link to Moby Games. There are currently just over 600 links using this template but with a careful review, that should probably be reduced to around about half that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the first point, but I'll assume good faith. (I've seen this user's other helpful contributions, and I've made considered edits of several per minute, myself, because I make several related edits simultaneously in separate tabs and save them all at once.) The WP:LINKVIO is an issue, though. If the template is to be kept, it could be changed to blacklist and flag such links with a category for cleaning. Maybe adding those links to a general external link blacklist would be more appropriate, in case the template is not used. We should err on the side of caution in this regard. —PC-XT+ 21:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrMajors, unless the vast majority of the template's transclusions are inappropriate, I'd just remove the bunch that do not have permission from the distributor but there's no demonstrated need to burn all of the links. They're mainly used only when the article lacks any sort of substance, so the WoS link gives readers a place to start their research. In this regard, the link is on par with the materials archived at the Internet Archive. czar 06:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect Czar, World of Spectrum is not on par with the Internet Archive - the Internet Archive has a clear exemption in the DMCA for archiving copyright materials (Internet_Archive#Software). As far as removing "the bunch that do not have permission", this is not straightforward because even titles the site claims it has 'permission' for are misleading - for example Elite can be downloaded[1] because the site has permission from the publisher Firebird[2] to distribute their titles, however the copyright for Elite does not belong to them but to David Braben (who has not given permission) and Ian Bell (who has). "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States" - see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.
As far articles that lack "any sort of substance" are concerned then surely they should be proposed for deletion? MrMajors (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2016 (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).

Template:2010 Summer Youth Olympics NOCs 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. @Frietjes and PC-XT: Let me know if either of you would like this restored to your userspace to incorporate into the article. It's not obvious that spamming this giant wall in the article would be helpful, so I'll leave it to your judgement. ~ Rob13Talk 03:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. if needed, should be included directly in the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused, possibly after merging with the article, per nom —PC-XT+ 18:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (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).
  1. ^ "Elite". World of Spectrum.
  2. ^ "Firebird Software Ltd". World of Spectrum.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_6&oldid=729941578"