Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3 edit

Obsolete community sanctions templates 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 relisted on 2020 November 12. Izno (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2020 (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).

Media family tree template 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 all except Template:Addams family tree (no consensus). No prejudice against speedy renomination for a focused discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the same reasons Woodroar gave below for in #Template:Metal Gear family tree, all of these templates fail WP:NOR and WP:FANCRUFT. Outside of this info not being sourced in the templates, this info, if it was sourced, would be much better as prose rather than templates like this. Of note, these have all been created by the same user, Cassandra872. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above using my reasoning below, if that makes sense.   Woodroar (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Woodroar.— TAnthonyTalk 04:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sagidyev, no opinion on others. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Koavf: I have redirected Sagidyev; the rest are noteworthy enough to keep. Cassandra872 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Davidwr: at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 30#Template:Dragon Ball family tree. Over the next week I will provide reliable, third-party published sources for everything. Cassandra872 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: I am adding references right now. I have Template:Addams family tree and Template:Metal Gear family tree covered so far. Cassandra872 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not assert that references were an issue. Such cruft can always be sourced to in-universe sources. I am asserting that these are useless to Wikipedia for the purposes of explaining the character from an out of universe perspective. (And in fact think this is true of all fictional family trees, even ones published as such rather than drawn from random places of each fictional appearance.) --Izno (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: the Addams family tree is definitely not reliably sourced. There's a commercial genealogy blog with no author, a Playbill article that doesn't mention any family relationships, and a Digital Spy article that mentions a few. The Metal Gear family tree is likewise poorly sourced as mentioned below. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for Template:Addams family tree since it is the only one among the family tree templates which may potentially be of encyclopedic value for the main Addams Family article, and I am certain there may be reliable sources which talk about individual Addams Family members as a unit, but the sourcing still leaves much to be desired as per Woodroar . Delete the rest per reasoning I provided under discussion for Template:Metal Gear family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). Haleth (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, kudos to what appears to be new editor who has passion for fiction and for learning the incredibly complicated syntax for these tools. I've been here 16? years and I've never even tried. In terms of the actual templates, I suggest generally delete, with possibly some exceptions. Big caveat for me is that I can really only speak to the Sith order and Spock items with any fluency. Those two, and most of the others, are complicated by warps and rends in various parallel universes, reboots, etc. -- presenting them as flat diagrams is, in various sorts, misleading, unclear (i.e. what do I make of solid vs. dashed lines?), and even inaccurate or contradictory. The sheer pixel-size and spread for many of these (e.g. Spider-Man) also diminishes their usefulness for clearly conveying relationships. I think the actual family tree for Addams family might be helpful. I don't know enough about Template:Braddock family tree, Template:Kravinoff family tree, Template:Bates family tree, and Template:Corleone family tree to have an opinion, but they look like actual "family trees" that don't have some of the lapses of the others -- my curiosity, then, is to what extent we have lots of standalone articles that benefit from the template and warrant this template vs. is there a franchise or family article where the tree can just live. For those, I'd suggest either keeping them if they have utility across multiple articles or merging them into a single umbrella article. --EEMIV (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEMIV: Solid lines mean biological children, while dashed lines refer to adopted children/mentorships described as mother/father figures. For the most part, I have only created family trees where multiple members of family have their own individual articles to link back to, like with Template:Skywalker family tree. So with the Template:Addams family tree, that would be linked to on both the main and individual pages. Cassandra872 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Addams family tree and Delete the rest. There is no original research used for this particular template as enough reliable sources back the content up. The Addams family in particular has a-lot of out of universe info regarding the family as that is what the series is based on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closing admin: Some of the templates, such as Template:Batman family tree were subset into the article and the template redirected by the template creator. Even trying to assume good faith here, I find this very out of process. Please note that if the result is to delete, the content itself should be removed from the articles in question. --Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was the Batman, Corleone, and Soprano templates that were like that. I've restored them to the template space, because I don't feel the info should be mass moved out of the template space, which looks like the creator is trying to circumvent the discussion process. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (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:Metal Gear family tree 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template fails WP:NOR and WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:FANCRUFT. In-universe content needs to be supported by reliable, third-party published sources. All of these sources are primary. But there's a bigger issue: even if everything here was sourced, the template still wouldn't be encyclopedic on Wikipedia. Reliable, third-party sources are rarely so comprehensive to support a family tree like this. Including this on articles about individual characters would be WP:UNDUE. Now it may be appropriate to include a family tree on the main article about a series or perhaps one about its characters—again, assuming that it's properly sourced, which isn't the case here—but we don't need should never have a template for that single use. Woodroar (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Adding to my !vote here with another reason why templates are bad for content like this: they make it more difficult to edit that content because it's actually another page entirely. This is part of the reason why we have guidelines like MOS:TEXTASIMAGES and use editable SVGs whenever possible. Woodroar (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar: I have just reliably sourced everything. What would you improve upon? Cassandra872 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a couple of reliable sources and several more questionable and unreliable sources. Even the reliable sources don't put much emphasis on the family relationship aspect, so why should Wikipedia care? After all, we're here to summarize what reliable, third-party sources say, not synthesize our own in-universe fan content. And this doesn't even address the bigger issue: these family trees are UNDUE on character articles but maybe encyclopedic on a single main article, if sourced. Templates simply aren't the solution for this kind of content. Woodroar (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per reasoning from Woodroar. Unconvinced that the creator of the family tree templates understands that they are UNDUE on character articles, or understands the distinction between primary sources and reliable independent third-party sources. Haleth (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_3&oldid=988292765"