Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 21



Template:Hat1

 * 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 debate was delete. Wizardman 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I created this template myself by modifying hat. I have since found a better way to accomplish my purpose and have removed my use of this template. Somehow it has gotten used at an RFC/U, but the same fix could be done there. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I've replaced the RFC instance. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:Mpdb movie

 * 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 debate was delete delldot   &nabla;.  23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate template for unnotable self-published site with a questionable copyright status on the images it has users upload. Template appears to have been created by someone related to the site, as their only other edits were to then spam it over various movie articles. As a note, this template was nominated for deletion on February 6, 2008, but the discussion was never closed and the template removed from the article in June saying it never reached the discussion page? The article for this film was deleted on the same day this template was first TfD, per Articles for deletion/MoviePosterDB.com.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. Possibly snowball? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The WP article MoviePosterDB.com was deleted (see discussion). If the site isn't notable enough to be written about here; how is it notable enough to be linked to from multiple pages via a template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not spam, and no snowball. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Procedurally, the previous TfD is still open, so this one should be closed as inappropriate, and comments directed there, where the !votes were three deletes and four keeps. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. I think procedurally the other should be closed as no consensus, as it was obviously skipped when the rest on the page were closed and revisiting comments from 8 months ago is pointless now. I nominated this one and only after did I discover that the comment removing the old one was not quite correct. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? There's nothing particularly topical about the template, so the comments there are as pertinent now as they were then. That opens up another possibility, which is to move the comments there forward into this discussion so that the closing admin can consider the entire range of comments from both discussions, and folks now can respond, pro or con, to points made then. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they are outdated. It seems inappropriate to me to presume the people who commented then feel the same way now. I think it would be better to close that one as non-consensus, then invite those who commented then to comment now. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand in what way they can be considered "outdated", since the template is not topical in any way. What conditions have changed to make those comments any less relevant than any comment made now?  I just don't see it. Let me alos point out that since the template was first made, the creator of it has not tried to disseminate it once he/she was discouraged from doing so, and so of the over 400 articles it's currently in use on, only a handful were put there by that creator.  Whatever their motivation was, it's not why the template is in use now. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because people's points of view can change in 8 months, and on Wikipedia often do. People who said keep before may have changed their minds, and visa versa, after seeing how its used and do to later discussions at WP:EL as to whether these are even appropriate links (which per WP:EL would seem to be a big no). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a good point, so why not this: close the previous as no consensus, and put notices on the talk pages of all the previous participants, pointing them to this discussion, so they have the opportunity to either repeat their previous views or report their new ones. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, it just sunk in what the last part of your previous comment was. If you think there's an issue about the site being eligible under EL, shouldn't *that* discussion go first, because the template's only a tool for posting the link.  If the site passes muster at EL, then the template should be gold, right, and if the site is deep sixed at EL, then there's no need for the template at all.  So... why not close *both* of these discussion as basically irrelevant at the moment, and deal with the underlying issue, which is whether the website is appropriate? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a separate discussion isn't needed. The article for the same site was deleted as spam and as a non-notable website. It clearly fails all guidelines for WP:EL, and the site's lack of a valid license for the images uploaded clearly violates WP:COPYRIGHT, again making it something that should not be linked and for which a template to encourage these links should not be available. Other templates to similar copyvio sites have been deleted for the same reason, without requiring discussions on two or three other pages first. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I'm not quite understanding the problem here. if you're so absolutely certain that the website will fail to get consensus at a discussion at EL, then what's the problem with taking the discussion there in the first place?  If the website it not eligible to be a external link, then this template is irrelevant and useless and can hit the garbage can, and people can't add the link manually either.  But if the website is eligible, then even if you delete the template, the site can be added manually, so what have you gained?  To stop peoeple from adding it manually, you're still going to have to go to WP:EL and have that discussion anyway!! If your point is to wipe out the links that exist (obviously, I don't quite see why you want to, to me the site seems quite harmless and actually useful, as I expressed in the previous discussion) then get a ruling from the community that the link is spam -- so far you don't had that. We've had a ruling that the site isn't notable enough for its own article, which I think is true, but that really isn't relevant to the discussion of whether it's eligible to be an external link, since the standards are different.  If you don't get that consensus, then the votes here to delete the template on the basis that the website is spam aren't really appropriate. Can you please explain what the harm is in having one discussion which decides the issue once and for all?  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for some help at WP:AN. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a message at WP:EL's talk page about the issue. I see no reason to have multiple discussions when one will do. I also fail to see what encyclopedic value it adds to anything. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a procedural question about the two TfDs open at the same time, and a priority question about where the discussion should be, so I think some more admin input would be good. Please note that I'm not asking for multiple discussions, I think that both TfDs should be closed without prejudice, and the issue should be decided at WP:EL. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(out)Here is the previous discussion in a collapse box, so that people can decide for themselves if these comments are "outdated". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. Par t y! Talk to me! 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete looks like spam.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creator also created MoviePosterDB.com in support of this template, which is also undergoing AFD. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've looked at the site, and it doesn't appear to me to be commercial, just a database of movie posters, which, it seems to me, is a pretty handy thing. If I'm wrong, and I've missed something that indicates this is a commercial site, could someone please point it out to me? I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no encyclopedic value in linking to a website with pictures related to the film. The creator of the template created an article about the website and proceeded to add links to film articles to the website.  It's not a matter of whether it's commercial or not, but a matter of spamming a kind of media that does not enhance the value of its topics. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that I wasn't mistaken about the non-commercial nature of the site. I disagree entirely about the value of a gallery of images connected to a article's subject -- if that was the case, Wikipedia would be text only, but it's not, we include images as well.  I wouldn't advocate larding down an article with tens of images, but simply having a link' to a site that does, where one can easily find how a movie was sold, how it was positioned in the marketplace via its chosen visual representation, has clear value. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that marketing images add clear value about the film. Studios will obviously try to hook audiences any way they can apart from the actual content of the film.  If anything, marketing images are more inappropriate to link to than actual screen shots and production stills of the film, which would be more representative of that topic.  Many external links can be added to film articles because of an indirect relationship, but I disagree that a gallery of film posters adds a deeper understanding of the topic that the article cannot provide.  Anything can be delved into deeply -- a particular country's review of another country's film, a gallery of fan art from creative folks from the fan base, or linking to available merchandise for the film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But a gallery of a film's merchandise won't tell you all that much about the film, except who its target audience was, whereas for many, many years, a film's poster was the primary visual means of advertising the film, and therefore the style and content of the poster tells quite a bit about what the studio wanted the audience to think about the film, which (especially in the days of the studio system), is a pretty interesting and important piece of information. Plus, purely on the level of visual perception, the posters are interesting visually in a way that, say, "Star Wars" lunch boxes or "Terminator" action figure are not.  Posters are only merchadise incidentally, they're primarily advertising, and I think overlooking the advertising aspect of a media object such as a feature film is missing something important. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your points, but my issue is that it's just a collection of poster images. For a reader to understand the impact of posters in selling a film, they have to rely on their own background in assessing popular culture, marketing strategies, iconic highlights, etc.  One could do the same for screen shots or a gallery of merchandise.  I don't think I would mind the link very much in the External links section of the article film poster, but having the link available for every article whose film is covered by the website, does not seem to add anything but a superficial display of images that don't differ from any other set related to the film.  Importance can be read into it, yes, like one could read into the generational fashion present in screen shots of 1980s films or generational hobbies for merchandise of 1970s films.  I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at -- I think film posters are only useful if we can present real-world context about them.  I don't think the everyday reader can surmise the meanings of the posters' visual representations through an external link that presents zero context and all pixels. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 04:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree, it's not analysis, it's data, but I don't see why that should disqualify it from being linked to. IMDB, for instance, is almost entirely data, and yet every film article links to it as an essential repository of data concerning films.  This is pretty much the same thing, except it's visual data, not text. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep pretty obvious since I'm the contributor. But I don't see why this is non-notable or even pointless. Other external links have none or only one movie poster, mpdb has them all. Also, the template clearly says 'posters at MoviePosterDB.com', so users know what they are clicking on! Beales (Talk  13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for making good-faith attempts to add information to articles. I'm pleased you didn't just dump a load of non-free image content into a bunch of articles and revert war to keep it there.  Dan Beale-Cocks  21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The site itself is useful, and many people interested in movies may be interested in the posters that were associated with it. The template makes this easier and more uniform. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only a website with a bunch of film-related images. There are a ton of these out there.  Permitting this template is sanctioning the solicitation of this website across film articles when Wikipedia is not a link farm. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think a poster is part of the movie just like the cover of a book is part of the book. And the interesting of MPDB is that they give the reader an overview of a poster in different languages (if present) so one can see the difference between countries and cultures. Also it is a non-commercial site so I don't see what harm can be done.--Thomvis (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think people are failing to realize that this is one of the many, many movie websites that have attempted to be solicited on Wikipedia. I've had to deal with linkspam such as this, listing most of them here.  I'm sure a case could be made for each and every one of these sites, but the sanctioning of this template permits the solicitation of this website, which is not notable.  WikiProject Films has discussed through consensus to have IMDb, All Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo as encompassing websites, based on their reputation and content.  All we have here is content from a website that does not register any results when searching  MoviePosterDB.com -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR MoviePosterDB -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR "Internet Movie Poster Database" -site:MoviePosterDB.com.  In the scheme of things, the importance of this website is seriously being overplayed, and it's unreasonable for it to have its own template. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, I disagree. There are many more people who edit articles about films than are represented in WikiProject Films, so I don't see how a "consensus" there should necessarily be given weight here, when the commentary here seems relatively evenly divided.  I'm not making any great claims for this particular site, I simply think that since it's non-commercial, it's relevant to the subject matter, and the content is interesting and informative, that makes it worthwhile.  It certainly doesn't necessarily create a precedent for any other site which doesn't have those qualities.  It may turn out that no one uses the template, and if that happens, a case can then be made for eliminating it.  (I would advise the creator not to plaster it all over the place, but just seed it a little and allow other editors to use it as they see fit, in order to give a realistic picture of whether people find it useful or not.)  In the meantime, I think the move to delete is premature, and I see no harm in allowing the template to exist. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another COI junk spam template that could not be used by anyone following WP:EL. 2005 (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete From their site... In late 2004 I (jayef) decided to start a movieposter database. My friend (Roman) helped me to code the whole site and it went online in december 2004! While the site was growing really fast, the site got overloaded and we had to get another server. I'd say that they are not an EL as they clearly don't own all these posters and their images. We can't link to mass copyvios, regardless of how cool or useful the site is. rootology  ( C )( T ) 13:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this spam and copyvio automation tool. It is a useless template as WP:C forbids us from using it anyway, due to the posters being copyright of someone other than the site itself. Maybe they will get a takedown notice and save us the trouble. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These !votes are really about the nature of the site, and not about the template itself, which I why I feel this discussion should be taking place at WP:EL and not here. The template is simply a tool. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with that. Its basically the same issue. Do the links belong? No, then the template doesn't belong. Almost all the links are from the template. I haven't seen separate discussions be required on other such templates where they encouraged the creation of inappropriate links that violate WP:COPYRIGHT and/or WP:EL. By its very nature, a discussion on the appropriateness or validity of the template will include a discussion on its nature and the appropriateness of what it does. This is a template that creates external links, as such the discussion will, by nature, include whether the links are valid. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's the same issue, but it's talking place here and not there, where the focus is on external links and (presumably) the people there are interested and knowledgeable about that subject. Still, it's rather a moot point since you posted a note on WP:EL about this discussion, and admins don't seem interested in the procedural and priority questions I've raised. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films and on the talk pages of all editors who participated in the previous TfD discussion, with the exception of one whose talk page was protected, and the creator of the template, who had previously been notified. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Instead of recommending to delete outright, I just wanted to put my thoughts forward and consider any responses to them. First of all, I don't mind the Movie Poster Database as a source for uploading some poster images (usually when IMP Awards does not have it).  This template is meant to link to a film's respective poster page on the website, and the page can show the different sheets used to promote the film.  My perspective of external links in film articles is that there should be as few "staple" links as possible.  To date, we've limited links to cast and crew information (IMdb), box office performance (Box Office Mojo), and reviews (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic).  We use templates for these links since they are pretty standard.  We also add links that are substantial to the topic and cannot be implemented in the article body.  I am not sure if showing the different posters of a film is considered substantial.  We've never really pursued links to image galleries containing screen shots of films, which seems more relevant to the topic than the visuals of marketing campaigns.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm, and I do not feel that there is a need for this template.  If someone is interested in film posters, I am OK with MPDB being under "External links".  Feel free to address the points I've raised. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erik: I have never seen this template used except in the "External links" section of film articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are trying to address. I understand that such a template like this would be used in the "External links" sections of film articles, but my argument was that the website does not strike me as a "staple" link and does not quite belong in these sections.  My impression is that having a template standardizes a website, so I do not think that there needs to be one for this article based on my argument that it does not fulfill the substance criteria. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what confuses me is this sentence: I am OK with MPDB being under "External links". I don't get what you mean in the context of what I think you're saying. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not clear about that. I meant the actual article film poster, where MPDB is linked in "External links", since that seems the right fit for the website's substance.  (Seems like IMP Awards should be linked there, too.)  I don't think that MPDB has a place in an individual film article (barring any exceptional circumstances of praise or controversy about a set of posters).  Hope that clarifies my arguments. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AH! OK, I understand, thanks for the explanation – it seems that my reading comprehension skills fluctuate wildly during the day! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Possible COI issues, and almost certainly copyvio issues. Sorry, but I regard this as a spam link, it offers no real encyclopedic value as opposed to other websites such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. I'm fine using MPDB as a resource for adding film posters to articles, but as an external link in film articles, no way. PC78 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why was I awakened from my grave? Really. I don't appreciate getting messages about XfDs as I view them as Canvassing.   CWii ( Talk  01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought "canvassing" was when you tried to get people to come who you assume will vote the same way you do, so as to sway the discussion. What I did was notify everyone, yeah and nay, who participated in the previous conversation.  Since that discussion was 3 "keep" and 3 "delete", (subtracting my own "keep", since I was already here), there was no attempt to canvas, just an attempt to make sure that everyone who expressed an interest last time, in a TfD that was not closed until a few days ago, got an opportunity to have their say this time around.  Sorry to have bothered you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comment above; I wanted to see if there was a response to the points I made, but time's up, I suppose. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:Giles Thornton

 * 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 debate was delete. Wizardman 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unused template; looks to be a db-bio page. Blowdart | talk 09:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like a pseudo Infobox person. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Hardwired version of Infobox person, and the subject had his article speedy-deleted yesterday.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is not a template in fact. It's an infobox for a specific person using Infobox person. Right now it's orphan as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.