Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 29



Template:Stubclass

 * 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 as unused and redundant

Was deprecated in favour of a WPBannerMeta descendant with auto=yes. No longer used; no particular reason for keeping it. AFAIK, no WikiProjects/bots still use it; if they do, please comment as such. — This, that, and the other [talk] 08:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Unused but still supported by WikiProject Ships, and could in theory still be used by several of the few remaining non-WPBannerMeta project banners. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked WP Ships if they want to change to WPBannerMeta, but they're not very enthusiastic.  They may be a bit deviant: they have dropped their Importance scale, which would appear to be a core part of Wikipedia 1.0 and the existence of WikiProjects. Looks like it may be a while yet. — This, that, and the other (talk)  06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see importance levels as being in any way necessary for Wikiprojects, since WPPs should be for the improvement of articles, and that doesn't require an importance rating. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - deprecated, and doesn't actually seem to be used anywhere. I expect WP Ships should be able to manage without it. Robofish (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per my above comment, I think it was a bit premature tagging the template as "deprecated". It may not be currently used, but I don't think it could reasonably said that it "has no likelihood of being used". PC78 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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:Milky Way Gate Address (second nomination)

 * 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

Also nominated are the related templates:

All per Templates for Deletion, point 4.

Original nomination here.

I'd like to quote the original (withdrawn) nomination, as it got to the point very well: "These templates display Stargate symbols as a planet's in-universe location that is never mentioned in dialog (except maybe two of 300+ episodes). While I can see a reasonable usefulness for naming planets and planet designations (e.g. P4X-639) in plot summaries, the symbol-addresses rarely if ever have any plot impact and aren't known to anyone but the most fanatic fans (WP:UNDUE, WP:FANCRUFT). The symbol addresses are hard to verify unless you know the episode they appear in and pay attention with eagle eyes (possibly WP:V issues). This is more a TFD nomination for irrelevance than for feared harm to the project. – sgeureka t•c 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)"

The "keep" !voting in the original TfD raised numerous specious arguments (some posted by brand new users, who appear to have been drawn into the discussion from off-site). I am going to address these right off the bat, in the order they appeared, so that the discussion can hopefully move beyond the arguments made in the first nomination's discussion:


 * The templates are used to indicate "a plot element", making coverage better: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and just because something can be sourced does not mean it actually belongs in a Wikipedia article.  The emotive but non-substantive objections from these templates' suipporters, who so far have provided zero valid reasons for their retention, are clearly a neutrality problem. No "keep" !voters have addressed these issues at all.  Aficionados of these templates assert that they are somehow useful and valuable, but the entire point of this TfD is that they clearly are not and they violate Wikipedia policy and guideliness. No "keep" !voters have demonstrated otherwise. Also, the implication, that WP's Stargate articles will somehow be substandard without this "information" (cruft) is an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy at work; no such consequences have actually been demonstrated, in this or any other series of articles on WP.
 * WP:V issues should be handled on an article-by-article basis: Not when the problem is intrinsic to the template itself and its intended usage.
 * The templates are a "valuable piece of work !": Emotive but essentially content-free rationales for keeping something are not valid XfD arguments (and are invalid basic logic). Equally faulty is the suggestion that just because something took some work to accomplish it therefore is automatically valuable to Wikipedia (if this were true, no articles, templates, etc., would ever be deleted, since all of them required human effort to create). This also smacks of the fallacy of appeal to novelty and the intentional fallacy (just because the templates are gee-whiz and were well intentioned does not mean they belong here).
 * The templates' information makes sense within the context of an encyclopedia: As already pointed out, these symbols mean nothing to anyone but the most obsessive "Stargate" fans, so the opposite is clearly the case. It's blatant "indiscriminate information" in WP policy terms, as well as a classic example of fancruft.  Furthermore, a wholly subjective assertion of alleged importance is not a valid argument in XfD. No evidence of any kind has been presented that these templates actually help any users in any way. Meanwhile the fact that they've been AfDd twice and that they periodically get deleted as pointless, confusing noise from articles in which they appear is strong evidence to the contrary.
 * The "Stargate" franchise is popular, with a large impact on pop culture: So what? That says nothing about the utility of these templates, and is a classic logic fallacy, the argument to popularity, among its many other names.
 * The symbols may help spark an interest in Egyptian hieroglyphics: Aside from the fact that it is not the purpose of an article on topic X to spark interest in unrelated topic Y, this is absurd, since there is no connection between hieroglyphics and fictional Stargate addresses, which are space alien star charts, not a written human language.
 * The templates don't make the articles more confusing: Even if this were actually true, this is another well-codified invalid XfD argument. But they do make the articles more confusing, by introducing a bunch of symbolic gobbledygook that probably less that 1/100 of 1% of our readership will understand. The fact that they are entirely "in-universe" violates the WP Manual of Style quite directly. Furthermore, these templates as they are presently used (inline in article prose, for the most part) are in flagrant contravention of Manual of Style (icons) (which predates the first TfD on these templates, and should have been cited then).
 * The symbols help clarify the plot: They only do this for the tiny minority of fans, themselves a vanishingly minuscule percentage of WP readers, who already know and understand gate addresses, and even then the point is questionable, since there is no evidence cited to date that the show writers put much thought into what symbols are used in any particular episode (cf. stardates in Star Trek).
 * "To remove [the symbols] takes away from their importance": They have no importance that has yet been demonstrated by reliable sources, and it is not Wikipedia's job to actively support the alleged importance of something.
 * Stargate addresses are sometimes important in the plot, e.g. discovery of 8-symbol addresses, importance of deciphering an unknown address, etc.: Certainly, but what the particular addresses are is a matter of fictional minutiae, and of zero importance in an encyclopedia article. By way of analogy, a great many episodes of CSI have the address of a suspect or witness, finding out what that address is, and arriving at the scene as crucial plot points, yet the actual, made-up address, e.g. "3425 Jackson Blvd.", is of no significance whatsoever, and would be deleted with prejudice if obsessed over, e.g. with a graphical inline template showing street signs, in a Wikipedia article's episode plot summary.
 * Deletion will irritate "Stargate" fans: Not Wikipedia's problem. Also, another case of the fallacy of appeal to consequences.
 * The templates are useful for organizing the stargate address information: No doubt. But that information is not relevant to any encyclopedic purpose, per all of the above. " X is useful for Y " does not make Y encyclopedic, nor support any argument for the retention of X in an encyclopedic context (post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: correlation != causation).
 * There are "endless precedents of using other obscure topic-specific organizing criteria on here" ... Keep the templates "until wikip develops a clearly established policy of say (for example): moving this kind of stuff stuff over to...topic-spoecific wiki's" [sic]: Then cite these supposed precedents.  The reality is quite the opposite, of course, and WP has already clearly established relegating fancruft to fan wikis and other forums.  Stargate Wiki exists for a reason. WP routinely deletes precisely this sort of cruft and directs it to other far more appropriate places, such as Battlestar Wiki, Wookieepedia, Pokémon Wiki/Bulbapedia and Memory Alpha. Indeed, a large part of Wikia's reason to exist is to provide alternatives to Wikipedia for hosting information not appropriate to the encyclopedia. At any rate, trying to get these particular templates kept on such a basis is an obvious case of the special pleading fallacy.
 * "wikip [sic] exists to serve everybody": Exactly. This is why the WP:NOT policy exists, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has to be usable by everyone; it is not a dumping ground for trivia of interest only to a small clique.
 * "ideally we should provide all information about everything": This is directly contradicted by one of Wikipedia's oldest and most stable policies, WP:NOT, already cited.

Finally, I request that closing admins pay especial attention to the history of users who !vote on this, as the first nomination's comments were clearly dominated by noobs (did not understand basic WP policies, had no idea how XfDs work, and in several cases did not even know how to sign posts). Any evidence of puppetry or off-WP canvassing should be taken seriously. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)  Update: Analysis of respondents to original TfD: Cerejota - active editor on a breadth of topics. Krinkle - barely 100 edits to date, only 8 before !voting. Yeahjesse - 3 edits, only 2 before !voting. Jaardon - active editor, including on Stargate topics. 70.240.51.56 - 1 edit ever, the !vote. burnte - active editor until shortly after the orignal TfD. Lx 121 - active editor, especially on fannish topics, and with a long history of speedied and otherwise deleted contributions (see User talk:Lx 121). Draw your own conclusions. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: The use of these icons/templates in "Stargate"-related articles is controversial even within the WP:STARGATE WikiProject, as evidenced by this RfC on the project's own talk page. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really controversial within the project. I brought the RfC to the project page, but I'm not involved with the wikiproject. The project members themselves don't seem to be participating in the discussion, with the exception of User:pd_THOR. I brought the RfC to encourage more people to discuss there, which thus far hasn't happened (though this TfD is a fine venue too). Staecker (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Furthermore, just because the SVG gate symbol icons used by these templates are "freely licensed" doesn't get us off the hook; those SVGs are near-exact-duplicate derivative works of the copyrighted creative output of the SG film's and series' production departments, and as such they are copyright violations. After these templates are deleted, the images need to be removed as well, as they do not fall under fair use. Actually, strictly speaking (from a legal point of view) the images should be deleted this very instant. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the contribution history of editors in a previous discussion as being particularly relevant, but the bottom line is that the symbol addresses created by these templates do not add any useful encyclopedic information. The addresses are purely fictional, and in reviewing multiple pages that use these templates I could not find any instance where being able to see the exact string of symbols provided any important plot information for the article. From the exhaustive list of points in the nomination, the key argument is this: Wikipedia is not an exhaustive source for minute details about a subject. What symbols are used in a fictional address for a fictional planet in a fictional story is a level of detail that might be appropriate for a fan site, but does not belong in a general-interest encyclopedia. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the contrib. history as important because it's fairly strongly evidentiary of canvassing or worse. People with 0–8 edits do not just show up out of the blue to submit mangled votes on obscure templates. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

*Keep. I dont see any good reason for delation. Template is used in many articles for stargate addresses, which helps to explain how stargate works. Stargate glyphs and addresses ara significant part of show, story and articles. Template deletion will only expand the size of articles. Beside, this was discussed before and decision was to leave template, just leave it! Vilnisr (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the nominative rationale, I'm confused as to how these templates either bias the information they express, or promote incivility. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the nominator got a little too excited responding to each and every single thing in the previous TfD. Nifboy (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. pd_THOR, I don't understand your question. No one has cited WP:CIVIL. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nom at the top cited "per Templates for Deletion, point 4," which is NPOV and WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure what was intended by the nom. Staecker (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are examples used in point 4. They aren't intended to be exclusive. Based on the other discussion, the policy most likely intended was WP:NOT. --RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good reasons: violates WP:NOT (policy) and WP:MOSICONS (well-accepted guideline). Used in many articles: Yes, that's the problem! Helps explain how [the] stargate works: Not Wikipedia's job; that's Stargate Wikia's job.  Glyphs may be important in-universe in particular episodes, but are of zero importance in Wikipedia articles; cf. CSI analogy above. Template deletion will not expand article size, but reduce it by eliminating inline graphical clutter.  Previous TfD did not conclude with consensus, but was withdrawn, so it has no value as the precedent that you wish it was.  Finally, all of this is moot, because the images used by the templates are blatant copyvios. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * explain WP:MOSICONSVilnisr (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, go read WP:MOSICONS. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These seem to violate at least two points of MOSICONS: "Do not use icons in general article prose" and "Encyclopaedic purpose". Staecker (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I am the instigator of the RfC at the wikiproject, and my reasons to delete are expressed there. One more reason not mentioned above: the glyphs in question are often very hard to see on screen, and are never "read aloud" (they are not pronounceable in-universe). So whoever put them all into the encyclopedia was usually freeze-framing and squinting really hard at them. This stretches the boundaries of arguments that some have made that the glyphs are "reliably sourced to the episode" (as if they were substantial elements of the episode that any viewer would agree had been accurately recorded). Staecker (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Except for some very limited cases (the original Stargate movie and the episode in which SG-1 travelled to find a ZPM to power Earth's chair to name a couple) glyphs and gate addresses have not really been a significant plot device. We see glimpses often but rarely do we see a whole address because the addresses aren't as important as some fans would make out. Even in the first episode of SGU, all we got to see were four of the nine glyphs and one of those was Earth's. I don't see how partial addresses as presented here or here add to an episode summary or are in any way encyclopaedic. Their inclusion serves only to excite the "dedicated" fans. Since the images are blatant copyright violations, I don't see any way we can't delete the images and without them, there is no need for the templates. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Stargate fan, but I agree with SMcCandlish; this user has raised some very valid points, including this CSI analogy (gate/home addresses serve no actual purpose). If those die hard fans are upset about it being deleted, then there is always the Stargate Wikia, and there are bound to be other websites too. Another point is that over the years, they are used less, and that some of them are incomplete; half symbols, half "?". Also, they are not in order anymore either. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm also a big fan (and of Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG, Firefly, Red Dwarf, CSI, Terminator, Tolkien, and a bunch more), but I'm also a huge fan of WP and its encyclopedic purpose. I've been a semi-regular contributor to things like Battlestar Wiki, but I'd fight like a rabid dog to keep the content at that wiki from being ported into WP articles.  The natures of the two types of site are radically different. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. just don't forget to clean up Vilnisr (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there is such a thing as excessive detail in articles on subjects like this. These templates are an excellent example of what is clearly beneath the limit for Wikipedia.   DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 3 December 2009 (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:Roseanne

 * 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

Inappropriate. If we remove the cast we are left with 4 articles which probably are well linked to each other making the navbox useless. Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not offer sufficient content that can, and should, be available on the series article page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like the nom, I discount the actor articles in this type of navbox (because of reasons similar to the consensus against actor filmography navboxes), and without those there aren't enough articles to justify the box's existence. --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (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:Supertall observation and communication towers

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 13:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Every supertall communication tower (i.e. 300 metres or taller) cannot be included in this template - see the list of tallest structures in the world for an idea of how many of these there are. Any other supertall "towers" (i.e. freestanding - not guyed) are included in Template:Supertall and it is not necessary to duplicate them here. timsdad  (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If intended to cover every such tower, then a category or list article is more appropriate due to the number of such structures. If intended to cover only the freestanding ones, then it is redundant to Supertall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RL0919 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (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.