Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 5



Template:FilmLinks

 * 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 template does not seem to create more Linkfarm issues than separate templates. However, its output should probably be standardized with the existing templates. Ruslik_ Zero 15:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to a series of already existent templates such as IMDb title, Allmovie title, Bfidb, Mojo title, Metacritic film, Rotten-tomatoes, etc. and unnecessary lumping together of various EL's. Also creates a non-standard output.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I earlier posted on Xeworlebi's Talk page: Please stop reverting the Template usage. If you wish to discuss the Template, the place to do that is at the Discussion page of Template:FilmLinks. There are various similar templates (such as Template:UK MP links and Template:CongLinks and Template:JudgeLinks), and they've all been created for the same reason: standardization and ease of use, both in formatting for each article (including sequence of appearance) and later updating as links and sources change. For example, 'MovieTome' now redirects to Metacritic. With a multi-link Template, that's very simple to fix because only the one Template needs to be fixed. Drop the field from the Template, and all articles using that field are automatically corrected (since Metacritic is already included - otherwise, change the format). With a single-use template, each article must be corrected either manually or with a bot. Which hasn't been done, btw. (If you look at Category:Film external link templates you will see other examples of out-of-date templates.) I don't care if the name of the film is repeated endlessly or not, but in similar templates the consensus was (eventually) to not do that but to use a description of the type of information. If the consensus here is to keep the name, then obviously it only has to be entered once (in an additional name field) rather than separately for each link. I also found some current template issues with redirecting going on because at the time the single-use template was corrected, the site used different formatting for its urls. Again, this is easier to correct if there's only one 'major' template. It also means consensus sources aren't inadvertently left out. Flatterworld (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also totally pointless to try to have a discussion about the Template as you continue to maliciously delete all examples of the use of the Template. Demanding it be deleted while at the same time preventing an informed discussion of it is operating in Bad Faith. I suggest you decide just what it is you're trying to accomplish here, other than expressing your anger. I am going to restore te link to True Grit now, and I expect you to leave it in place until this discussion is finished. And I still don't understand why you couldn't be bothered to discuss this template at it's won Talk page. Flatterworld (talk)
 * You changed the generally accepted and standard formatting, I reverted that based on that. That is not malicious, that's restoring the standard formatting changed without any given reason. I nominated this template for deletion because I see no reason for it, and it being redundant to the individual templates. A discussion on the templates talk page would not accomplish anything because you are most likely the only one watching that page and as the creator of the template somewhat biased towards keeping/deleting this template. Also, a deletion process is done this way, not by discussion on the subjects talk page. You give as reason Movietome which isn't used anywhere… I know exactly what I'm doing here, I don't have to decide anything, which is nominating this for deletion, that has nothing to do with expressing my nonexistent anger. I believe this template should be deleted and TfD is the normal and only way to properly do that. BTW, you posted your message twice.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are ten (10) current occurrences of actors using the MovieTome template, which redirects to Metacritic. These AMG links are broken also. The template was previously used for both games and movies for AMG, and now it doesn't work for either - but the links were left in place (roughly 100?). That's what happens when there are so many separate templates nobody can be bothered to review them. Flatterworld (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see the harm in having a single template which can do the functions of all the above templates, it actually seems preferable as has been stated above because it is easier to keep track of just the one.AerobicFox (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: it makes much more sense to have one template that does everything than several individual ones. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I modified the Template so the example at True Grit (2010 film) now shows the use of a 'name' parameter in the IMDb and Allmovie link descriptions in an alternative format. I'm not stating any particular preference, just providing examples. Flatterworld (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So now instead of just a non-standard output it creates a mix mach of different styles and a non-MOS compliant output.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As you nominated this template for deletion rather than discussing changes on its Talk page, it was clear you needed to see actual examples to understand the possible options. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, I still find this template redundant and unnecessary. I've seen the examples, it was bad before now it's just worse.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Templates of this type are valuable for three reasons. First, they standardize the order and appearance of the external links.  Second, they aid in the process of locating useful external links for a particular article.  Third, they aid in maintaining links to external sites in certain cases when a site reorganizes. TJRC (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LINKFARM. A template like this is highly inappropriate because it encourages filling out all the values and does not consider each external link on their own merit. I can see that its use at True Grit (2010 film) and They Drive by Night (1938 film) has already started this kind of abuse. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand, Wikipedia's guideline on external links explicitly says, "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic... Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This kind of template encourages going against this as evidenced in the two examples where as many parameters as possible are filled out with no consideration for whether or not they are valid external links. Most of these are databases very redundant to each other and should not be encouraged. Their individual proliferation on less-tended articles does not reflect community endorsement of them. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So let's see...you saw the link to this discussion, presumably read others' contributions(?), yet you still deleted it? Because you didn't want any more discussion, even though, or perhaps particularly because, the consensus so far is to keep it? And you wanted to make discussion as difficult as possible by not having anything visible to discuss? Brilliant. That's your idea of Assume Good Faith? Really? I eagerly await your reply, because this "I don't like it, I'm deleting it, so there!" attitude is a bit too much to take - it's hardly Wikipedian. Flatterworld (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not delete anything. The template is still here. I removed its use in the articles. The external link guidelines are clear about avoiding so many links, and you can link to an old revision or a live sandbox page to show how the template works. It does not need to be actively used in the mainspace. I cited guidelines, and the keep !votes need to argue why these guidelines would not apply. To use an example, this shows the excessive number of external links used in such a template. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . This template encourages excessive linking to redundant external websites. While the links in this template would be good, they are not all needed and should not all be included in film articles. We should be focused on presenting the links that will benefit the reader for most and not all the databases and review websites are relevant for every article. So per WP:LINKFARM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, delete. BOVINEBOY 2008 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try, bovineboy2008. My post to 'Erik' goes double for you. Discussion requires something to discuss. That's the point. (btw - I'm saving this discussion link for the next blamefest on why Wikipedia editors are now almost all teenage boys who only care about games, techie toys and movies and are incredibly territorial and NIH. Sorry, but this really is hilarious.) Flatterworld (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. You attempted to introduce a new template, you were reverted, and now discussion is taking place. We can link to old revisions to show how your example works, but there is no imperative to have the template on a live page. In addition, please read WP:FOC. The template relates to the external link guidelines, and we can focus on that content instead of being mean. Do you have any thoughts about why the template would not encourage an excessive number of external links that are not going to be reviewed for proper inclusion? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't buy these LINKFARM and INDISCRIMINATE arguments. All the template does is consolidate other, existing templates. It doesn't require you to fill all the params, but it does mean that you don't have to remember Amg title, imdb title, Internet Archive film or the other templates it replaces. It's much easier and simpler and is clearly COMMONSENSE. --rpeh •T•C•E• 12:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those templates are all conveniently linked in the Manual of Style for film. Having templates always encourages editors to fill out as many links as possible. If this template were to survive, strict guidelines would be needed to restrict unnecessary and excessive linking already described. It would seem that MOS:FILM suggests that each link should be considered on its own merits and this template is encouraging mindless linking. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One does not have to fill out all the parameters, but there certainly will be novice editors who will do that. Whenever a new template (or a new parameter in an existing template) is introduced with the endorsement of the community, these editors will proliferate their use because it is an easy edit to make on Wikipedia. Empty parameters will encourage them to fill in the website IDs with no consideration for the external link guidelines. I have tracked down a lot of linkspam in the past, and in the process, I've had to trim many link farms that I've come across in articles that are not tended. It's a major problem that is not fun to clean up, and this template's convenient banner-shell feature is not worth the trade-off of people growing link farms. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If they're that convenient, there's nothing to stop someone simply adding all those templates to an article instead. There's nothing here that makes it more likely. --rpeh •T•C•E• 13:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this template makes it much more likely. It lays out parameters for all kinds of websites, and precedent shows that novice editors will do their best to fill them out in spite of Wikipedia not being a repository of external links. The collection of websites is an endorsement of using every single website in the "External links" section, and we can't have that. Even if a film has a page at one of the BFI's databases, that does not mean it should be included. Decompartmentalization is appropriate because each external link should be evaluated on its own merit. It is less possible to do that when they're all compiled in one place and novice editors ask, why do we have the parameter if we can't fill it out anyway? They have done just fine proliferating individual EL templates to the point of overabundance, where the link farms have to be trimmed to more reasonable sets of links. Giving them this shell to encourage the inappropriate link proliferation is detrimental to treating Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You provide no evidence for your assertion, so me saying "No it doesn't" is just as valid. If your entire argument is based on your assumption of what some new users might do, then I'm afraid it doesn't hold up. New users often make mistakes and it's up to experienced users to correct them and guide the newbies. If you don't agree with that principle, an open system like Wikipedia clearly isn't the place for you. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, first, please try to stay civil. Second, I can provide evidence for Erik's argument from an experienced user: . The application of FilmLinks to True Grit (2010 film) increased the number of links from four links to six. This is a minor increase, but it still introduced a link to Yahoo! Movies and allmovieguide that are redundant to the information provided at IMDb. BOVINEBOY 2008 17:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, first, I've been perfectly civil. Second, that was the template's author showing off new facilities. It doesn't mean the template is faulty. One editor believes content is worth adding; another takes it off again. That's a day in the life of a WP article. BTW - I hope you don't mind but I slightly edited your comment to stop the template appearing in here: I assume you meant to link to it. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFL. Erik is claiming he and he alone knows which links for each film are 'correct' and 'useful' - unlike anyone else. (He 'had' to trim them.) Incredible. Just imagine: a British film having a link to its entry in the British Film Database! Which has more/different information than IMDb! What is this - unfair to Hollywood films?! Meanwhile, Bovineboy is presumably claiming that there's some 'magic number' of links (reminds me of Mozart being told he used 'too many notes'), and/or that filling out the template with Yahoo and Allmovies is wrong but adding their individual templates would be right. Six links - obviously a sign of the Apocalypse! I never thought of Yahoo and Allmovies as being identical to IMDb. I also don't presume to speak or all our readers, as he does. (I'm also not aware of any movies which appear on the former but not the latter.)As I said, this is a brilliant example of what 'consensus building' should NOT be - complete with snarky references to "you're not playing nice" when I point out what they're doing - maliciously trying to cut off discussion and delete something they personally don't like. That's not how it works. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, the list of fields should be discussed on the template's discussion page - demanding the entire template be deleted is something else entirely and I'm certainly not going to apologize for pointing out that shows Bad Faith on their part. I went through the list of working single templates (those in English) and put them into this template. The assumption was that if the single templates were in use, they were considered acceptable. I'd love to hear the rationale (root word: 'rational') about why movie A should have this link, but movie B should have that link. I would think it's pretty obvious that people have individual preferences, and it's sensible, assuming we're trying to help people find information, that we give them a choice as opposed to assuming we know what's best for you so shut up and take it!. (And there's quite a bit of that going around Wikipedia these days, imo.) Let's talk about linkfarms. I presume we're all agreed that Wikipedia is NOT the place to list each and every film review on the internet. Over time, those who look for information on films find certain sources to be extensive and reliable. Some are easy to find, some aren't, but they add, in one way or another, to the value of an article on a film. So we list them. We 're here to help our readers, not to impose the personal preferences of certain Wikipedians on them. Allmovie links. Are you claiming all of those should be deleted? Because it's pretty absurd to argue that they're okay and not okay, based solely on the template being used. It's either a good source, or it's a bad source. That is open to discussion. Flatterworld (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no need for that; see WP:FOC. There has been a pattern of proliferation with certain external links, ranging from the community-endorsed ones (like Rotten Tomatoes) to what is linkspam. The same pattern appears whenever we add a new parameter to the film infobox. While it helps that editors can add and fill out the new infobox parameter, this particular template does not have that kind of payoff. We are not particularly lacking external links in film articles. It is not possible to inform such editors of the external link guidelines when all the parameters are available to them; many tend to copy and paste the full set of parameters across film articles. Few actually go to a template page and review its documentation and comprehend a surgical use (such as with the film infobox, for example). Editors should be able to participate on Wikipedia, of course, but content-building should be the ultimate outcome. The guidelines say that external links should be limited, and I am fine with individual EL templates that make it easier for editors to add a link. The problem is, this shell template allows editors to become exceedingly proficient in adding such links to content outside of Wikipedia instead of links to other Wikipedia articles or adding content to the articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:Tentatively, I'd like to say keep on this since I spend most of my (middle aged, female) wiki-dork time on articles about movies (and other apparently teen-boy only pursuits). Seems like it would be easier to maintain in the long run.  But my reservations are based on implementation; if the template were kept and the single site templates were scrapped, how would we go about discouraging filling in ALL of the links when they weren't all needed (per BovineBoy's and Erik's concerns)?  Just hidden editorial notes? Looking at the most recent diff, I also share the concerns that Xeworlebi raised about the appearance of the template in action (but that could be tweaked).  Perhaps we should ask for opinions of WP:FILM participants as the affected articles would fall under their purview? Millahnna (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A highly visible note in the template documentation would be a good idea. --rpeh •T•C•E• 13:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - consolidates multiple templates to a single one. The difference between filling in versus weeding out individual templates (or parameters within a single template) for a specific page is something that should be handled for each page individually anyway.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bad Faith. We now have Erik and Bovineboy alternating their reverts at True Grit in a (rather obvious) attempt to bait me into breaking the infamous three revert rule so they can get me banned - allowing them to delete the template, presumably. Well, in keeping with the True Grit imagery: "this ain't my first rodeo". Flatterworld (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The film article is using the template, even though it does not have to. Like I said, we can link to an old revision to demonstrate it, especially considering that the template formats the normal ELs like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes in an odd manner. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And now I see Erik's reverted They Drive At Night (the British example) as well. Guess his 'argument' against BFI works better if no one can see it. Keep it up, guys. This 'discussion' is turning out to be a better example than I ever expected. Flatterworld (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you insist, I will restore it. The template provides links to the Internet Movie Database, Allmovie, the British Film Institute, a different database at the British Film Institute, Britmovie.co.uk, the TCM Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes, and the Internet Archive. As the external link guidelines say in a nutshell, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Let's evaluate the links one-by-one. First of all, the most useful link in the set is the Internet Archive. It's a link to the film itself, which is enormously valuable. The least useful link is Rotten Tomatoes, which provides zero professional reviews and has some other overview-style information that is already presented in the Wikipedia article. The IMDb link is generally a so-called staple link since it can provide the full listing of cast and crew information that would be too indiscriminate to have in a Wikipedia article. (It's also arguable that it provides readers access to community features outside of Wikipedia.) The other links, Allmovie and the British-related ones, have similar overview-style information that is already presented in the Wikipedia article. While I want to reference Allmovie for its similar works, which is unique to the website, I've rarely found consensus for doing that. If this is an example of how the template is to be used, then we will be adding links that lack merit and are redundant to each other when one link could be sufficient. I have to admit that I do like the practical layout that can help maintain code, but like I have said, I am not sure if it is a net positive when the intended implementation of this template is to provide links that do not meet the external link guidelines and is set up to encourage others to do the same. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that as soon as we leave the European and American/Canadian cinema, none of the links in this template will even have an entry. For example, unless a Bollywood/Tollywood film gets a major US or UK release, it will not have a BFI, IMDb or AMG link, and consequently, will not have Mojo or Rotten Tomatoes. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a more complicated way to do what the existing templates do. Saves no time and confuses inexperienced users. Smetanahue (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a really good idea to standardize the EL on film articles. I think the list could be trimmed by a couple of entries though. The arguement of "novice editors will do their best to fill them out" is redudant. How many "novice editors" have gone and mass-completed the film producer, editor or cinematographer fields in the film infobox? The correct answer is zero.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The producer, editor, and cinematographer fields have been around forever, so they have rarely been gaps to be filled. In contrast, the studio field (and possibly the based_on field) have proliferated pretty well as relatively new parameters. In regard to external links, my concern is that editors think that a set of external links in a film article is the norm, and they will repeat that set in other articles. For example, the template has two BFI-related links that are less prominent than some of the key ones. The template puts them on equal ground, and I don't think it's clear that external links need to be resources with unique content beyond an ideal featured article, not web pages to add on the basis of their existence. Maybe the template could be limited to the key ones? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and "LINKFARMING" and formatting problems mentioned by others. MarnetteD | Talk 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasons for providing the formatting options (aka 'formatting problems') were discussed earlier. However, I needed an example of a drive-by commenter who had clearly not bothered to read anyone else's contributions, so thank you. Flatterworld (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The other arguement about it being too difficult for new editors to use, is also redundant. Look at the existing IMDB or AMG external links template. How many new editors know how to use these straight away? All this template does is consolidate all your existing debt into one easy to manage monthly payment (or something along those lines). Should we stop using the infobox, because newbies find it hard to use? No. Should we stop using the film date parameter in the infobox, because newbies find it hard to use? No. Should we stop using the inline references, because newbies find it hard to use? No. Editing WP is hard fullstop. Look at how many abortions of articles get started by newbies with no wiki-formatting whatsover, let alone adding cites, tags and categories. To quote JFK: " ...and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that argument is irrelevant, but imo most things aren't nearly as hard as some try to make them. Read this if you want to address the problem of "no wiki-formatting, cites, tags and categories". I laughed the first time I heard, "Ask him what time it is and he'll tell you how to make a clock." Now I'm rolling my eyes, as I've found that guy's home planet. Flatterworld (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am changing my !vote to Weak Keep. I still hold my concern about proliferation of unnecessary links, but this template does not necessarily encourage extra links any more that the individual templates (a la IMDb title and Allmovie title). I think that if the formatting of the template was updated to match the currently used templates, then it would be helpful in standardization. Of course, the documentation of the template should be reworked to express concerns of WP:LINKFARM and pointing to MOS:FILM for better guidelines. Also, links that may be more relevant to other regions of cinema should be added, like Bollywoodhungama and Hkmdb title. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly per nom and the Linkfarm issues. Having separate templates is actually more useful in this case given the requirements to change URLs or info depending on changes in the website structure, etc. anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The template serves a purpose and most arguments against it seem to be content issues that should be resolved at WP:EL, WP:FILM or the MOS. The template consolidates existing templates and makes creating the external links ubiquitous to film articles easier to produce. I think it's up to the film project and the individual article authors to resolve issues on which parameters to fill in and how much is too much in the external links section. — Bility (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2011 (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:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games

 * 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) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This WikiProject is gone. No use keeping its talk page banner template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Some more here as well: Category:WikiProject_Massively_multiplayer_online_games_templates. Used--NortyNort (Holla) 07:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Had the WikiProject been deleted instead of merged or redirect, CSD G8 would apply (I would argue that it still does, but I suppose that there's no harm in waiting another six days). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2011 (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:Christian-music-recruiting2

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting notices like these in non-user talk spaces would be considered intrusive. Christian-music-recruiting should be used for user talk invitations. This template is unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the usage wording at the template "To use this template place   on the desired user page."
 * This template seems completely acceptable to host on your own user page or your talk page to invite people that are passing by.AerobicFox (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2011 (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.