Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 17

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My bloody valentine film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Useless. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree it is completely uselesss.--Yankees10 17:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might be worth asking
  talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wonder if this could be a speedy delete as G6. Technical deletions since the two pages in the template are already otherwise linked via the disambig at the top, within the article, and within the infobox. A template might duplicate links from an article, but has the advantage of doing so in an organized way if there are multiple links, and especially when they can be categorized within the template. A statement to the effect that a navigation template with only two links is inappropriate could probably be added without controversy to a guideline.
  talk) 14:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm pretty sure that there is no consensus for speedy deleting underpopulated (as opposed to entirely unpopulated) navboxes under G6 or any other criterion. But it will most likely be deleted as a result of this discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I thought SD might apply is not because it is underpopulated (and unlikely to grow), but because it is duplicative and since the linked pages would remain linked after the deletion of the template, might be an uncontroversial technical deletion. But I wasn't sure.
  talk) 15:40, 23 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for inactive wikiproject. No use anymore. Used only on a small handful of articles, all of which are already tagged for more relevant (and active) projects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:35, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reaper (TV series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Riches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Three Rivers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 redundant to database reports and Template:Uncategorized. RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Despite the mention below of possibly deleting the related categories via

WP:CFD is left to the discretion of interested editors. --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Uncategorized template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominated for deletion: the corresponding category, Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates, a redirect category Category:Uncategorized Wikipedia Templates and a CNS redirect CAT:UNCAT/T.
Less than 30 uses, most of them old; this template and the corresponding category are scarcely used and there are better, much more efficient, ways to detect and compile uncategorized templates (such as Wikipedia:Database reports). Unlike for articles, marking templates as uncategorized is demonstrably unmaintainable and instead listing them is more appropriate and actually useful. Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Uncategorized_redirects. Cenarium (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this nomination is procedurally malformed, you can't delete a category at TfD or use a TfD template on a category, similarly redirects should be deleted at RfD. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • criterion G8 if the template is deleted. You're right that it was not necessary to tag the category (I've removed the tag), but there is no need to separately nominate the category or its redirects. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template. It's principally to inform the closing admin, and the tag to inform users patrolling the category. Cenarium (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, there's a database report now at Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates. Cenarium (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This template was created at a time when database reports weren't available, as a way to encourage people to categorize their own templates. It was never fully deployed to all of the templates, though. There are a lot of templates that aren't categorized, making them difficult to find (in particular, I was after all Category:Astronomy templates at the time, and had great difficulties finding them all).

However, time has moved on, and this template hasn't been picked up and used a lot by anyone. I've now lost interest in template categorization. It's also probably been superseded by Template:Uncategorized, or if not it should be. So, do what you like with it. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template actually causes problems because it places the templates in a category like "Category:Uncategorized Wikipedia templates" or whatever and actually harms database reports that look for uncategorized templates. It's rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a template to say that another template has no category? REALLY? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 for now pending a wider discussion about the use of Wikia as an

Template:Wikia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was previously nominated for deletion: 1st nomination, 2nd nomination.

This template encourages links to Wikia.

1. Wikia is a for-profit commercial site.
2. Wikia is not connected to Wikipedia - and it is vital not to give the impression it is
3. Wikia is NOT EVER a reliable source
4. Wikia is fanboy stuff - and not a good source of information for readers to be given in an external links section.

Scott Mac (Doc) _{Flagged Now!} 18:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep None of these four reasons, nor all of them together, are sufficient reason to remove links to Wikia. If we're going to move fancruft to Wikia, it's perfectly fine for us to point there for "fanboy" stuff. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't follow. We remove fancruft because it is unencyclopedic. We don't "move it to wikia" since wikia is not a WMF project. If Wiki want to take our trash, that's their affair. There's no need to advertise them.--Scott Mac (Doc) _{Flagged Now!} 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Point number 4 is subjective based on the Wikia article and a point of view. If I wanted to read up on Luke Skywalker, Wikipedia may not have everything I want to know, however the Wikia article provides the extra detail an Star Wars reader may be interested in. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's fine if Wikia editors want to come haul fanish material out of here; I'm all for that. There's no reason, however, to promote that site and and drive traffic there. It's about putting ads in front of eyeballs, putting money in a few pockets, and allowing
  littluns to have fun with their obsessions. External links are for for citing sources, official sites, &c. They are not about integrating an encyclopaedia and the mother of all fansites. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It should be kept as it's reliable for giving more information on the subject although should only be used to link to wikis which have a good community and not in a mess and sticks to a specific style. --VitasV (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are never reliable sources. We don't even recommend wikipedia as a reliable source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In a similar fashion that we don't allow fansites as external links as they are unofficial and user created, wikias follow the same ideas. Although they seem to be worse about attracting wrong info/fancruft. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep for now. This is a discussion better for

  WT:ELNO first. If it is found that wikia shouldn't be linked in Wikipedia, then this TfD could be revisited. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep
  1. Irrelevant, we link to lots of commercial sites. The content of Wikia however is predominantly freely licenced.
  2. While Wikia is also set up by Jimbo, this template does not indicate any such connection.
  3. This template is not used to provide a "source", it is there to point readers to more information.
  4. On the contrary; Wikia allows the "fanboy stuff" that cannot be placed on Wikipedia, which makes for a perfect complement to Wikipedia. I believe this nomination stems from a personal dislike for Wikia. Linking to Wikia wiki's on popular subjects has always been common and accepted practice. Why should it stop now? — Edokter • Talk • 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template doesn't suggest that Wikia is connected to Wikipedia. Remove the template from the articles if it is being used inappropriately. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - External links are for further reading, and don't have to be a source of info for the article. The idea that it draws traffic from Wikipedia is absurd - Wikipedia is the place to get information, only in special niche situations such as major franchises like Star Wars do folks go elsewhere for information that is considered
  WP:ELMAYBE, but serves the reader well when used appropriately. --Teancum (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. I agreed that Wikia could be used for EL in some cases (Wikipedia stub < Wikia article), but disagree with the decision to use for it a template. — Al3xil ✉ 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would that make a difference? If it's going to be an external link under
  WP:ELMAYBE and will be used semi-often, why would getting rid of the template help Wikipedia? --Teancum (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Because I remember the case, when was created a template for one film critic. Subsequently, it was added to each film, which had his review. Later the template was removed, because kind of these resources should be used in a references section, if they are useful. Wikia articles duplicate information, so they should be used situationally, when objectively have more complete information, than Wikipedia articles. The template is designed for mass insertion in articles by default and could ignore the selectivity criteria. — Al3xil ✉ 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Edokter as the reasons stated per nom are irrelevant for deletion. Likely we got {{YouTube}} to link to the YouTube website, as keeping the template is a suggested option. However the editors should use that with caution which only links to the apporiate wiki sites. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edokter. Wikia is a good fancruft sink: my experience shows that novice editors are much less likely to submit "fanboy stuff" here if they have a whole wiki for fancruft on the Wikia. I am sorry if I understood the original incorrectly, but to me, it sounded like an attempt to crusade against all links to Wikia rather than this particular template. Let us not decide what sources other readers should consider reliable or unreliable for them, OK? It's their decision to follow or not follow any of the ELs and to believe or not believe what they read. The issue here is IMO whether or not a template is helpful for the editors, and I say, yes, it is, in two ways. One, the links to Wikia are often very unwieldy, so this template simplifies the editing process. Two, as I mentioned earlier, a well-placed Wikia link sifts off a large portion of the fancruft, increasing the quality of the article considerably. --Koveras ^☭ 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not being corrupt is not good enough. One has to be seen to be not corrupt. GTD 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an easy way to locate Wikia links so they can be removed. Then, once they're all gone, revisit this. --NE2 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Removing the
    WP:RS to which to link, should be treated on an equal footing - not on a basis that favours one wiki over another just because it's on an advertisement-infested wiki farm instead of its own paid-for domain and servers. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. None of the reasons listed in the nom are good reasons to delete a template. Commercial sites and non-reliable sources are allowed for external links, and most external links are normally to sites with no connection to Wikipedia. Links to wikis with a substantial history and lots of editors are allowed, so while every Wikia wiki might not qualify, they aren't automatically excluded. One of the ideas of providing external links is to give readers a way to find additional detail that goes beyond what is appropriate for Wikipedia, which includes "fanboy stuff" that we routinely cull out of our own articles. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I fail to see how the Wikia template is different to the templates for linking to sites such as IMDB. Esteffect (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Per above.
  talk) 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – 1) Per Koveras; the "let the readers decide" argument. 2) Per Edokter argument number 3; the "quantitative" argument. 3) Per Jclemens; the "perfectly harmless" argument. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikia is not a reliable source. We need more sources and footnotes, not external links of the general sort which is what these are. This template gives the appearance to some of a Wikipedia endorsement of Wikia. I've cleaned up 10s of 1000s of inappropriate external links^{[1][2][3][4][5]} and I don't see that innocently added Wikia links have much more editorial merit to justify an official template than all those spam links I deleted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As has been already said, we must be seen not to be entangled with Wikia, so we shouldn't have a special template for linking to Wikia. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:ELN, not via TfD taking it out on a harmless template. -- œ^™ 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Super-Strong Keep. Not gonna bother commenting on the obvious condescending tone in reason #4. Also, the other reasons you have put forth are not really all that good either. At least maintain links to in-depth coverage on a subject on other sites now that WP has gone all minimalistic. This is one of the most groundless deletion causes I've seen. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I agree that most of the reasons are weak, and without evidence to the contrary.

1. As pointed out, we link to commercial sites anyway.
2. I think we can each discern that Wikia is not connected. I never got the impression that it was, and I believe not many other users have.
3. There is no evidence to support this argument.
4. Many wikias merely expand on what is here on Wikipedia (much of which has been taken down by Wikipedia, not because it's unencyclopedic, but because it seems that one of the goals of Wikipedia regarding articles is to keep articles as short as possible).
   talk) 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• Keep - As far as the template goes, it is doing its job - allowing consistency and easy in including repetitive information. As far as the information goes... as best as I can tell Wikia as a whole, as well as the various wikis housed there, has yet to be black listed as an external link. If that has changed, or changes in the future, then the template does become a bit useless. But this is not the place for that discussion, just like the TfD last year or the year before. - J Greb (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That Wikia is "yet to be blacklisted" is a rather arbitrary distinction; there are sites with valid info on which I am seeing repeated blacklist problems because of the content having moved from a defunct site to "*.bravehost.com" or some other free server. A case in point would be the "UHF morgue" (radiodxer.bravehost.com, a set of individual histories of failed US UHF TV stations which launched between the band being opened in 1952 and the belated requirement that new TV's actually have the necessary tuners in 1964) which is often the primary or only available history on a defunct TV station. Linking to this wasn't a problem before it moved from its own registered domain to Geocities and from there to Bravehost. The information is the same. Yet somehow Wikia is magically
    WP:RS while the "UHF morgue" entries are reverted to (dead) Geocities links by obnoxious robots? This makes no sense. A fanboy wiki is less reliable as a source, as anyone can edit and the standards which apply to content here do not apply there. In many cases, these wikis are abandoned projects which Wikia refuses to close even though the original community has moved elsewhere; quite a few are empty or contain mostly vandalism. -- 66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Off the hop - there is a different threshold for external links (where this template set is used) and references. Pouncing on "wikis are not reliable sources" is a non-starter here since it isn't part of the issue. Neither is a situation with a different set of source sites. If the argument is "Wikia is unsuitable for external links" then a consensus needs to be reached related to Wikipedia:External links and that guideline amended accordingly. Without that, using a template is no different than adding the link long-hand - the link is still open to review by editors and removal if it offers nothing beyond what the Wikipedia article offers. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "#1" - seriously? We link to *alot* of for profit websites, many of them used for references! "#2" - seriously? We link to *alot* of websites with no connection to Wikipedia whatsoever, alot of them used for references! We even have templates for IMDB! That's a non-Wikipedia for-profit website. "#3" - seriously? Since when do external links have to be reliable sources? That's why they're external links and not references. "#4" - why not? If they're going to look for more info, they're likely to be fanboys themselves. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete We should not be favouring one external commercial site over another based solely on overlap in founders or any other such arbitrary criterion, as this smacks of
  WP:RS just because this particular company (instead of a competitor) is profiting. Most of what's on Wikia is not encyclopædia-worthy. Sites like IMDB exercise some level of editorial control over content, the average fancruft wikia does not. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - External links are not the same as references. The templates serves as a way to bring further information to the reader, not to verify content in the article. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) That is why there are regulations about what wikias can and can't be linked to, 2) It's not suggesting that it it - it;s just providing more info, like other external links, 3) no-one is using it as a source, just to give more information, 4) That's why it's useful - it gives people info that they actually want - unlike this wiki which seems to delete everything useful about fictional shows (which is why people create these wikias in the first place) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment If it's not a
    NOT a collection of links. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • 'Comment - Since you want to keep whacking on it - the is a difference between a reference and an external link. Sources that Wikipedia does not considered reliable as a reference are perfectly fine as an external link. The merits of a site, or a collection of sites, to be used as an external link is something to be hashed out either on the talk pages of individual articles or the talk page for
      WP:EL not here. - J Greb (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment - You seem to think that an unreliable source is a suitable external link to be placed on an encyclopædia article. May I ask why? I can't imagine linking to The Onion from any article other than the one about that publication, why the double standard here? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikias are widely known for having more in-universe details which are more interesting to the reader. Reliable source or not, the point is that it actually adds to the value of Wikipedia readers to have external links to deeper information on a given Wikia subject. Wikias are slowly being brought up to Wikipedia standards with proper references to many major articles - attempting to verify information where possible - a good example is Wookiepedia - whereas The Onion is outright satire. Hardly the same thing. --Teancum (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1.) So are most pages we link to. But it's irrelevant as to what kind of page we link to as long as the link itself is okay. 2.) No one does. It does not have a little box like {{Wikiquote}} but only a single sentence link, just like {{imdb}} or {{myspace}}. Please explain why this particular template should give this impression - the text of it certainly does not. 3.) External links don't have to be reliable sources. References have to be. 4.) Many links can be "fanboy" stuff. It's not our job to judge whether people think it's a good source of information or not. I for one trust our readers to be aware that we are not responsible for external sites and that they will have to judge for themselves whether they think it's useful. But "fanboy stuff" != "bad source of information". Many people look for such information and if we cannot add such content here for various reasons, they are often happy to find it at some other place we link to. It's the same as with IMDB for example. Regards SoWhy 13:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Odd that you should mention {{myspace}}; XLinkBot has been known to revert links to that site even in contexts where they may be legit. I'd have expected that the {{myspace}} would have gone the way of {{uncyclopedia}} long ago at this rate. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the same as with YouTube links - mostly they are incorrect but they have their place. Same with MySpace links, they got their place and in those cases a template makes sense. It's the same with Wikia links, there are rules which Wikias to link to and which not but in those cases where the rules allow it, a template makes life easier. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with the suggestion that the template be modified to more clearly highlight that Wikia a) isn't part of Wikipedia and b) is a commercial site. --EEMIV (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, exactly the same as nearly every one else who has agreed that it should stay. Alexsau1991 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete, per reasons given by nominator and A.B. Some of the links to Wikia violate the content outlined in
  WP:ELMAYBE #4, but topical wikia content is not reliable and is commonly fancruft not worthy of a link from an encyclopedia. External links aren't supposed to be used as if to say "here's some more non-encylopedic reading on the subject." JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - The main concerns from

WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep While Wikipedia is a great resource for information, it sometimes may lack the more specific details on topics (such as those in television shows or video games) that a Wikia, created for the sole purpose of describing, may include. For example: if someone wanted to know about Rodney Mckay from Stargate Atlantis, the wikia article includes far more info, including a complete biography and several images. If people don't want to go to a wiki because they think the info may be inaccurate, that's their choice. The Wikia template only provides another source for people to visit (people who's only desire is knowledge, which shouldn't be denied.) Anubis 10545 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is used in external links so RS doens't come into it. We link to for-profit sites. Yes avoid the impression of connection, not it is not like a sister-site template, more like {{London Gazette}}. Don't prejudge all wikia articles, and WP has nothing against fanboys or girls, simply because we don't want all the fancruft here. In the same way we link to other stuff we don't want, Dmoz, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, The Times, and indeed sister projects. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: I won't repeat the reasons already outlined at length in the previous two nominations this template has had as well as in this TfD. If not for assuming good faith, one might conclude that people intend to keep nominating the template until it's deleted, despite fairly clear consensus to the contrary. Given that Wikipedia has seemingly been taken over by people who do not wish to take advantage of the fact that we are not encumbered by the physical limitations of an encyclopedia, the Wikia link template is particularly useful. Zelse81 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's also an encyclopaedia. --85.139.161.97 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wikia is commercial because they, unlike Wikipedia, don't have a donation system, they mostly rely on advertising to cover the costs of servers and databases. Yes, it IS fanboy stuff, but it is a good alternative to Wikipedia. The info is always reliable, because of their popularity, wikis about subjects like
  Halo will always have a lot of contributors who improve the contents. --201.173.29.146 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment The advertising doesn't merely "cover the costs of servers and databases", it exists to line the pockets of investors and venture capitalists. Unfortunately, Wikia has consistently taken an approach of leaving wikis open even if they are abandoned or the community has moved elsewhere, as the purpose is to bring in ad revenue, not to deliver a factually-accurate website. For a vandal to find an abandoned Wikia and post false information is trivially easy. The info is therefore not always reliable; if anything, it may be less reliable than other "free" servers such as Bravehost or Myspace which have been on external-link blacklists here. At least the Geocities-like sites allowed authors to remove their postings when they left, Wikia does not even afford this luxury and the text left behind may be edited or vandalized beyond repair by anyone. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the case of site-wide abandonment and vandalism, if it truly is bad, why would someone even provide a link to it in the first place. Providing a link to the "bad" wiki would simply be avoided as no-one would have any reason to go out of their way to include it. And I doubt that vandalism on a site wouldn't be easily recognizable to such a degree as that a user who followed the link there would regard the imputed information as factual. If such a case were to arise, said person would simply leave the site and feel that their time had been wasted by a pathetic vandal who sought to perpetuate the corruption of humanity... further. Anubis 10545 (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This condition would most likely manifest itself as
      reliable source remained in an article for a month and a half before anyone noticed anything amiss. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Can you provide some examples where Wikia articles have 'gone rotten'? At worst I could possibly see some start or stub-class articles having 'rotten' links. Anything C or above is usually maintained, ensuring that should the Wikia link become inappropriate, it can be removed. But the point that you're making is whether its an appropriate external link, not whether the template is useful. This should be taken to external link discussions before axing the template. All the template does is allow faster and more uniform links to Wikia, it doesn't solve the issue of it being appropriate or not. --Teancum (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:

1. Wikia is a for-profit commercial site If that's the case, let's remove the articles for sites like eBay, Amazon.com, IMDb and all commercial sites.
2. Wikia is not connected to Wikipedia - and it is vital not to give the impression it is It says EXTERNAL LINKS, I don't think they'll think it's a side project of wikipedia. If they do confuse it it's because of names being a little similar, I myself have sometimes confused
   Gamestop
   the videogames store.
3. Wikia is NOT EVER a reliable source Wikipedia is not 100% reliable either, Wikipedia and Wikia and all other wikis (Bulbapedia, Wikifur, etc.) also suffer vandalism, but are most likely to have the spam content removed in a few moments if they have dedicated contributors.
4. Wikia is fanboy stuff - and not a good source of information for readers to be given in an external links section. Like I said before, we have very few in-depth content, and mirroring the fact that we only have an article on
   Tibia (computer game)
   , while the Tibia Wiki has 8,000 articles.

Yes, there are some "abandoned wikia wikis" like Iron Man, Spider-Man and Dreamworks that have poor content and are often vandalized because of lack of users, but we are not very likely to use this template on articles that have poor content wikis. And even if this template is deleted, I'm sure the links to Wikia wikis will still appear in articles. --201.173.29.146 (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What on earth would we want with eight thousand articles on
  Tibia (computer game), or a promotional template for same? Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a fanboy wiki. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

comment - correct - and that's why people start and use these wikias - because they provide "fanboy" stuff that wiki doesn't have. If wiki isn't going to include the info itself, then the least it can do is link to somewhere that does have it - hence the links to wikia. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just because people see "wikia" doesn't necessarily mean that they'll completely associate it with wikipedia. It is and external source and, just because wikia and wikipedia sound and look similar, it doesn't mean that (for that reason) we shouldn't include it. If you're worried about tarnishing wikipedia's name by providing a link to an external site, I doubt that the 1 link out of 1000 that goes to a "bad" wiki is going to accomplish that. Most wikis are reliable sources of info and sould be treated with the same respect as other external links. Anubis 10545 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The
  WP:COI complaints go well beyond a mere similarity of names between Wikipedia and Wikia. There is severe overlap between founders for these two projects and this has not gone unnoticed by TechCrunch and many other sites who raised the issue as far back as 2007, due to wikia: being included in the interwiki link table - minus the infamous "nofollow" attribute which gets tacked on to all other linkspam posted here. While this specific discussion is about a promotional template and not the interwiki table, the use of Wikipedia to promote for-profit Wikia does damage the perceived neutrality (or lack thereof) of this project as direct competitors to Wikia, such as Wetpaint, are not included in the same manner. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're trying to merge two things together here. I really don't see how this is an issue of promoting Wikia over something else. It's an issue of whether Wikia (or any other external link for that matter) would be of use to the reader. Fact is that most Wikia links are. If a Wetpaint link is useful to the reader, go for it. No need to go on a vendetta about money here. Wikia links are placed because they add value to the article, not because folks are raising money for Wikia. Bottom line: If an external link truly adds to the value of the article, it can be considered. --Teancum (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REMINDER - let's not forget this is

Seconded - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded, let's speedily keep this TfD but continue the discussion at

WT:EL

for more opinions and if it is decided that it isn't a viable external link, this TfD can be reconsidered

Comment - I've posted to

WP:RS should be even an external link from an encyclopædia. Nonetheless, if the link is found to be unsuitable, I'd expect the promotional template and interwiki to be the first - not the last - to go; they'd be gone long before an external site is added alongside Bravehost, Myspace or whatever else has been blacklisted and fed to killer robots here recently. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tnmoccol-begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tnmoccol-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tnmoccol-beginwide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tnmoccol-end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tnmocheadinga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tnmocheadingb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates, functionality certainly provided by other templates. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is the functionality of these supposed to be? And what templates succeeded them? Perhaps we can use {{

Tdeprecated}} here.. -- œ^™ 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The creator used them in an article [6] but shortly afterwards removed them [7]. It seems to be for creating boxes, but there are plenty of templates for boxes [8] [9]. Since it's never been used besides this, it can hardly be deprecated. Cenarium (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thanks for the extra detail. -- œ^™ 08:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and redundant, with thanks to Cenarium for doing the extra legwork to demonstrate how it was used in the past. --RL0919 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now blanked and orphaned template which used to transclude category:redirects. Redirects shouldn't actually be added to category:redirects, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_68#Category:Redirects. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and apparently abandoned, with no edits between the moment of creation in August 2008 and this week, and the editor who created it has retired from Wikipedia. Previous content was nothing except the redirect category, which could be added without using a template, if it were even appropriate to do so. --RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing Persons (TV series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation box contains only red links. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox with all redlinks since 2008. Likely to remain redlinks forever, because it is doubtful that the characters will ever be considered notable enough to have their own articles, given that the show only ran for one season over 15 years ago. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crossroads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navigation box contains exclusively cast members against

• Delete for the same reasons I give in the discussion immediately below, and confirmed in the link provided by the nom and in numerous other TFD discussions, some of them in the past month. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amigas y Rivales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navigation box contains exclusively cast members against

• Delete. There is a standing consensus against placing this type of navigation template on the pages for actors, because of the number of templates that would be on their articles if the practice went unchecked. For example, the very first actor on this template, Joana Benedek, has been in 13 telenovelas. So we could have 13 navboxes on her brief article. Similarly, we do not want to clutter the articles on television networks with navboxes for every single show they air (which could be many dozens). So essentially this navbox is not usable on any of the articles that it is supposed to help users navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Two Pints (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough articles at this time to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Withdrawn Cenarium (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bewitched (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I don't think using a non-concluded discussion about whether to remove cast members names from all templates is a valid reason for deleting them everywhere without discussion, and subsequently declaring that the now meager-appearing templates must be removed. IF a different standard does develop in these templates, discussion needs to take place about what is now considered acceptable. You changed the rules in one respect, but are still going by the old rules in another. This is an inappropriate use of what one person perceived as "consensus." Just leave the template for now. Njsustain (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are actually seven unique articles in this template, which is an appropriate number. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Sorry! I got a little trigger happy! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:11, 17 December 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.