Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 7

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) 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian rules state of origin team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused infobox template. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian economy by state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicates the links in Template:Economy of Australia. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia women's national basketball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and duplicates recent roster in article. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia National Basketball Team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and duplicates recent roster in article. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australasia mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:August 2010 in sports/August 1–15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:August 2010 in sports/August 16–31 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicates August 2010 in sports, which was created by the same author? Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aussie rules player info line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2012 (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. Consensus is clear. delldot ∇. 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discogs artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be deleted as it encourages linking to a website (www.discogs.com) that is user-generated and thus not always verifiable. Information on discogs often relates to promotional releases which the general public does not have access to. It also encourages the use of self-published references, hence at

• {{Discogs master}}
• {{Discogs release}}
• {{Discogs label}} — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was going to nominate this for the very same reason. Discogs isn't reliable and we should not have templates that link to the site. Till 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I have to change my !vote to keep.
    WP:DISCOGSTYLE clearly states that Discogs is a useful source so these templates should not be deleted. See Citations and referencs > Useful sources > General. Till 03:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep for sure. Discogs is very reliable, as releases get cross-referenced by many users adding the details of the very release in question, who must all own the release to submit it (or physically have it in their hands during submission), thus proving the release's very existence. Given this, it's often many times more reliable a source than the artist/label websites themselves, and sometimes more reliable than sites like Allmusic et al. What a silly suggestion that a site that happens to include promotional releases, which are actually very often made available to the pubic through many channels, should therefore be deleted. The site does not encourage external self-published references either: the info must come from the release in nearly all cases. Finally, that
  WP:DISCOGSTYLE was not discussed properly, and was therefore edited to misrepresent what the site does; which has since been rectified. The nom has not justified the removal of links to a perfectly good database called Discogs that has specialised for over a decade in as accurately as possible listing the very thing it purports to do as it's raison d'être; discographies for every artist/label/record company who releases something. Facts should have been properly checked on how data is handled there before such an ill-conceived suggestion. Jimthing (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep - while Discogs may contain user entered data, they almost always include scans of the record in question, and thus it is a very reliable way to prove a release actually exists. Robman94 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Discogs having a sales mechanic - being not only a reference for records but also a marketplace for the selling of physical records - the specifics of each item listed is high in detail as it also serves the sellers with data. Anything but accurate information might cause confusion in the marketplace, and it is mostly kept tidy for this very reason. Everything from record serial numbers, labels and record personel are typically accurate. In addition, just throwing up a "promo release" is not entirely as easy as stated. Accountboy (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfect example of the difference between a source and an external link: it's entirely appropriate to link to IMDb or Discogs or AllMusic or ODP or other wikis if they are good web sites, but it is not appropriate to use them as sources (with exceptions such as AllMusic's professional reviews.) The question should not be "Is this a good source?" but "Is this a high-quality link?" and I think that Discogs generally provides very good and useful information for readers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Koavf's defense reflect my own perspective. Tolerating this template's presence on Wikipedia is not an implicit endorsement of its use as a secondary source. However, like others I've noticed that the accuracy of Discogs records tends to be high. It seems to attract conscientious editors who source most of the data from product packaging and liner notes. Deleting a template for a website because it has user-generated content is a poor policy. Ringbang (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Time for closure? Consensus seems to be quite strongly to keep. Jimthing (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (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 Speedied G7. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User recovery eng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

an apparent duplicate of the previously nominated "Template", which its not. did not check where its linked, if anywhere. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User recovery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this is not a template at all, and if bracketed on a user page, does nothing. its embedded in at least one userbox, which wont help much. maybe this can be a redirect to the page which documents how to recover an article Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's obviously a template. It places the message perfectly fine on my userpage and and adds my userpage to a category. Garion96 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Standard userpage boilerplate in common use. It's not obvious why the nom thinks that the admins currently using the template would be better off simply copy-pasting content from other admins' pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2012 (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) 05:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aerosmith (Album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicate of existing navigation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2012 (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) 01:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XBLA Summer of Arcade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't have templates that list every game of every

• Delete Fancruft. -
  Talkback) 00:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I would tend to agree. However, would it make sense to change its invocation to a category? --IznoRepeat (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can understand the comparison to Steam sales, but the point is not that these are on sale at the time, but instead games that Microsoft chose to have their premiere release in these batches as part of a promotion. As such, there is a subjective aspect to this list - games that MS felt were good or important enough to promote as a batch. The example of Galaga Legions is a bad case since there's no text in that article to go on, but I'll offer others like Limbo (video game), Shadow Complex, and Braid (video game) which have had much more critical reception and impact. Again - all games in this template premiered with the various promotions, so how well they did will reflect on MS's choices for each of these periods. The template thus offers readers the ability to quickly jump to what other games were offered at that time as to compare and contrast sales, as well as to see historically how well these games have done. If this were simply a sale like a Steam promotion, I'd be right there with the deletion, but as these are meant by MS to highlight these games, it goes beyond that. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point, but I still don't understand why we need a template that lists games that were specifically promoted by certain sales platform. Sure, it might be noteworthy for the article itself, but the template basically throws a bunch of games together in a random fashion just because they were selected by Microsoft. These templates are supposed to help our users navigate the wiki, and this just seems like a very random form of navigation. "Here, have some games that were promoted on one platform but otherwise have nothing to do with each other." The only thing these games have in common is that Microsoft thought at some point that they would make a lot of money. --Conti|✉ 06:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, first, these games were (at the time) unique to that platform, as they made their debut there. Secondly, at least with the "Summer of Arcade" promotion, there have been reviews and analysis of each individual event and through events, given that as MS promoted them these were to be the best of the best of what XBLA was going to offer. There is a reasonable possibility of someone needing to review through these promotions themselves. I will note that at one point there wasn't a Summer of Arcade article but now there appears to be, though it is a bit iffy, but irregardless, yes, the navigation could be in the article, but that's not a reason to wipe the template. At least for some of these games, their association with the Summer of Arcade is recognized. Now, as to all the other promos listed, they are a bit iffier as they were generally put out with some type of sale/bargain, and not necessarily with respect to quality, so I can understand trimming this down to the Summer of Arcade ones to remove that facet. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we can only agree to disagree on this one. I understand your point, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one. I just think that this template, even with your suggested changes, is somewhat over the line of template-overkill, and might invite others to create similar templates in the future. A fleshed out article that would be linked from the corresponding articles, or even a category, would be much better, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 10:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Conti. These games are just too unrelated. No need for a template or category. Garion96 (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2012 (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.