Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19[edit]

Template:GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) - alpha[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This unfortunately-named template is used to link together otherwise-unrelated cities based on an organization classifying them as "world cities". Similar templates were deleted earlier this month. The template's associated category is also up for deletion. - EurekaLott 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these items are not substantially related. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agreed Jasenlee 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per CfD and the TfD of similar tempplates. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 08:14, 25 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Sock[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful "award" for sockpuppet accounts, created by, guess what, an AOL IP. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't aware IPs could even make pages..... Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They used to be able to, I forget when they changed it. —Khoikhoi 08:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure nonsense. Charon X/talk 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An award for sock puppetry? Even if done in jest, Wikipedia should stay away from even giving this behavior more attention than it needs in e.g. related security/account discussions. I'd hate to see a proud vandal putting up self-nominated sock-puppetry awards on a user page, or using them to deface other users' pages with. :-p -- Northgrove 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amusing but...No. Sophy's Duckling 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gives sock-puppetry more importance than it merits. Although the pic is funny :p— riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEANS. ⇒Bayerischermann ^- 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. Kafziel 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If I want to give someone an award for sockpuppetry (I have a few people in mind... :p), I can just give them the actual image, it's pointless to have this in a template. —Khoikhoi 08:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You wanted to say yourself Khoikhoi...You the greatest vandal ...Khoikhoi,you should stop begging help from others.You are abasing yourself :))))) Poor Hottentot, nem nem soha :)))))

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 page.

Template:MySpace[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is being used to link to MySpace from within articles. First of all, it hardly seems worthwhile as an external link is extremely easy to insert manually. Secondly, it has problems with categories being inserted which are not appropriate to all uses of the template (Wikipedians who use MySpace, celebs who use MySpace etc.) Most importantly, however, I believe this is not an enyclopedic template. MySpace is hardly a reliable source and it's not a site we should be encouraging links to. People need to learn that this is an enyclopedia and not Hello magazine. kingboyk 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but MySpace is not just an online community anymore. Because of its popularity, it has become a marketing tool by musicians, movies, etc. (For example: TV commercials for the movie John Tucker Must Die display a MySpace web page (www.myspace.com/johntucker) instead of a web page with its own domain name. Also, the category thing is easily fixed. tiZom_(2¢) 15:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WereWolf 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It give pages a cleaner look. Auric 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It keeps things like celebrity pages and music artist pages much more organised and clear. It actually provides a much faster way to get to the MySpace page rather than copying and pasting the MySpace URL. Suduser85 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only for MySpace sites that belong to the article (in example, official sites, singers, etc). Not for just generic Joe Bob's account. There hasn't been really a lot of problems with abusing the {{YouTube}} template. -- ReyBrujo 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template promotes consistent links. If MySpace ever decides to change their URL scheme (hey, IMDB did a few years back), it might save a few hundred edits (or at least make it easy to find what pages to edit). Plus, whatever the "category-of-the-week" is for these pages can be edited there. —TheMuuj ^Talk 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a form of advertising and promotion for one website. I also don't see why there should be a template for myspace as the profile links are extremely simple. How hard is it to type [http://www.myspace.com/user User]? Mace 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have such templates from IMDb, Wikia, TV.com, many commercial sites. -- Zanimum 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think MySpace is far too popular for Wikipedia to start causing widespread non-standard linkage to MySpace without templates. Keep in mind there's more to it than just linking to the page; you also get a MySpace link there now, which is useful. That it's a "simple external link" is also hardly justifying anything, because we should both have the MySpace article linkage there, and the link format may also change in the future. It's much easier to handle changes by templates in case MySpace would in the future start using a www.myspace.com/users/UserName system rather than the www.myspace.com/UserName system of today. This is especially useful when we're talking about among the most popular sites on the web today like MySpace after all is. As for downsides -- MySpace may indeed sometimes be used for unencyclopedic purposes, but on the other hand often covers a lot of biography information from the very source itself. Also, e.g. IMDb is based largely on user submitted material too with known historical accuracy problems, but still use templates here, and I think just like with IMDb, MySpace's informative pages outweigh the disadvantages. -- Northgrove 21:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MySpace is similar to IMDB in notability and recognition of official sources of content. -- Bovineone 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MySpace may get annoying, but it's gotten really notable, and seems like it's just gonna keep growing.--Josh 02:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MySpace is more than just a networking site for junior high school kids. For instance, Lily Allen advertised her music on it and became popular. Sophy's Duckling 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MySpace is definitely one of the most used sources for personal information and personality. There are hundreds of MySpace links throughout Wikipedia, and this template promotes consistency and standardization. Lefteh 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'MySpace is hardly a reliable source and it's not a site we should be encouraging links' -- hardly an argument, since all the pages here link to Wikipedia. I have trouble deciding which I trust more, Myspace or Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.200.96 (talk • contribs) .
Keep -- This template promotes consistency and makes possible future mass changes easier. ArglebargleIV 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- MySpace has become as important a representation of a musician as their "Official Website". Michigan user 12:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For many celebrities, this is their official blog, if not official "site." What's the harm in a template to standardize it?--Esprit15d 12:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MySpace isn't just for the teens anymore. It's becoming increasingly important for promotional purposes. I agree it's not a reliable source, but this template isn't calling it a reliable source, it's just providing a link. The consistency is good. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as of most comments above. -- Zanimum 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various notable people are increasingly using MySpace, sometimes even as an official blog or website. ⇒Bayerischermann ^- 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm suprised that this was even proposed.
Keep, for most of the reasons previously mentioned. Korinkami 11:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's effective and as has been said, MySpace is huge now. No idea why 'kingboyk' proposed this in the first place. TheDingbat 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read my nomination then? :) Because I consider it unencyclopedic and unnecessary. However, I clearly hold a minority view so if somebody wishes to speedy keep please go ahead. --kingboyk 14:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links to personal sites should generally be avoided, but if needed, why not use an external link? Polonium 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Things like IMDB, OEIS, and TV.com contain libraries meant to help people find what they want. The intended use of MySpace is for recreational purposes, and is not meant to further any kind of intellectual endeavor. If MySpace is allowed, why not allow a template for e-Harmony or Match.com? If we are doing this solely based on it's popularity then why don't we include templates to the top pornographic sites? 68.164.57.215 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistent links to official MySpace sites -- JHunterJ 17:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHunterJ --Bob 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consistency. MySpace is not only a social playground, it's also a library. Just like Wikipedia, IMDB, and the Internet. Arual 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The External Links policy specifically states, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." At recent discussion for that policy, the line was upheld, as MySpace was not considered "falsifiable". I have generally found that MySpace Music sites are legitimate but it is short of 100% and there isn't any way to determine this through MySpace. The WP:EL folks agreed that if a MySpace is linked to through a reliable source such as an official website (leaving aside the possibility for now that some arent' actually "official" ...) that backs up the inclusion, but without that assurance, anybody can delete the MySpace link at any time and point to Wikipedia policy. If there is so much support for this template, it should be translated into a workable policy. Perhaps the template could include a field for an URL citation indicating its reliability, for example. People active on MySpace could lobby for better verifiability (good luck, they still don't have cookies that work). In any case categorization should probably be avoided (even though that's one of the better reasons for the template) unless there's a fork to a Wikipedian version and so forth. Right now I can see that bands are often using MySpace as their primary site and it's also more popular with politicians this year, so this is not going away. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know this is late. But there's an interwiki link for this, so we don't need to worry about maintaining a template anyways. Its [[myspace:]], which negates the need for a template, when we've got a built-in operation to do this anyways. Kevin_b_er 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe Interwiki links for pages like MySpace are a bad idea. They do not show up as external links, and imply that MySpace is part of the wiki community. If the software could be changed to mark some Interwiki links as external then I'd agree. —TheMuuj ^Talk 10:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MySpace is becoming a larger online community, and many notable people use it. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we are going to link to MySpace, then it should be templated to provide a unified look. HighInBC 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is how I find my victims. Kafziel 19:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems useful enough to me. —Khoikhoi 08:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only used subst'ed. Jon513 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next... personal blog template???... this template is useless... Santa naz 15:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute. --Gray Porpoise 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just too easy to type in the link, and substitutes could be found for links like that. Generalnonsensecomic 07:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. --Haham hanuka 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, many celebrities are now using this as their official word and what is really goin on in their lives. Especially people like Dave Navarro, Travis Barker, and Shanna Moakler. --immunity 21:44, 26 August 2006 (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 page.