< August 1	August 3 >

August 2

Template:Fictional secret organisations

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 Keep. Robdurbar 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the name, this template doesn't treat its subjects as fictional subjects at all, and the fields here are specifically called out in WP:WAF as examples of what not to do. Ideally, this template could be rewritten to make it salvagable, but there's really nothing this template could include that would be encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if fixed It needs to reference the fictional work. That is an easy fix. - LA @ 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't just that the original work needs to be referenced, but that none of the fields are encyclopedic info but instead in-universe trivia. Number of employees? Revenue and operating income? Homepage? How is any of this encyclopedic for a fictional organization? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, it can only help clean up pages that would be otherwise full of scattered information on an organisation in a game, movie, ect. For instance, I make referance to the game Urbandead, and they wonder what "Necrotech" is, so I point out the page, and then all the information is in a neat and tidy box to the side.--Labine50 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the most part, this complies with Infoboxes in fiction guidelines. Admittedly some of the fields (Homepage and number of employees) seem trivial, but they could easily be removed. It is not the whole box that is at fault, just a few of the fields. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the user that deleted the fields that used to belong to the company infobox... they can apply sometimes but I see what you mean about fiction as fact. As it is now, keep. Is the template better now? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. No. But I'm willing to accept that I'm vastly in the minority on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:43, 7 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.

The result of the debate was Template deleted with other non-GUSd MP user templates. - LA @ 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Elderberries[edit]

It is unused and has a redlinked image tag. It was nominated here with a group of other templates which failed possibly because of the grouping. Its redirect template Template:Elderberries should also be deleted, it is also unused. I don't know about the user page, User:Elderberries however, which also redirects to this template. None of the above are transcluded anywhere.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the userbox was mistakenly created at User:Elderberries, mistakenly moved to Template:Elderberries, and then moved to Template:User Elderberries. Anyway, delete the whole bunch, as they are unused. —Mi ra 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused malformatted userbox. I've tagged User:Elderberries as a U2 speedy. --ais523 09:35, 3 August 2006 (U T C)
Question Is this speediable? - LA @ 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Template:User Monty Python --DragonWR12LB 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is ((User Monty Python|Monty Python and the Holy Grail|'s father smells of elderberries)) which produces the same information in a better formed box. - LA @ 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Film rating[edit]

Including film ratings have been the subject of many discussions now at WikiProject Films. See this, for example. Every so often, someone new to the project comes along and asks why don't we include them. Ratings can change throughout time, and including them is too reductive. Wikipedia is not a movie guide. We use links to IMDb where this info can be found. If a film's rating is of encyclopaedic value, then it should be discussed in context in the article. See also ((Infobox movie certificates)). The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Very very redundant to iMDB and WP:NOT. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some people might like all of the information in one place. However, this really should be discussed in the appropriate projects and articles. - LA @ 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. And it HAS been discussed over and over again AdamSmithee 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 08:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add it to the Infobox Film as an MPAA rating field.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passive (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 August 2006

Comment: Noooo... not in the main infobox. And MPAA is US-centric. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe the template should be expanded to include other jurisdictions' film ratings? It probably should if it is to keep the name "Infobox Film rating" and not "Infobox MPAA rating." Jesuschex 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of little informative use. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MagentaThompson 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ratings are frequently very important to movies, as you could read at MPAA film rating system. Quite frequently, it dictates who the audience will be, what that audience (and people who aren't in that audience) will expect from it (and therefore the critical and audience ratings of the film, since they went into it with certain perceptions), how well it will generally do in the box office, etc. It's also mentioned in every advertisement for the film, every poster, every copy of it, every cross-promotional deal, and many more places. Sure, it's rarely prominent in these places, but this template isn't prominent either. Now, some might say that if the rating is truly important, such as the case of Midnight Cowboy or A Clockwork Orange (film), then it will obviously be mentioned within the article, so it's already there when it needs to be. However, I'd argue that the mention it receives in those cases is definitely worthy, and in other cases, all it needs is this little template, nothing more. Considering the fact that WP articles usually have all of the other basic information about the film (at least all the other basic information) why leave the rating out? Jesuschex 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either as infobox or in-article template. The info is useful and should be in a consistent format. (SEWilco 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete Per LA. Avador 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative and convenient.-PlasmaDragon 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Template:Infobox movie certificates. The formatting of the other one is better and there is definitely no need for two. -- Renesis13 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use ((Infobox movie certificates)) instead. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - An infobox on film ratings could be useful. However, neither of these templates seem to fit very well in articles. It would be best if the code for having film ratings in movie Infoboxes was added back in (it was added a while back, but deleted for some strange reason). (Ibaranoff24 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Movie certificates template is sufficient. ed g2s • talk 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. reasoning. feydey 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete boxcruft. Rating requires context. `'mikka (t) 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Kimchi.sg 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox movie certificates[edit]

As for ((Infobox Film rating)). Reductive, and redundant, since it's on IMDb. Any cultural significance needs to be discussed in context. Delete The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC) :Comment: This is an incomplete nom because my programming inexperience means I can't get the tag to display properly in the template... could someone fix it please? Cheers. (I have, however, left a note on the template's talk page) The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Very very redundant to iMDB and WP:NOT. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom AdamSmithee 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, are you talking about IMDB.com when you say IMDb? If so, the fact that some other website has the information contained is NOT a reason to delete a template. I actually nominated this template for deletion a while back when I first discovered it, but somehow ended up improving it and no one wanted to delete it. Although it wasn't my intention, the result was a very useful template. I see this as much better than ((Infobox Film rating)) since it actually provides links (when available) to articles on the rating authority of that country. The request for a movie's ratings has been made many times for ((Infobox Film)) and from discussion there one can see that it could turn into a mess. For one, you'd have to at least include every English speaking country, making the already large infobox even larger. A separate infobox has been something that has been very welcomed by many editors, as it keeps the main info box simple and clean. This is not a matter of whether or not we should include international ratings, but how we organize such information. This template is highly useful and makes for better organization when considering the alternatives. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that one of the arguments made via #Template:Infobox Film rating, that says the issue has been discussed, does not take into consideration that no such discussion seems to have occurred for this template and it's approach. Also, here's the TfD log for it's first nomination Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 2#Template:Infobox movie certificates. -- Ned Scott 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, really they have been implicitly discussed. If ratings have been discussed, then the method by which they are included is implicated. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then this must be where the confusion is coming from. Is this about the templates or the inclusion of rating data in articles? Can you link to some of the discussions? Even if the ratings have been discussed, I don't see IMDB as an acceptable alternative.. -- Ned Scott 10:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the discussions. It is about the inclusion of the ratings data. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very divided debate, and without a consensus. Sure, it was discussed, but apparently the discussion didn't go anywhere. If you are worried about ratings changing over time, then we can date stamp them. If editors wish to include ratings information then they should be able to. Don't cite things as if they back you up, because these discussions don't. -- Ned Scott 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very unfair tone/accusation. You asked for a link to a discussion, and I provided one. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Its size is way out of proportion to its importance in an encyclopedia article. — Walloon 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The size is dynamic, it only lists that which is filled out... I don't undertsand this objection.. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per The JPS and Walloon. The template is very poorly designed and makes no care to fit into the articles. For example look how it takes up multiple sections in The Godfather

((Infobox Film)) also takes up multiple sections.. an infobox doesn't necessarily have to fit in an exact section, it's just an aside "box" of information... -- Ned Scott 03:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep important information. Also, I think that secretly, WikiProject Films one day wants to supersede IMDb. I know I want it to. Whilst we may refer to other sites, there is no reason to not contain vital information. By that ethic, most of the research done on Wikipedia is from other websites, anyway. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The information that this is designed to include is verifiable. It does seem slightly crufty, but I don't think WP:NOT indiscriminate is a good reason to delete this yet, and I can't think of any other basis in policy to delete it. If there were a consensus at WikiProject Films to delete, then it should probably be deleted. Perhaps it should be reformatted to take up less space. --ais523 09:40, 3 August 2006 (U T C)
Stong keep due to information that makes a movie complete. --Ryanasaurus0077 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep it. Film rating information is very handy to have in an encyclopedia article. --Ppk01 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive and of little informative use. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, all parameters are optional, it only displays that which is filled out. As shown here. -- Ned Scott 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. It's still far too big. violet/riga (t) 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful, good formatting, encourages actual encyclopedic information. (If you are worried about non-encyclopedic content on movie articles, I'd go after the trivia sections first. They are a magnet for fan-boy material. See Superman Returns). -- Renesis13 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a magnet for copy and pastes from the IMDb too. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, good template, serves a purpose, Thefourdotelipsis has a good point. --Draicone ^(talk) 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, It has important information about a movie. Tiger Trek 06:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the info is useful and should be in a standard format. The same info being on another website or every movie poster is not relevant to whether the info is part of a description of the item. (SEWilco 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete. See what I wrote above on the "film ratings" template. (Ibaranoff24 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep How can you have an article on a movie without mentioning its rating? This template makes it easier to keep the presentation of the important information consistant between different articles. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although, I was thinking that adding a hide button may be good... Looking at Star_Wars_Episode_I:_The_Phantom_Menace it's just way too large... and if you could show the U.S. and maybe UK or something... and then hide the rest but you can click "show" if you want it'd be good. gren グレン 10:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I like that idea, but I'd have the "short version" contain the ratings from all English-speaking languages, to reflect that this is the English Wikipedia and not just the US and UK Wikipedia. It would be a bit longer (US, UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand) but still much shorter than the full version. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Mango juice^talk 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unbalanced[edit]

This template is a POV magnet. Editors are using it to WP:POINT. "Balance" is not in Wikipedia content policies. We have already templates that deal with POV articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Man, this template is just what I need in my WP:PAW work. Unbalanced is very different from POV bias. Let me give an example, an article I am working on now, Age of consent reform. There are basicaly four types of reform. The first is far and away the most legislatively successful, the second has significant legislative success, the third I don't know, the fourth is fringe postition advocated by a tiny (but vocal) handful of far-right wackjobs and with zero popular or legislative support. Well, the article gives 90%+ of its space to the latter type. But all of the material is (as far as I know so far) accurate, verified, and notable enough. No statements that can be pointed to or deleted as biased. But still, a bad situation, bad article, unbalanced but not POV. Similarly, in other articles: let's say 1000 papers with Finding A, 10 papers with Finding B, and article list all ten of Finding B and 5 of finding B. Can't say you haven't presented both sides, but... anyway, keep. Herostratus 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can use ((POV)) or ((NPOV)), or any of the merge templates. Templates like these are just POV magnets, people right and left adding it to articles just to WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this template would be a magnet for abuse, while ((POV)) or ((NPOV)) aren't? — sjorford ++ 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus's excellent argumentation. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unbalanced articles violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a particular point of view; this tag and ((POV)) distinguish between the various parts of the WP:NPOV policy. Having a separate template helps to reduce confusion. --ais523 09:43, 3 August 2006 (U T C)
Keep, as a useful and more specialized template. Surely it may be abused but the same goes for any template, be it POV/NPOV or whatnot. Scoo 12:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep serves a purpose and can be used, --Draicone ^(talk) 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus, there is a difference between unbalanced and POV -- pm_shef 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatently POV. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep I've seen all manner of templates used to WP:POINT In fact I belive that this template better expresses its point than ((POV)). The POV template's text is very terse. There's a big diference between an article that is pushing a point of view and an article that only expands on one point of view. --Monotonehell 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As per Herostratus, there is a big difference between an article that is completely written in a non-neutral POV and an article that maintains NPOV in the text that is present, but omits material on another POV. The later is where this template would be useful. --Mucus 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful template. The term "POV" has become an all-purpose insult and the very placing it onto an article may cause a heated revert war. "Unbalanced" is a more neutral and specific description. An article may be unbalanced simply because of limited knowledge of contributors in certain areas, not necessarily because of someone's POV pushing. `'mikka (t) 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]