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 --Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template formerally used for Wikipedia:Article and project noticeboard. No longer appears to be in use. --- RockMFR 22:02, 4 February 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. Happy‑melon 08:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Absolutely no reason to link to Hulu per WP:EL rules (except on the official Hulu article, for which we don't need a template). We are WP:NOT a web directory. We do not provide links to free entertainment. There is no encyclopedic value in linking to videos, games, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, firstly, authorized postings of TV shows does count under the "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply" rule, but due to the restrictions to the US only, it would be in violation of the "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users" users rule, which means it has to be deleteed. ViperSnake151 15:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't agree with the nominator that there's "Absolutely no reason to link to Hulu" - in theory, an article about a specific television program might be enhanced by a link to a copyright-compliant version of the television program. However, ViperSnake151 is correct - Hulu is currently useless outside the United States, so we shouldn't use Hulu links for that reason. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except for the fact that it is free, it's really not any different than providing a link to purchase a product on a retail website - something that isn't done, obviously. --- RockMFR 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is madness. Wikipedia:External links clearly allows links to Hulu. Let me go through WP:EL section by section.

(1) it passes "Restrictions on linking", because Hulu respects proper copyright ownership.

(2) "What to link" says we should link "to a site hosting a copy of the work." So not only is DreamGuy wrong about Wikipedia's mission, he's got it completely backwards: we should always link to the source material, whether it's entertaining or not. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be a research tool, and if we hide the source material, we are doing our readers a disservice.

(3) it passes "Links normally to be avoided" -- Hulu is often a "unique resource" because it's the only site legally hosting most of these videos; Hulu's videos are free, not for sale; etc, etc. I'm sorry that some of you who don't live in the USA are apparently having trouble accessing the site. I don't work for Hulu, and I don't own an internet service provider, so personally, I can't help you. If there's a website in your country that has the legal right to re-post the copyrighted material that's on Hulu, then you should add that link, rather than deleting the Hulu link, which helps no one and deprives Americans of the ability to use Wikipedia to find multimedia source material. As for RockMFR's criticism: you can't just wave away "the fact that it is free". If Wikipedia weren't free, it would be a retail site, too. But it's not. It's free.

(4) "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" -- Hulu is the raw source, no POV added, so it passes.

(5) Longevity of links -- Hulu links are stable, so it passes.

--M@rēino 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hulu is not visible outside of the US (see WP:ELNO #7), and we do not have to link to outside resources, they are just a convenience. The floodgates are completely open with this template, it is better to see this case-by-case, without the template. Someone mentioned on WT:EL#Links_to_Hulu_and_other_sites_only_accessible_in_specific_regions (permanent link that the site is not a permanent repository, so longevity of links is an issue as well.

As a side effect, deletion of this template does not have as a result that the site can't be used anymore (you can still link it in the document), but it makes anti-spamming and control efforts easier, something that is quite difficult with this template. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template sends out the wrong message; editors should not be encouraged to link to Hulu.com. The content it provides is instable and inaccessible to a substantial number of users. – Chip Zero 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Directly violates the external links guideline, so the template should never be used, so it should not exist. 2005 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only does it violate WP:ELNO #7 because it is inaccessible to any reader on six and a half of the earth's continents, but these links are notoriously short-lived, so it violations WP:ELNO #16, "Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional". Also, rich media in general is unfriendly to those readers with slow connections and limited computers, and we no more want to encourage videos on Hulu than videos on YouTube. I think that makes three good reasons to not encourage the link. There may be a few times when a link is relevant and important. In that uncommon instance, the editors can just make the link by hand. I believe that having this template at all encourages thoughtless linking to an inappropriate resource. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --B (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Videos hosted on Hulu are no different than any other citable work. It'd be nice if it were available outside the U.S., but we don't use scarcity of books as a reason not to cite to books. The template standardizes access to these works.

• Comment To the extent that this is turning out to be a referendum on whether Hulu is a valid source for external links, this is the wrong forum for it. This discussion is about the template. If you want to get a ruling that Hulu links are, as a rule, not to be used in EL, join the discussion at WT:External links#Links to Hulu and other sites only accessible in specific regions. Note that in a previous discussion, WT:External links/Archive 22#Hulu.com, no such consensus emerged. Let's not use the TfD as an end-around the discussion.

If a consensus does emerge that Hulu sources are not valid as external links, if this comes up for TfD again, I would vote Delete. But not without the consensus. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the passage stricken out above. The template is useful both for external links and references. Even if Hulu is determined not to be an appropriate site for ELs, that does not change my opinion above that works on Hulu are appropriately citable as references; and to that effect, the template should remain, even if a consensus emerges against Hulu as ELs. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you then arguing that the absence of a template is going to prevent people from citing Hulu's content as a reliable source? Are you aware that this template is only used 12 times in the mainspace, representing only 5% of the links to Hulu.com on Wikipedia? We don't need a transcluded template to cite Hulu. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per restrictions and User:Chip Zero. feydey (talk) 23:11, 10 February 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1911 talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As part of my ongoing campaign against talk-page clutter and implementation of hidden categories, I think it's finally time to delete this template and move the now-hidden category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica into ((1911)) (using "includeonly" tags, of course).

I have already successfully nominated most of the existing talk page attribution templates for deletion, but I waited to nominate this one because it is a protected template and I knew it would take a bit more work to nominate. Eliminating ((1911 talk)) will accomplish four things:

1. Get rid of some talk-page clutter: Many talk pages already have WikiProject banners and other stuff on them, why have yet another template getting in the way?
2. Get rid of a redundant template,
3. Eliminate the problem of having two templates which may not be properly transcluded on both pages. I have compiled a list of articles whose talk pages contain 1911 talk, but which do not contain the 1911 template themselves and it has 526 pages on it! I fixed this problem easily with the other templates I nominated earlier, but the 1911 templates are much more widely used. I can probably solve this problem using AWB, but it will take some time.
4. Putting the source category as a hidden category in mainspace (rather than the talk page) is a neater and more convenient alternative for editors such as myself, who are interested in finding, tracking, and updating articles from outside sources.

I recognize that there was a CFD discussion and a TFD discussion in 2007 which resulted in the creation of these templates, but we must recognize that consensus can change, and indeed should change when a more efficient way of doing things comes along. In fact, the origin of this particular solution came about a month ago in this discussion. This type of template is a workaround for a problem which IMO no longer exists. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As one of the few people still interested in editing 1911-sourced articles, I agree on this. Keeping the two templates in sync is a pain. If there is a good reason for having the article acknowledge 1911 but not use the template, it can still be added to the hidden category. Note that some related templates include-eb and ni-eb (rate) still belong on the talk page. David Brooks (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--I agree about the other templates ((include-eb)) and ((Ni-eb)). They do belong on the talk pages, which is why I'm not nominating them for deletion. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: This template does more than just categorize them, it also contains author details and links where appropriate and this content is more suited (as either a comment, category or message) on a talk page rather than the article itself. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 04:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ((1911)) template and the ((1911 talk)) template have exactly the same parameters, so I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. Author details and links can be moved to the ((1911)) template if and where necessary (if they aren't there already). --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 10:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hope that in the meanwhile Eastlaw refrains from tagging articles with the 1911 template on the basis that the template up for deletion is on their talk pages. Srnec (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people have taken issue with me tagging the articles for attribution. If it's really that big a deal, I'll let someone else do this. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason for the existence of this template in the first place is that, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#"By-source categories", editors were going to move the notices off the articles and onto the talk pages. Deleting this template would have to include a reversal of that consensus. This was noted in the first TFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the risk of stating the obvious, that's exactly what I said in the nominating statement above. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although I'm not familiar with past discussions on this issue, if this can be simplified into a choice between an article tag vs. talk page tag, my vote is for the article tag. The issue the template is meant to call attention to is similar to other maintenance tags, which are generally kept on the article page, not the talk page. It could even be considered a more specific alternative to ((refimprove)). It seems obvious to me that the talk page version should be retired. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:28, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this template appears to duplicate the ((1911)) template and is as good example as any of templete creep. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've changed "support" to "delete" and "oppose" to "keep" in the above comments, as that's the usual lingo for deletion discussions, and it was getting a little confusing. I hope everyone doesn't mind, but feel free to change back if you do. I didn't change any other text. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:25, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for simplification of documentation. BD2412 T 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Just. . Happy‑melon 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zack Snyder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

!voting Keep even as the nominator. Template was speedy deleted with the nomination of "there are only three films, and Snyder isn't remotely culturally significant to cinema in the US." The first claim is true, the second is, in my opinion, not. Whether he should be culturally significant is a separate issue. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3, which doesn't actually touch on whether the template should survive TFD or not. See also: User:The JPS/Director templates, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_1#Director_templates (possibly more). - Richfife (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for navigational purposes. While three films is admittedly not a lot, I believe the director will forward his career, and his filmography will expand. This is based on the multitude of projects on his plate as he finishes Watchmen. Thus it seems highly likely that the template will be recreated at some later point in time, so why get rid of this piece of navigation now? (WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to templates, FYI.) Bare as it is, it's not detrimental to hold onto this template for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Even if WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, the fact remains that his filmography is very limited right now, and the template serves no purpose in facilitating navigation. If one so desires to see his works, they may click on his name. As I said when nominating it for deletion, Snyder's films have yet to prove that they are culturally significant. Though this may become apparent with Watchmen, we can't know yet, as it hasn't been released. Dawn of the Dead and 300 were films that weren't even prominent enough among the targeted audience to develop a cult following. Perhaps, like many of the recent superhero flicks, Watchmen will be a huge let-down. Or maybe Snyder will die tomorrow.

If it is the case that, in the future, Snyder becomes a prominent director, then we could reconsider resurrecting this template.SweetNightmares (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can say that the director's name can be clicked on to review his or her filmography. The director template makes navigation more instantaneous. I am not sure why cultural significance matters; are you suggesting that there needs to be high artistic merit to warrant a template? In addition, 300 was a very prominent 2007 film; it had a lot of bang for its buck, it stirred historical controversy, and it spawned quite a few Internet memes. In addition, whether or not Watchmen does well, it is still an enormous project with decades in development hell, and Snyder's involvement with this project finally being produced is pretty significant. Also, Snyder is already signed with a number of projects, so the outcome of Watchmen is pretty irrelevant. Lastly, yes, he may pass away, but I think that the odds of him having a career are larger than his demise. In the event that does happen, we can revisit TFD and find another way to re-format his works, such as "See also" sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a waste of server resources; just because Spielberg has an infobox does not mean that every person in every genre should have an infobox. All that does is multiply the number of pages every individual gets, increase load on the servers, and do a job that is actually what categories are for anyway. Is it really that hard to navigate all three projects without an infobox? We should be nuking these templates where there is very little content - especially on garage bands and similar. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This template is not putting a load on the servers. Such an argument does not apply to deletion. So it really boils down to usefulness. I know that the template is pretty minimal compared to other director templates, but now that it's been created, is it necessary to go out of our way to delete it? Do you doubt that this director of mainstream films has a future? Should the template be deleted even if there are four, five, six, or seven items? Sure, it's on the low end, but being realistic about the future, the template is not going to be so minimal forever. Unless there's an issue with director templates in general? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Afterall the last discussion had it restored. Snyder has another film, an animated one, in development, so it'll be four, and what if Tales of the Black Freighter gets its own article? Five. Alientraveller (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The last discussion was to overturn the attempt to speedy delete the template. So this is a discussion to actually see if the template has consensus to be kept or to be deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For what it's worth, Snyder has a new film in production called Guardians of Ga'Hoole. This makes four films in his template, now that I've updated it. It's certainly better than just three films. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh come on, do you know how petty that sounds? "It's not three anymore, it's FOUR!" The fact remains that Snyder is nowhere near the caliber of Tarantino or Spielberg as far as impact on cinema in the US. This template serves absolutely no purpose, other than wasting resources. SweetNightmares (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that, so please do not twist my words. Like I said before, three was the bare minimum level of tolerance in a previous discussion about director templates, so I mentioned it in case it made a difference. I disagree with the argument that a director has to be "culturally significant" to warrant a template. Why does this have to be the case? The work Snyder has done is clearly mainstream, with many, many sources covering each of his films. Requiring cultural significance is stricter criteria for template creation than it is creation for a director article; it's the template at the very end of an article that unites various topics and gives the reader a venue of where to go next. "Waste of resources" is unfortunately not a reason because Wikipedia can tolerate all kinds of pages; capacity is never an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:32, 11 February 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.