Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 21 July 23 >

July 22

[edit]

Template:MTS parallel stations

[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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete all. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTS parallel stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template violates NFCC and removing the images would render the template useless. Also nominating {{MTS blue-line}}, {{MTS green-line}} and {{MTS orange-line}}. BJTalk 22:27, 22 July 2008 (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.

Template:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the Commonwealth Games

[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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Happy‑melon 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the Commonwealth Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems a bit pointless when it only links to one article. Buc (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (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.

Template:Miami Dolphins All-Time Team (1966-2007)

[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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 20:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miami Dolphins All-Time Team (1966-2007) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, as indicated here, this team was assembled by fan vote at a newspaper website. It is not affiliated with the Dolphins and therefore has no real notability outside the readers of the paper. How many other websites have held similar polls in their lifetime? — ►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't a championship team roster or a navbox of hall of fame players - those are fine. This is a navbox of a fan vote from a newspaper of who the best players in team history were. I could start my own poll and get similar results, yet it wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as a navbox unless it was a team-sanctioned, "official" anniversary or all-time team, which this isn't. Pats1 T/C 18:22, 22 July 2008 (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.

Football navboxes

[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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ararat Yerevan 1973 squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1966 Neftchi Baku squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete per recent WP:FOOTY consensus about football navboxes and templates, which says, among others, only general club navboxes should be used, not specific years' ones. - Darwinek (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is crazy. If we had navboxes for every championship winning team, the bottom of pages like Rangers F.C. would look terrible. – PeeJay 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Jimbo[online] 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really not necessary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the context of Azerbaijani football, this club is particularly notable, witness the celebrations and commemorations in Baku for its 40th anniversary as referenced in the Neftchi Baku PFC article. The 1966 team is the preeminent team in the history of Azerbaijani club football, and therefore, has special notability. Further, this template is not like a general club box as it does not appear on the club page, but rather only on the pages of relevant team members. Thus, contra to what PeeJay2K3 says above, this box will not clutter the main page of a club, as it doesn't and won't appear there. In fact, such a box as this is very helpful to Wikipedia users in understanding the context within which specific players played, especially in the case of players, like Kazbek Tuaev or Alexander Trophimov (for example), on which very little information is available in English. If this navbox is wrongly deleted, the players' pages on which it appears will be devoid of useful and notable context unnecessarily. Look at the players it links to and tell me if their pages look cluttered. I don't think they do, and the WP:FOOTY consensus referred to above does not apply here. --Friejose (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One further note, and then I'll keep quiet, these navboxes is no different that the navboxes that exist for most World Cup sides (for example, see Brazil's 1966 WC template), in that they single out a very notable, specific side that has relevance beyond a typical championship side. If we delete these templates, we should delete templates like the WC boxes too.--Friejose (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Further, this template is not like a general club box as it does not appear on the club page" - yes it does, it's right there at the bottom!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notwithstanding your exclamation points, the 1966 box appears nowhere on the Neftchi Baku PFC article. The two navboxes at the bottom are for the Azerbaijani Supreme League 2008-09 and regarding this year's Intertoto Cup. Frankly, I think the "slippery slope" argument is a bad one. Clearly, there is a dedicated group of WP:FOOTY members who are vigilantly watching for templates regarding football, as shown by the nomination and discussion here. These people are not going to disappear. But if a specific template has significant support, as these two do, I don't see how this is a precedent for all templates for all time. If a template of a specific squad is nominated for deletion in the future and its supporters cannot muster arguments why it should exist, it will be deleted. Additionally, people keep speaking of a prior consensus. Putting aside that such a consensus was reached in the abstract and without the participation of many of the people here (thus, calling into question its validity), no one has linked to this consensus or consensus discussion. In light of the persistent misunderstanding of the role of these navboxes, i.e. they appear on players' articles not on club articles, I question whether any prior consensus is applicable here.--Friejose (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a club as a huge number of titles, be it domestic league or other, one can create special article devoted to the club's honours, etc. But if a club has won just a few times, why not to place so called golden squads in the main article? I see no problems with this. It's just another useful info.--Avdav, (talk)
  • Keep. I am not an expert in the area but I do agree the navbox is very informative to be placed at least in the articles about players. As above mentioned, it is difficult to get more information about them in English. And also, I completely agree with Avdav's comment above. Gülməmməd Talk 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Friejose. --Boguslav (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can be be very important.--Baki66 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our guidelines. Consensus has not changed. Punkmorten (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - keep these to an absolute minimum - i.e. World Cup squads only. Keeping these two will be the thin end of the wedge, and lead to huge amounts of templates listed on club articles and player pages. - fchd (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:FOOTY guidlines. This would set a terrible precedent if allowed to be kept. If a particular historical quad is deemed noteworthy then they may be listed in the article in question, a template is not necessary.
  • Comment - Another thing to consider regarding these templates is that the majority of players listed in them are not notable. The Ararat Yerevan navbox has six bluelinks out of a total of 17, and the Neftchi Baku one has six bluelinks out of 26. If the players themselves aren't notable, what makes the squad as a whole notable? – PeeJay 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they are much more notable than hundreds of 19-year old kids who played professionally two matches, we have here. Remember that they are league champions, the reason they are red-linked is a system bias against Eastern European region. Compare number of articles in category "English footballers" and e.g. "Hungarian footballers" or "Soviet footballers". User:Karaboom is currently creating great articles about Soviet footballers, it is a step in the right direction. - Darwinek (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Karaboom is doing a tremendous job, and I've been trying to help him. There are tons of notable Eastern Bloc players out there who are currently red-links, and if you look at Russian Wikipedia, you'll see that many of them have dozens of international caps, were on medalist Olympic squads, and the like, but are red-linked here because there is a paucity of information about them in English or on the web generally. Whatever is decided with this TfD, I appreciate Darwinek pointing this out, and I encourage you all to help out creating articles on notable Soviet era players.--Friejose (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All I'm saying is that a navbox should not exist when the majority of the items being linked to don't currently have articles. If more than half of the links were blue, I might feel differently, but there are too many redlinks there to be ignored. – PeeJay 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't really think that the amount of current redlinks should be the biggest concern if the subjects do meet notability. It encourages articles to be created about notable subjects. matt91486 (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is going to set a dangerous precedent: such a decision would allow a (huge) squad template for every winning team, bringing to a terrific explosion of the navbox sets. People like Paolo Maldini, for instance, would have a navbox list composed by at least 20 templates like these. Oh dear. --Angelo (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a navbox for navbox's sake. Terrifying precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's informative, so what harm would it be to keep it Baku87 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winning the Soviet Top League is not a notable enough achievement to be deserving of a navbox. Winning the Champions League might be, but not the Soviet Top League. – PeeJay 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Soviet means "that side" of Iron Curtain. Let us not make things so "cheap". Winning the Soviet Top League is not less notable than winning the Champions League. Gülməmməd Talk 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, yes it is. And I'm not cheapening the discussion. I would say the same of any squad that had won the Premier League or Serie A. Winning your country's national league just isn't notable enough for a navbox. – PeeJay 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed - stating that "winning the Soviet Top League" is as notable as "winning the Champions League" is your opinion, nothing else. To the rest of the universe, it's a national championship. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Problem with this is that it's just your opinion i.e. the assertion of notability here is inherently POV, as is the existence of these particular navboxes. Please don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, waste of time. We're here to discuss these ones, not the (potentially flawed) existence of others. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of the independent citations, as seen in a variety of articles, regarding the specific squads at issue here shows their notability in a clear, NPOV way. The only issue here is whether admittedly notable specific football squads should ever have a navbox. The Rambling Man has made it plain that he believes navboxes to be generally scurrilous and useless. Notwithstanding his opinion about navboxes, however, they exist, so the specific question here is whether there is a consensus to delete these particular navboxes. If the consensus is delete, then I'll live with it. Somehow . . . my life will go on. But I am concerned by the bald assertions of consensus, when the preceding discussion has made it quite clear that there is no broad agreement regarding these particular navboxes. This discussion has been quite different than the "delete, delete, delete" parade you see on most TfD's, no? --Friejose (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, I'll ask you to "prove the notability" beyond Azerbaijan. Moreover, notability of a particular club's achievement in 1966 in Azerbaijan does not necessarily sanction the development of a navbox. Extend your imagination for a bit - how many clubs do you think could claim similar notability? Even if we were being cautious, perhaps two or three per country? And more in countries with more established league/cup systems? Several thousand pointless navboxes will come from this (with similar "notability"). In England alone, there are five or so clubs who won the top division having just been promoted into it. I question whether true NPOV is being applied to this particular squad. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fact that some future template may later be notable or not and may require a future TfD sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me, which, pace you above, is a waste of time. I was not aware there is some super-notability required of navbox templates. --Friejose (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • pace? Anyway, I'm just reminding you of the terrible precedent the existence (and persistence) of this navbox is setting. Your opinion that this squad is notable is just that, your opinion, and therefore falls foul of WP:NPOV. This isn't a question of "super-notability", it's a question of "recognised notability within the remit of English Wikipedia guidelines". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • For starters, UEFA thinks Ararat '73 and Neftchi '66 are notable beyond the confines of the Caucasus: [1] and [2]. And I guarantee that my opinion counts for little with UEFA. There are also literally dozens of articles in Russian and other languages about these clubs. Notability is a red herring here. Your real concern is the slippery slope issue with these sort of navboxes, and that, I'm afraid, it just your opinion. --Friejose (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I used pace as a preposition.)[reply]
                    • Sorry, but the English UEFA link proves nothing other than the fact that they're the only team from Armenia to win the Soviet league. The quote that the club "will go down in Armenian football history" says it all - the club is notable. Hence the article. The squad? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FOOTY. And the fact that a keep here would create a consensus for other domestic winning teams. Players like Paolo Maldini would get some 10+ squads who won Serie A or the Champions League ontop of the 8 he has now. Ryan Giggs is another example, some 10+ Premier League winning squads. — chandler — 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Friejose VartanM (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not for not being notable: of course not: But this would create a precedent, and there would be lots of templates. I suggest creating articles such as "Ararat Erevan season 1972-73" and "Neftchi Baku PFC season 1965-66".--Latouffedisco (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for the same reasons above, by Latouffedisco - Nabla (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TfD is not the Arbitration Committee, there is no such thing as a binding consensus in these discussions. Surprisingly enough there is evidence of that in this discussion itself - we had a supposed consensus that only World Cup past squads were deserving of navboxes, but that consensus was modified by another recent discussion (unless that one has also been modified since the last time I checked - either way that would only support my argument) which allowed for certain top international competition navboxes. Anyway, the slippery slope argument is completely invalid here - why? Because TfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Let's say these two templates are kept for their own merits. Tomorrow someone creates a template for, I dunno, "FC Zurich 2006-07 Super League Champions squad". That template is (rightly) put up for deletion, and 50 people vote "keep - look at the precedent!", and everyone else votes delete because it's truly a non-notable squad. Well, any intelligent admin who stumbles upon such a debate would undoubtedly delete the template, because despite the numbers being in favor of "keep" votes, just citing "precedent" is not a valid argument in this case. Nobody is trying to establish a consensus to, for instance, "keep all templates for league-winning squads" - all we are looking at are these two particular templates, and in this case I must agree with the people who wish to keep them. ugen64 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Why do these 2 teams, of theses 2 specific years deserve a navbox, while the thousands of other teams, from other years, nations and competitions (and in other 'major' sports) don't? - Nabla (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a fair question, but with a common answer. Like almost any article, template, or any other part of Wikipedia, someone with the requisite interest in the topic who was wiling to take the time and effort to create something for this encyclopedia, did so. Perhaps there are more deserving sides for a template like this, but I believe these two meet standards for inclusion as detailed above, and therefore, should not be deleted. --Friejose (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with many questions you, and others, raised above. Example: many 19 y.o. playing at rather low divisions in England or other large countries, have articles; while major players from a major country as the USSR don't. Another one: Advocaats's article is plain bad, in what concerns navboxes. Eleven! Now imagine we add 10 more for each national title - and the templates we're discussing are national titles... Saying keep because someone took the trouble to make them is a blanket argument to keep everything (anything is here because someone took the trouble to make it); and BTW we could reverse the argument to a blanket delete one: should we delete everything because someone took the trouble to nominate and/or argue for deletion? Certainly not. Ararat Yerevan's 1973 squad certainly deserves a good section in the clubs page, or an article should the page be too large already. It is certainly notable, I would even quote by heart that it was USSR's champion in the 1970s. But increasing the already big navbox cluttering we have is not good. - Nabla (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it will create a precedent, look at what happened with the European Championship squad templates. They were all repeatedly deleted until one debate during Euro 2008 when a single template was kept (most likely due to the tournament being on at the time). Immediately about 50+ templates in the same vein were created. Now, if we keep this one, and in a short space of time 50+ templates are created for other clubs that won the title once, will you be the one to bring them all to TfD, because I certainly won't have the time. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I think that every template for deletion should be judged on its own terms, on whether it meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and whether it serves a purpose. If these navboxes meet criteria for inclusion and are useful, they should not be deleted. I think that the precedent argument cuts both ways. If these templates are deleted, I think all manager templates should be deleted too. They add little (less that these squad boxes, IMO), are not inherently notable, and with the manager carousel, individual articles (like Dick Advocaat's, as I point out above) get uselessly cluttered. Accept that there is no consensus on this issue, and nominate templates for deletion or not on their own merits and not because they belong to a certain class. --Friejose (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (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.

Template:credit

[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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Happy‑melon 19:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not in widespread use (currently linked to 3 articles). While the idea behind this template's creation possibly has some merit, I don't think this template is necessary. The image description page serves the same purpose. -- Longhair\talk 09:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Some authors of cc-by works specify that their name must be put under the image, or something like that (which is perfectly compatible with the cc-by license). The edit summary of the first edit of this template indicates this. --- RockMFR 01:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because this template isn't in widespread use doesn't mean it shouldn't be. The purpose of its creation is clear - to give image authours due credit if they submitted their work under the 'credit' cc license - so this as long as the license exists, so should this template. If anything, this template's existence should be promoted somehow - there are many 'cc credit' images on wikipedia that don't give their authours any credit at all at a surface level. THEPROMENADER 06:16, 24 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_22&oldid=1140401793"