Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29

[edit]

Template:WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!

[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).

The result of the discussion was move and mark historical per the discussion. Redirects will be deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template was replaced by {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} with |yugioh-work-group=yes when WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh! was absorbed into WikiProject Anime and manga in 2009. All transclusions have been updated. The following redirects should also be deleted: {{WPYU-GI-OH}}, {{WPYUGIOH}}, {{WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh}}, {{Yu-Gi-Oh}}, {{Yu-gi-oh}}. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2016 (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).

Template:1866 college soccer records

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete, now that the template has been (slightly out-of-order) substed onto the page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A whole template for three games that are already fully described by 1866 college soccer season. In my opinion, superfluous. The Banner talk 18:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed, template now unused. The Banner talk 23:13, 3 January 2017 (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).

Template:Denial of Mass Killings

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 6 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2017 (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).

Template:Infobox Sports Car Championship

[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).

The result of the discussion was merge (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Sports Car Championship with Template:Infobox motorsport championship.
I see no reason to have a separate template that is only used on a half dozen pages, unless I am missing something? Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (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).

Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Good discussion, but there's clear consensus to delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th or lower place squad, not notable, and duplicates 2010 FIBA World Championship squads/2010 FIBA World Championship for Women squads. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: The only reason for deletion is that it is not winnig one of the first three places? Where in the regulations it says so. If you show a valid reason that should be deleted, I would not object. — Nn94 14 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nn94 14, for related discussions which resulted in deletion, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, ... many of these are for football or junior-level competitions, but the first one is directly related. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: To that similar templates deleted in selective situations, it is not disputed. But i still have not said where it says in the rules that it must. As I said, if indicated a rule by which it is done, I will not complain. — Nn94 14 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a long-standing consensus that we don't keep navboxes for these, as they aren't defining characteristics of these players and result in serious template creep. Footy players can play on their national squad for a decade, sometimes. Imagine if we put up a navbox on each of their pages for every international competition they participated in during that time, in addition to teams and such. That would be lunacy. ~ Rob13Talk 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: it makes no sense to delete this, and then dozens of other templates have to also be deleted. There is absolutely zero reason to delete these.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There is absolutely no reason to delete these. And no regulations on that. IndexAccount (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, navbox creep. We don't need a squad template for every team in every competition. That would cause an explosion at the bottom of articles for players with a long career. If someone wants to know who was on which squad, we can put that in the articles. The standard bar for a squad navbox is if it is a championship team for a competition which only once every four years (like the World Cup). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting per user request (permanent link).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I know WP:TCREEP exists, but do we have specific policy or guideline or even an essay that clearly stipulates on which navboxes are good to go, not which are not? Full disclosure: I've asked Primefac to relist this discussion, on which he was gracious enough to do so. –HTD 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a bit of an edit conflict, but the official TFD policy (which I mentioned below) allows for a consensus opinion to delete a template (even if it doesn't meet any specific TFD reason). When multiple TFDs over multiple months and years all agree that TCREEP is a valid reason for deleting templates, it can be extended to other TFDs as past precedent. I believe this is what's being invoked here. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notifying @Frietjes, Nn94 14, BU Rob13, Bluesangrel, IndexAccount, Plastikspork, and Nabla: of the reopen. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rob's points above regarding navbox creep are the strongest argument for deleting these templates. The "we'll just have to delete these other dozens of templates" is a spurious argument because a) OTHERSTUFF, and b) maybe we should delete these other templates. Simply saying "we shouldn't delete these because it might mean deleting these others" is not an argument any more than "we shouldn't throw away this mouldy cheese because we might also have to throw away some other cheese in the future". WP:TFD allows "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here" - so while WP:TCREEP is the only thing being violated, it has been demonstrated time and time again (not only in the TFDs listed above but on dozens of other templates) to be a valid reason for deleting a template. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is the difference, WP:TCREEP doesn't apply here, because none of the templates that were deleted were similar to this, A competition that recurs quadriennally, involving senior national teams, that's higher than the continental level. Plastikspork said "The standard bar for a squad navbox is if it is a championship team for a competition which only once every four years (like the World Cup)." Clearly, either we don't follow this standard, or this standard doesn't exist, as mere qualification in a competition that happens quadriennially involving senior national teams is the standard. –HTD 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • TCREEP can apply (and it does) without it having specifically been used in the previous discussions (of course, about half those discussions did mention and/or link to it). Also, just because those other templates exist doesn't automatically mean that these should exist as well (and vice versa), so using them is an OTHERSTUFF argument which should be avoided. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OSE vs. WP:TCREEP. Battle of the essays. If we're basing any of our arguments here, it's very weak ground indeed! Remember, WP:TFD is an argument for deletion. Those who want to delete must base their arguments on policy, even more so on those who insist to keep. If a discussion is closed as "Delete as per WP:TCREEP", which is a cuter way of saying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", is then the closures of such discussions have to be revisited. –HTD 20:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Howard the Duck: Is there a policy or guideline supporting its inclusion? If not, this is ultimately a subjective decision anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's actually my question above. As this is a TFD, there should be clear consensus based on policy to delete (we sometimes forget this). There's actually no policy that this is a **bad** navbox, unless your citing WP:TCREEP. –HTD 20:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • The d in TfD is for discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Consensus that suggests that an essay has no weight in a discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • LOL my bad. "D" was originally for "deletion". I'm old. I'm not saying essays don't have weight, it's just if we're using essays solely as the argument for deletion, which is currently being done, it's on very shaky ground. As for against deletion, I've actually looked (just) for policies and guidelines concerning navboxes, and was redirected to WP:NAVBOX. It's quite helpful, to say the least. You could argue that for these players, something about their participation in tournaments such as this would satisfy guidelines nos. 1, 2 and 4, #3, not so much, and #5, rarely, if at all. Does the "standard" pass for the templates listed on this TFD? I dunno. Maybe? –HTD 21:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TCREEP. Slovenia did not even medal; they finished in 8TH PLACE everyone! Do not need the Wikipedia equivalent of a participation award.—Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 8th place, everyone! 8th place out of 32 who even qualified, 100+ who participated, and 100+ who didn't. Bravo, indeed! If we're using WP:TCREEP as a valid argument", this isn't the first place to start. LeBron James just has one(!) FIBA Basketball World Cup navbox, plus 3 Olympic navboxes and 1 Americas navbox. That's 5 in total. Meanwhile, he also has navboxes for things such as "NBA season minutes leaders", "Jordan Brand Classic All-American Game – Boys' MVPs", "Hickok Belt winners", all of which are not listed on the infobox. The best American basketball players should get at least a maximum of five national team navboxes. Most play only during the Olympics, and that's just once in four years, and most players play for only two. (It's quite different for non-Americans, but that's another discussion.) That's not a lot. –HTD 20:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No reason to have this. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Plastikspork et al., we do not need templates for just about every team as it would create caos in the footer of too many athletes articles. A note to @Howard the Duck: (and others arguing to keep): there is no need to have a policy specifically telling to keep or delete anything. Evidently policy based arguments have more weight, because they reflect common established practice, not because they are "the rules" or "the law"; but ultimately the discussion makes the decision, and in the long run may even change the (de facto) policy. Infuriating and weird at times? yes... Nabla (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not "for just about every team". Stop making straw men. Not everyone gets to be selected to a national team. Not everyone selected accepts to be a part of it. And this doesn't happen every year. This argument is as valid as every argument not grounded on "common established practice" elsewhere in Wikipedia. –HTD 02:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Howard the Duck:, we are not discussing the notability of members of these teams, we are discussing if their articles should have a template with every such team they've been at. (so, who's making straw men?) Nabla (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Howard the Duck:, evidently someone is doing some, otherwise they wouldn't be here to be discussed. Nabla (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nabla: I've yet to see someone making a {{2012–13 Phoenix Suns roster}}, {{2013–14 Phoenix Suns roster}}, {{2014–15 Phoenix Suns roster}}, {{2015–16 Phoenix Suns roster}}, {{2015–16 Miami Heat roster}}, {{2016–17 Miami Heat roster}} navboxes which includes Goran Dragić. Clearly, no one's making navboxes for every team this person has played for. –HTD 21:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Howard the Duck:, Ah! I see. I missed a "as these" on my first sentence, thus the misunderstanding. Sure, I am not claiming that editors are making templates for every team at every competition, for every player, nor any danger of such thing happening... That was completely out of my mind, as a given and well established fact. I was thinking about teams like these ones, at World level competitions, I think that we do not need every team of these. Note that I voted "per Plastikspork" and that is their reasoning, so I have written in that mindset (not your fault for not catching that, a little bit of mine for not being clearer, mostly a common difficulty of discussing in writing). Also note that I believe this to be a borderline case, WP would not collapse if we had templates for every team of a World Cup, but I believe that we are better off without them - Nabla (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this does not meet the creep rules, as this is the World Cup and happens once every 4 years. The argument to delete one specific template of a team which did not medal at the tournament, is then being falsely justified as a reason to delete all such templates. While, then we have other templates for less important tournaments and that happen more often, which then if you use that as an argument, those will all have to be deleted also. This isn't site creep, this is in fact site over delete. Because eventually, if this holds, all such templates will have to be deleted.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    — Duplicate vote: Bluesangrel (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had to re-vote since the discussion was closed and then re-opened. Isn't that how it works?Bluesangrel (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluesangrel: Relisting is to allow others who have not participated a chance to !vote, to help reach a clearer consensus. You are more than welcome to continue to discuss, but are typically limited to one !vote (e.g. the bold text that reads "Strong Keep"). One options is to take your earlier "Strong Keep" and redact it e.g. "Strong Keep: it makes no sense to delete this ...", or just begin your later comments with "Comment:" —Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, OK thanks. Anyway, why were all of the templates deleted? No one is even mentioning that. This isn't just about the Slovenian template, which is how the argument is being shaped. This is about how all of the 2010 FIBA World Cup templates were deleted. Look at this discussion, every single one of them were deleted. This isn't just about the Slovenian template, it's about why were all of them deleted. If people want this to be just about the Slovenian template, but then want to use that to justify deleting all the templates, then this needs to be brought to a broader and more wide open discussion. Because we can't use this one template as a justification for deleting all of them, without any reason being given that is justifiable. So far I have seen no justifiable reason given for all the templates to be deleted, as creep does not apply to a world cup and that happens every 4 years only. A world cup that is also seeing more attendance, more TV viewers, and more revenues at each tournament than Olympics basketball also accxording to FIBA. So that is not creep.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was a group nomination of templates for national teams that did not medal.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Bagumba, but it was argued that using Slovenia, or their 8 place finish as a reason all should be deleted (as in nothing less than a medal.) Besides the point that again, it's the largest and most important basketball competition in the world internationally (more than the Olympics per FIBA that runs both), and happens just once every 4 years. So it's very odd that these are all deleted, yet something like FIBA Asian Championship, or FIBA Oceania Championship templates are not. And so how come just 2010 templates? So basically then, the next thing is to delete all templates having to do with national team tournaments in the sport of basketball. Because if these should be deleted (the most important tournament by far), then every basketball one for an international national team tournament in basketball should be deleted. How can we possibly justify deleting these, when all other tournaments (all of which are of less importance) are not deleted? So is this the route to go? The next time someone nominates one of these templates for deletion, then this discussion will be used to justify that. So this is basically saying that all the templates for international basketball tournaments between national teams need to be deleted. And as others here have asked several times in this discussion, where is the site rule or justification or precedent for that? I cannot see it existing anywhere, and neither can some other editors here in this discussion.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally agree with Bluesangrel. Asturkian (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:NAVBOX, guidelines nos. 1, 2 and 3, and somewhat 4. For example, in the Goran Dragić's participation in the 2010 championship was discussed in the article. His subsequent participation in the 2014 championship, where his brother Zoran was his teammate was also discussed. One could perhaps expand the section about Goran's participation on national teams so that his other teammates would be mentioned, thus satisfying guideline #5, and perhaps even an entire article, fully satisfying guideline #4. –HTD 14:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Howard the Duck: In most cases, it would be a WP:COATRACK to mention the other team members, thus WP:NAVBOX #5 is generally not met. That would be more suitable for the specific team article, not for the bios, especially if the team didn't even finish above 3rd place. Your example of Goran and Zoran is a rare exception of brothers playing on the same team.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I understand that satisfying WP:NAVBOX #5 for cases such as this would be a shot from your own free-throw line, unlike the first 3 criteria. Aside from brothers, maybe teammates from club teams could be a good mention, like the Splash Brothers in the 2016 team. It's not like I'm recommending mentioning every player in a specific person's team, just those who were previously related at some point. –HTD 10:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Navbox doesn't serve much purpose and definitely contributes to WP:TCREEP. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone here voting for deletion actually explain how this is creep (and cite actual parts of the creep guidelines and how this violates it)? So far no one has done that, they simply say it is creep, yet they don' give any actual proper explanation for that, not anything from creep guidelines that this is actually violating anything. So now we just cite something that is an opinion, and that justifies deletions?Bluesangrel (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're talking about how we're not explicitly linking to Wikipedia:Avoid template creep#Navigational template creep, but the delete arguments have been more or less quoting it. Examples have also been mentioned multiple times (e.g. footballers who play for one team for decades). Looking at Diego Maradona, he has 24 navigation templates at the bottom of the article; that's a bit excessive, no? Having a navbox for every little thing someone has done over the course of their life is unnecessary and adds clutter to a page. Another relevant example (for the basketball players) is Matjaž Smodiš, who has 8 navboxes at the bottom, only three of which are from championship teams. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FIBA World Championship is after Olympic games most important international basketball competition, so this should not be deleted. If we have templates for some high school or NCAA college basketball stuff, then we can not delete this. If you delete this then you also must delete all other World championship templates (from all years not just 2010), all European championship, all continental championship templates... Its absolute crazy to have templates for Oceania championship and to remove most important competition FIBA world cup.--Bozalegenda (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bozalegenda, it is very possible that we will be nominating/deleting similar templates for non-winning teams in the future. Just because this is the first mass-nomination does not mean it will be the last. To your first point, see my example in the thread above yours regarding excessive navboxes - in my opinion it's absolutely crazy to have eight (or 24) navboxes on a page. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So that is the real objective here?.... Delete the ones for the most important and biggest tournament, then use that as a justification to delete everything. By citing then that if the FIBA World Cup templates were deleted, then everything else must be deleted. The whole key to this strategy is to somehow sneak through the FIBA World Cup templates being deleted first. Well, I believe then that if this happens, it will only be fair to delete everything in the basketball templates of a similar nature. As others here pointed out, some of LeBron James linked templates can be a topic of several deletion discussions then, with delete being the only fair outcome. We are not supposed to cherry pick what templates get deleted here. If all the templates without a medal get deleted, then it's being totally wrong not to delete many, many, many other templates, otherwise it would strongly seem like a clear cherry picking of what templates to delete. It's not right just to single out templates related to national teams and international basketball tournaments. Templates for dozens of high school and college basketball things in the US - not deleted or even discussed, but the world's biggest international basketball tournament (with over 1 billion TV viewers at each of the 3 last tournaments (2006, 2010, 2014)) is obviously just site creep. McDonanld's high school or Big Sky tournament, or whatever similar such stuff - those are not creep...This seems like an obvious case of real definite cherry picking what templates to delete based on personal opinions or world view here.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this idea that anything with a medal is worthy, anything without a medal is site creep...who decides that a 3rd place finish matters in some tournament, but a 4th place finish in another is totally irrelevant? Who decided that even a silver medal or bronze medal is even notable then in the first place? How is not winning a tournament, not winning a title, not winning a championship even notable at all then in the grand scheme of things. You got a silver medal...I say big deal. You did not win a cup, you did not win a title, you did not win a tournament, you did not win a trophy, you did not win any championship. You were just like in the case of the World Cup, all the other 23 teams. You were a loser, you were simply one of 23 teams that did not win the tournament. So this logic that a medal should be given a template, and nothing else (even 4th place should) is not even at all logical. It's actually completely illogical. Because it implies that the value or worth to have a template was based on winning something. No one except a gold medalist wins. From the silver medal to last place, everyone is a loser. So claiming that a silver or bronze medal should have a template, but no one from 4th or lower place should, is arbitrary. It does not make much sense at all. The argument that a silver or bronze medal matters because - they actually won nothing. If the argument is team success is what should determine a template, then only the gold medal winners should have one. Because then we are just making up that 2nd and 3rd places somehow really truly matter, when in reality, they most certainly don't. Remember the Olympics is largely symbolic and political, and that's the only reason it even has a silver and bronze medal. And in these other non Olympics tournaments, those medals are fairly meaningless, as to winning anything, simply because they didn't win anything. If anyone can make an argument that a silver or bronze medal at the FIBA Oceania Championship, FIBA Asian Championship, or FIBA Americas Championship holds merit and value and should have a template, but a 4th place finish at the FIBA World Cup or Olympics does not, then please make that argument, because that is one of the arguments that is being used as a justification for deletion here. Despite that no one here voting for deletion is actually explaining why that is true. Why is that true? Why are silver or bronze medals from those tournaments more important than a 4th place at a worldwide tournament?Bluesangrel (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Top 3 teams is enough as they are the most important (this includes Olympics, FIBA World Championship, EuroBasket and other international competitions). WP:TCREEP is another reason to delete all templates below Top 3. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, no one explains why that violated creep. I read it over and over and nothing on the creep article says that. Nothing there suggests that a medal winning template would be fine, and one for a 4th placed team for example would not. I am not agreeing this violates creep in any way until someone explains how it does. The creep article doe snot in any way show that these templates are violating that said policy. If anything, it more likely implies that templates for the major international basketball tournament would be well within bounds.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up, no one ever played at more than 5 World Cups. One player appeared in 5, and no one else appeared in more than 4 (11 players - all of them retired). So some are claiming site creep here, when just 12 players in history would even qualify for 4 templates, and actually not a single player had more than 4 world cup roster templates in any of their articles - look it up if you don't believe it. So to be site creep, we now simply assume based on opinion that this will be a violation of site creep, even though it actually is not an actual creep violation. Again, the creep article does not read that way. Nowhere does it say templates should be deleted because some editors think that in the future their could possibly be a violation without there actually being any sign of that currently being an actual issue at all. FIBA Basketball World Cup records shows that the argument that this is violating site creep is just the personal opinion of some editors, and not an actual problem.Bluesangrel (talk)
Bluesangrel, no one is saying that only these templates will cause template creep. They're saying that these templates, along with the other half-dozen tournaments someone may play in, would result in template creep. I'm not sure you saw my example of Matjaž Smodiš with 8 navboxes (more than half from non-winning teams), or Diego Maradona with 24 navboxes (which is completely unnecessary in my opinion), but creep does exist, and this TFD (along with future nominations, I'm sure) are trying to keep it to a minimum. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, this comes across totally as let's delete all the national team templates, so to do so, let's delete the most important tournament first (world cup), then use that as a justification for deleting all the other less important tournaments. Using the argument when those come up for deletion, that well we deleted the most important tournament's templates, so of course these ones for lesser tournaments must be deleted also...this in no way comes across as there is a problem of creep, so let's see how to fix that, or let's see what templates maybe should be deleted. Which is how the discussion would go if that was really the objective or concern. If it was, then we would be discussing the FIBA Oceania team templates, and not the ones for the world cup. It seems clear why we are not though. To get all the templates deleted, you would have to first delete the ones of the biggest tournament, in order to use that as the standard for other lesser tournament's templates to be deleted. If the concern here was solely site creep, and if the concern here was what templates can go, then lesser tournament templates would be here in this discussion, and as others here in this discussion have noted, things like basketball templates for high school and college tournaments in USA.
There seems to be no logical argument nor reason to make a case for a high school or college tournament template being more important than one of the FIBA World Cup. The only explanation is that international basketball tournaments of national teams are being deemed to carry little to no value, while anything in US basketball (even at amateur level) is deemed as having some merit. On the other hand, no one can possibly reasonably attempt to explain why these would be deleted, but templates from FIBA Oceania, FIBA Americas, or FIBA Asia tournaments would be kept. Precisely because no one can make that argument, because it would be silly and nonsensical. Which again, turns it back to, the objective here seems to be about getting all the templates deleted, not out of concern over site creep, but out of the practical terms of how do you get templates deleted under site rules and discussions? You do it by deleting all the ones from the most important tournament first, then use that as a justification to delete everything you want after, but only ones that are cherry picked (national team tournaments), and not some much lesser stuff like McDonald's high school tournaments and such. If this is a real problem, and a real solution, and if this is all simply worry over site creep, then someone here voting for deletion should be able to outline specifically how this violates site creep, and specifically why templates from much less important tournaments are not deleted, or are not here in this discussion instead. Seems fairly simple and straight forward to me. We should have these things clearly outlined and explained when referencing site creep, rather than simply linking to the creep article, and saying it's creep, without giving any explanation as to why or how.Bluesangrel (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bluesangrel, you're starting to get into the realm of conspiracies. The reason why every single template that shows the squads of every single non-top-three team is that a) it would be a massive TFD nomination, and (more importantly) b) nominations should take place between similar templates. Nominating a Rugby World Cup team and a FIFA World Cup team in the same nomination makes no sense. Nominating multiple RWC or FWC templates, though, keeps them all contained to one related group of templates. The reasons for deletion may be the same between the two groups, but the groups themselves are different.
Metaphorically speaking, it's like me saying "all of our fruit is seven days old, so we should check if they're still ripe" and you replying that because the grapes have gone off they've all gone bad. Each type of fruit has to be checked separately. Just because you happen to like grapes the most doesn't mean that we're going to just blindly throw out all the produce to spite you. The oranges might be perfectly good, and the apples might have spoiled. We won't know until we actually decide to look. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any conspiracy. It's simply logic. It makes no sense to delete the world cup templates, but keeps others from things that are totally mealiness by comparison (Asia championship, Oceania championship, high school, etc.). I am not the only editor pointing that out here, several editors have said that. When this has been brought up, one of the responses has been, well once these get deleted, those others will most likely be brought up for deletion also. So it's actually just a basic fact of practical terms of what exactly would probably happen. Unless we want to just arbitrarily delete the world cup templates with no basis on why, as to in turn keeping other basketball tournament templates of much less merit (that does not help site creep, but actually probably makes it even a bigger problem). Which is why this should have to define clearly that it is site creep for these specific templates, and that's not really the case. It's a tournament that happens once every 4 years. Most players that play in it, only play in 1 tournament, and few ever in more than 2 tournaments.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_29&oldid=1079966055"