Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 June 18)
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18

edit

Template:100y event anniversary

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 discussion was delete all. JPG-GR (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:100y event anniversary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominating Template:100y org anniversary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and Template:100y book anniversary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) for the same reason. Reywas92Talk 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Excessive templating that is not any sort of warning and should be mentioned in the article, not in a bright, blaring template at the top of the page. Reywas92Talk 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created by myself in order for the articles which describe i.e. notable historical, social, cultural, sports events to reflect the celebration that usually occurs "in real life" with real people that gather to celebrate the Centennary Anniversary of a specific event (same with books and organizations/institutions), on which Wikipedia currently has an article: eg. Indianapolis Motor Speedway.
It seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia's articles should also emphasize, in these situations, the current status of the "event"; otherwise, those articles are just dead words on a past thing that almost no one cares to read or know about anymore, failing to inform the reader that actually there is people that even after 100 years still gather together to recall that same event (i.e. in those ones that are not recurring events; in fact, the same happens when organizations celebrate their Centennary anniversay or with publishing houses that launch editions to celebrate the 100 years of publication of a specfic book or set of books).
The Template is made in order that it generates each year a category list of those important events 100 years old marked with the template (the link accessible through the template); please see also Template:100y_event_anniversary/doc. Best regards. --VanHelm (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell the reader that it's 100 years old in the article, not in a huge banner at the top of the page. How the heck are these dead words? Reywas92Talk 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Well, it is not the same thing; this way, through this template, we can highlight every year a set of different articles to catch the attention of the readers with the valid reason that those same articles, although not being current event-news, are good reads as their content relate to events whose Centenary is being celebrated by people in different locations of the world: still are up-to-date events.
Those articles change from being merely pieces of data/information about a past event (the "dead words" that I had mentioned) to became subjects of interest to the majority of readers which would have no interest in them, unless they lived in the town or country where the event happened: I believe this to be specially true with articles about notable events that occurred different counties.
I see it like a policy, enforcing this type of template Wikipedia could have a stronger pedagogic function of getting people-readers from a variety of different locations (like myself, not all readers are citizens of English native speaking countries whose history/social-cultural environment is closer to each other) to become aware/acquainted with notable events that marked, and still mark, different societes in different locations through the recent history (100 years period: centenary). Thanks for the attention. --VanHelm (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how's it work; should it be added to every one of thousands of articles January 1 and removed December 31, and then the next set? What's next, templates for 50 years, 150 years, 200 years, 500 years? Sure, an anniversary may be somewhat interesting, but this template is not the way to do it. If people cared about finding everything 100 years old, then they should go to Category:1909 books, Category:1909 establishments, or just Category:1909. Reywas92Talk 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already expressed my perspective and I surely understand and respect your viewpoint, dear Reywas92. If the majority of editors agrees with the deletion you have proposed I'll be fine and also I'll try to learn something from this situation. Cheers. ;) --VanHelm (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the constructive words toward me that you have used to express your vote. --VanHelm (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was trying to figure out what is meant with 'gimmickry' [1]: hopefully 1a and 2b are excluded lol. Anyway, no reply required: it was merely a curiosity of mine and not a relevant issue in any way. --VanHelm (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am actually intrigued by the idea behind these templates, but I think it should be pursued through portals (such as the "Selected anniversaries" sections of various portals or Portal:Current events itself) rather than in the mainspace. However, I strongly disagree with the notion that articles about historical topics consist of "dead words on a past thing that almost no one cares to read or know about". The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give a comprehensive overview of its topic; anyone who does not care about that and is interested only in the current status of an organization or event would be better served by visiting that organization's or event's website rather than an encyclopedia. Ultimately, the arbitrary 100y mark of a publication or organization is not by itself an event of encyclopedic relevance unless something happens at the 100y mark that is documented in reliable sources; if that is the case, the information should simply be added to the article's text. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, along with Category:Current centenary anniversaries and its subcategories. No need to emphasise this. --GW… 12:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: These templates violate several policies and guidelines. They add information to articles without reliable sources, in violation of WP:V and WP:RS; they give an incredibly prominent position to something that is terribly minor, in violation of WP:UNDUE and thus WP:NPOV; they are entirely based on original research, violating WP:NOR; and they are not an appropriate use of a template per WP:TMP (they are content masquerading as templates, and are being used where categories are probably more appropriate. Essentially, they violate most of the fundamental content-related policies on Wikipedia, and use templates in a manner that was neither intended for the namespace or desired. --William Ager (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can tell WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR do NOT apply to the issue of those templates since they rely on details already provided in the articles (pls. see publication date if books: eg. The Road to Oz with Template:100y book anniversary; foundation date if organizations/institutions: eg. Institute of Cancer Research with Template:100y org anniversary) and in NO sense do these templates modify the data of those same articles: So, pls. do not utter a list of Wikipedia's policies without previous proper consideration. I have to concede though that these templates may go beyond the current use of WP:TMP and they do confer more weigth to one of the aspect of the article (the initial calendar date, in order to emphasise the centenary existence of the book, event or org.) and in this sense it may be interpreted as WP:UNDUE; but I won't argue with that since I have already attempted to justify these templates usage in my previous above comments to editor Reywas92. Cheers. --VanHelm (talk) 09:42, 24 June 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.

Template:Wisa and Template:Wisc

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 discussion was delete both. JPG-GR (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wisa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wisc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in a defunct categorization system. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:17, 18 June 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.


{{Stub/doc}}

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Keep. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:TFD, where discussion was reopened for some reason, despite the initial discussion taking place here at SFD.

This is more a procedural thing that anything else. A /doc file has been created for {{stub}} - similar files have been deleted from the template in the past, so this is the re-creation of a deleted page. It is worth debating whether such a file is useful or not.

Reasons in favour of having such a file
  • It allows any editor to add an interwiki link, rather than having to request it at Template talk:Stub
  • All other templates have /doc files (not strictly true, but the vast majority do)
Reasons against having such a file
  • WP:STUB serves as a de facto /doc file and is already linked from the template
  • Since all stub templates operate in identical ways, the same doc file would theoretically need to be linked to some 3000+ templates
  • If it's not linked to all these templates, we may see a proliferation of stub /doc files which suggest different usage for each template (which would render stubbing largely unworkable)

Personally, I'm against having such a /doc file - the second and third points listed against having them outweigh the benefits of the points in favour of them, so would prefer to see this deleted. This is especially the case since - given that {{stub}} is removed ASAP from articles and replaced, there's really no need for the base template to still be protected (if protection were removed, anyone could add interwikis). If others see things otherwise, this would be a good opportunity to state their opinions. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    1. Firstly this is not a stub, it's a template, so it should probably be listed at WP:TfD. I'll see if I can maybe transclude it at both.   Done
    2. All templates should contain instructions (or at least a link to instructions) on how to use them. Yes, "stub" does link to WP:STUB, but I don't think it is intuitive that you would click that to get information about how to use the template. You are more likely to think that it would tell you what a stub is. And typically a lot of these stubs link to Wikipedia:Perfect stub which directs to an anchor lower down in WP:Stub. It would make more sense to have a sentence like "For full details on how to use this, please see Wikipedia:Stub."
    3. I take the point that there does not need to be a separate documentation for each stub template. That would be overkill and may well cause confusion.
    4. The first advantage is the biggest for me. It is a complete waste of an administrator's time to attend to these trivial requests to add interwiki links, when there is a perfectly good method available which avoids it.
    5. To possibly solve the above two points, I have started work on Template:Stub documentation, which uses a centralised documentation for all stub templates as well as allowing interwiki links in a subpage. Any comments would be welcome. Obviously it is not finished yet. I've tried it out on a few templates where I came across interwiki requests and the method seems to work well. See {{Islam-stub}} as an example.
    So in summary, I'm saying that we can make some improvements here. I'm willing to help, and if you'd like to discuss it with me instead of bringing the page straight to XfD, then I think we can make some headway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  1. all templates relevant to stub types are discussed here (/doc templates have been deleted here in the past), so this is the appropriate forum.
  2. You may be right about what would be the best wording, and I'd support such a change - however, that wording would preclude the need for a /doc file, so it's not entirely relevant to whether this should stay or go.
  3. (no response required)
  4. Unprotecting the template would have the same effect, which I suggested above. In any case, since WP:WSS contains several admins, all of whom regularly patrol {{stub}} (mysefl included), it's not an enormous hassle.
  5. I feel that Template:Stub documentation is likely to end up simply as a fork of WP:STUB - it'll certainly take effort to ensure that the two documents don't contradict each other. As such, I think it would end up being far more work than simply rewording the standard stub message.
I agree that some improvements could be made - and also note that I brought this straight to SfD as a procedural matter primarily (as I made clear to you on your talk page) - this has been deleted before, and as such should either be speedily deleted or brought here. I figured this was the lesser of two evils, and also would likely cause a more general discussion than just comments between us on your talk page. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problems have started already, BTW, I've had to nominate two /doc files today. I hope you are willing to help, because there's a can of worms been opened here... Grutness...wha? 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "can of worms". I really think your fears are groundless. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation. Compare the Good article process which uses Template:GA nominee or the AfC project which uses Template:AFC submission. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why. I did accept that it would be unnecessary for each stub template to have separate documentation; that's why I suggested using something like the {{stub doc}} template which centralises the documentation, but still allows interwikis to be placed in a subpage. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. If you notice from the previous version of Template:PRChina-stub, the /doc page contains only interwiki links and the edit link said "edit interwikis", so it in no way encourages people to add a separate documentation page as you fear. (I only used the name "doc" for consistency.) Please try to be more open to changes which can improve the process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no can of worms, how do you explain that in the six months prior to creating {{stub/doc}}, no new /doc files were made for stub templates, yet two quite a number have in the first three days since (did you make them all? I know you made some, but what about Florida-Hospital-stub/doc? Gospel-music-stub/doc? Given that there are over 3000 stub templated, stub/doc sets a precedent which is already showing unwelcome fruit. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation Show me one other wikiproject which uses over 3000 templates all of which are supposed to be used in an identical way. If you can, which I sincerely doubt, I will guarantee that it will not use/doc files but will use some more workable alternative - as is done with stub templates. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. I have provided evidence that it is already causing disruption, and plenty of good reasons why having it may cause far more disruption, and I have also already pointed out that this is why it is not done. I have further pointed out that /doc files have been discussed for stub templates in the past and rejected. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why - only because it's been suggested in the past (usually after someone has created a bunch of /doc files), and has always been rejected, along with causing a lot of work which WP:WSS had to mop up when its members could have been busy doing more productive work. This has been pointed out to you, but for some reason, you seem reluctant to believe it. As such, I wonder why you have a bee in your bonnet about these templates.
The same purpose as a /doc file is already well served by WP:STUB. As such, no /doc file is necessary. I also pointed out that, since {{stub doc}} would have identical information to part of that which is already at WP:STUB, where it needs to be retained, it would simply become a fork of that document. It would require extra work from all involved to make sure that the documents do not come to contradict each other; every time one was edited, the other would need to also be edited to make sure it still matched. This would be an untenable situation. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. Any that you do will be nominated for deletion here, so please do not do so. I've already explained that it is a simple task to ask one of the admins involved in the stub-sorting project to do that task - indeed, we do it regularly and it takes virtually no time to do so. As to you putting a note on a /doc page saying that only interwiki links are to be put there, do you really think that anyone seeing a /doc file for one stub template is going to open it up in an edit window to check exactly why it had been made before makign their owwn one for a different stub template? If so, how do you explain the number of new stub /doc files which have more than that itn them, the Florida-Hospital one, for instance, which was made only a day or so after {{stub}} got a /doc file, and which contains far more than just interwiki links?
I'd ask you to please be more open to the fact that stub sorters on en:Wiki in general know a lot more about the way stub templates work and the problems involved in creating /doc files for them than you do, simply because they have faced this situation in the past. You may do stub sorting on the Romanian Wikipedia, but the problems here are far more acute than there due to the considerably larger number of articles and stubs - there are nearly three times as many geo-stubs alone here than the entire number of articles on the Romanian Wikipedia, for example, and there are nearly 100 times as many editors on en:Wiki than on Ro:Wiki. If the search function is anything to go by, ro:Wiki has only 8% of the number of stub templates that en:Wiki does. So while /doc files might work there, they face more severe problems here. We do the best we can and quickly discover when other alternative methods of doing things work or cause problems. the methods you seem so keen on have been assessed in the past and have always caused problems and been quickly rejected. Please don't assume that a problem isn't going to occur when (a) a similar problem happened last time several stub/doc files were made and (b) there's already a growing amount of evidence that the same thing is happening again. It hasn't improved things before - and indeed has always created far more work for WP:WSS; it will do exactly the same this rtime, so again I say that this - and {{stub doc}} - should most definitely be deleted, and the sooner the better. Grutness...wha? 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- every template deserves a good /doc, especially for protected templates. There's a simple link to the WP:STUB guideline for more complete documentation. But delete the similar {{stub doc}} redirect, and its {{stub documentation}} target. They serve no useful purpose.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness; I disagree with the idea that every template "deserves" a good /doc (to me it seems like instruction creep), and that simple link to WP:STUB should be sufficient. Pegship (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems perfectly reasonable that the template has a documentation sub-page. Thinking it was missing, I once almost tried to create one myself. It really would have saved me time if it had been there. -- User:Docu
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it could even redirect to WP:STUB if you wanted, but all templates should have documentation, if it exists on a subpage, that's fine with me. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the veery great size & complexity of WP:STUB, a brief statement is necessary here. DGG (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. I think that this /doc page is a solution in search of a problem. The documentation page (WP:STUB) is linked from every stub template and, since all stub templates are used in the same manner, I see no need for separate /doc pages that state virtually the same thing for each stub template. Of course, this is the best-case scenario; a worse-case scenario would be that separate /doc pages contain inconsistent instructions and, ultimately, undermine stub sorting efforts. Avoid "fixing" what isn't broken. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:STUB is anything but to-the-point, a brief statement explaining what the template does is a mercy. Flowerparty☀ 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. /doc templates are useful for protected templates; the simple statement can also be useful to newcomers. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the discussion above makes it clear that protection isn't really needed any more for this template, and that unprotection would remove most of the need for a /doc file (and the reason it was first created). It was back in the days before so many stubs were sorted into subtypes, but this template is now normally used on fewer than 50 stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn this question around. Is there any one thing that this /doc file does that couldn't be done by the simple unprotection of the template? I can't think of any, and if the answer is "no", then that would be a far better option and would reduce the risk of more stub /doc files being made. There's no need to protect {[tl|stub}} any more - it was only protected in the days when it was used on thousands of articles - on average these days it's on below 50. Delete the /doc file and unprotect the stub template. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This particular template probably could be unprotected as it generally has few transclusions. However
  1. There are other stub templates which probably cannot be unprotected, and so this doesn't solve the issue of enabling non-admins adding interwikis for those templates.
  2. Several editors have indicated in this discussion that some brief documentation would be very useful on this template.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 17 August 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 template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Major League Baseball positional 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 discussion was delete all. JPG-GR (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day Right Fielders navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chicago White Sox Opening Day designated hitter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting shortstops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Detroit Tigers second basemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Seattle Mariners second basemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Seattle Mariners shortstops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tampa Bay Rays center fielders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Toronto Blue Jays catchers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Toronto Blue Jays center fielders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Toronto Blue Jays shortstops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Toronto Blue Jays third basemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees catchers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees center fielders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees closers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees designated hitters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees first basemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees left fielders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees right fielders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees second basemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees shortstops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees third basemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as there is no real significance to any of these. Naturally, Category:Major League Baseball position by team navbox templates would become unnecessary if these templates are deleted. Suggest deletion of Category:New York Yankees roster templates, which would only contain two templates if these are deleted, and both are ably covered by other categories. In contrast to the listed templates, there is significance to the loosely-related opening day starting pitchers, so that should stay. But there are probably too many of these types of templates anyway. I found these while reading David Eckstein a moment ago - his article contains seven templates like this at the bottom. Two are for World Series rosters - fine. One is for his current team - obviously fine. Three are for postseason awards - one seems a little questionable in significance, but generally speaking, fine. We've got to draw the line somewhere, and there's really no significance to Eckstein having been the Blue Jays' starting shortstop for half a season like there is to him playing for two World Series winning teams. Nosleep break my slumber 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion kind of half-heartedly took place a year ago, with the result being nom withdrawn, after very little input. Nosleep break my slumber 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - Overtemplatization. If these are kept, we will doubtless see them created for all MLB teams (and other sports as well), meaning that everyone with a reasonably long career will have half a dozen of them. If the information is deemed worthy in its own right, I think these would be much better as lists. -Dewelar (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the above. We've had this discussion at WT:MLB as well, and I think these would be better off as categories or lists, the former preferred by this user. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Detroit navboxes I have no opinion on the other navboxes, but I believe that the Tigers have a tradition of 2B/SS teammates and that is why the navboxes were created in the first place. Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker hold the AL record for most games played at their respective positions and the fairly-long tenures of the other players at the positions. I agree that there should not be navboxes for every team and every position (D-backs right fielders for example), but these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Also reviewing the reason for deletion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), it doesn't appear any of these navigation boxes fall into the category. And, for clarity, the original TFD was not withdrawn, it was closed as "keep". — X96lee15 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Overtemplatization per Dewelar. Garion96 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There is simply no reason for these boxes. Some teams have several starters at a position during a season.. this would really lead to tons of these navboxes on multiple pages.. Also, I see no special significant to the Detroit boxes.. just cause Trammell and Whitaker played together for a long time doesn't make the other guys who played those positions equally important.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overtemplatization. Reywas92Talk 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I'll add to the overtemplatization chorus. I like these as a list rather than cats, but more importantly, they shouldn't be navboxes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NYY navboxes, delete some others Because of tradition, I can back keeping the Detroit SS/2B as well. Yankees SP, CP, C, 1B, CF and RF are especially impressive [2] [3] [4]. I agree with X96lee15 that these should be examined on a case by case basis. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Leave them They are convienient and they help young people like me learn about the MLB positions. I agree with the person above me about the NYY navboxes because of the impresive positions, but just leave them. If you don't like them, don't click them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.43.161 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Dewelar. Setting a standard like this could lead to Template:Chicago Bears left offensive tackle, it's way too specific and impossible to upkeep. Also there's a lack of criteria for being included. blackngold29 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let the NFL people do what they want, what the Baseball group does has nothing to do with them. And criteria seems pretty self-evident. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evident criteria? Playing one game in left field for the Yankees is hardly notable enough for inclusion in an infobox. That list would include 56 people—that is if it were limited to opening day starters only. It would be hundreds, possibly even thousands, of players for some teams. And I participate in editing football articles as well, so my opinion seems valid there too. blackngold29 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment and suggestion: I created the NYY templates after seeing Toronto and Tampa templates already existed. On further consideration, I should have created list pages first, and then created the templates. As Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates states, categories, lists and navigation templates are not redundant, and are meant to complement each other. If something is appropriate for a list, it is appropriate to have a template for ease of navigation. We can see this in practice with the Opening Day Starting pitcher list pages and templates. Therefore, I propose that we decide which of these lists belong in their own list pages, and agree that those should retain a template. Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, their value as lists would be to provide detail about the history of a position and thus give the user context regarding why the given position is notable. Leaving them as templates removes that value. The list just as a list of names is not notable. -Dewelar (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly agree that a list with no context is useless, and I can see now how these templates don't make a case for the history and tradition I'm thinking of, like some of the sources I added in my earlier comment, and others out there. But saying I make lists with the context of the aura (ie., talking about the transfer from DiMaggio to Mantle in center, from Berra to Howard at catcher, the unceremonious dumping of Lyle for Gossage), wouldn't templates for navigational purposes be appropriate? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, once the list exists, a navbox for it could potentially be appropriate. It would, of course, depend on the quality of the list. -Dewelar (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, thank you. As I said, I think there's a case to make NYY pages for CP, C, 1B, CF and RF, although maybe not all of them. If I do, I will try to recreate the appropriate template, and I will refer to this discussion if anyone complains that I'm recreating deleted material. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It still would be overtemplatization. A link to the list on the article would be much better, because otherwise you still end up with one player having dozens of nav boxes. Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • In that case how would you justify keeping the opening day starter templates? Noone seems to be opposed to those. If these are limited to only special circumstances that are properly defined, these will be sparse. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, I would love to see those go too, as I don't see how they are much different from the positional templates, but I don't know other's opionions on those (and while we're at it, might as well include those "inagural season" navboxes created for the Marlins, Rockies, DBacks and Rays... I really don't see the purpose or notability of those either). Regardless, I wouldn't use one extraneous statement by Dewelar above as a complete justification for re-creating a deleted navbox (assuming they are deleted). I, for one, think that a list is sufficent, and a navbox for this information is unnecessary, no matter how spectacular the list becomes. Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Two points here. First, a team's Opening Day starting pitcher does often have a significance, in that it is often used to honor/reward the pitcher chosen. Pitching, and more specifically starting pitching, is different than any other position in that typically a team has multiple players filling that role, and choosing from among them someone to be the Opening Day starter is significant, if not necessarily notable (i.e., the pitcher in question may just be the best of a bad lot). I would not be saddened to see the template go, but it does have the best case for being kept, IMO.
As for my "extraneous statement"...it was meant more in the sense that, should such a list be created, this issue could, at that time, be re-examined. Any inference beyond that would be reading too much into it. -Dewelar (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate and copy the content of each template to the talk pages of the team articles and invite editors to add it to the team articles as they see fit. Be sure to do the usual de-categorizing when moving to the talk pages if necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not believe a given position for a given team can be treated as historically notable by default for all players filling that position; players must individually earn their own notability. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I've never been a fan of these.--Yankees10 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per everyone. Unnecessary. Flowerparty☀ 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Leave them I don't understand why anything that makes browsing this site easier has to be deleted. It seems like everything that might make the site fun or convinient must be done away with. It's getting very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.227.51 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I fail to see an issue with templatizing baseball players by their notable, definitive positions. The templates aren't nearly as long as some might think, so that helps settle some of the indiscriminate worries. It could hold some interest (not that it matters to some) to see what players held what position historically (e.g. in comparison to a current player) or presently (in comparison to an historical player). Of course, there are ways to better handle these (not necessarily including one or two-game showings, which thankfully they don't), which should be discussed at the Baseball WikiProject and not on TfD.--Tim Thomason 03:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overtemplatization Adam Penale (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Honestly, I feel that these templates shouldn't be lumped into one TFD. Some of them can be argued for, but others clearly need to be tossed. I think it would be preferable to close this as 'no consensus' and then we can debate them on TFD's individually, or grouped by team. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we should either keep all of them or none... Why are the Yankees second basemen more notable than the Rays? That's a matter of personal preference... Spanneraol (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Spanneraol that not treating these navboxes equally injects way too much subjectivity into this (and in the end the debate would digress into rooting interests). The issue has nothing to do with the teams involved, but whether the positional navboxes as a whole should exist. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree with the reasoning that a position that has existed for 109 years is equal to one that has existed for 11, without getting into the names. But if a discussion finds that there is some merit to a position, then it could at least be converted into a list page like the opening day starter pages, in which case it might keep a template. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, with no exceptions for any particular team. Yes, it is notable that this-or-that second baseman played with such-and-such shortstop, but that can be covered in each team's article and/or the articles for the players in question. These templates just add to the navbox clutter on our baseball articles, without serving a useful navigation function. szyslak (t) 08:36, 1 July 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.

Template:ISOtranslit

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 discussion was redirect'. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's already deprecated and all its transclutions have been replaced with {{transl}}. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

itis true that ISOtranslit has been superseded by translit, but I do not think it should be deleted, for reasons of the preservation of editing history. It could just become a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 18 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_18&oldid=1138693648"