Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< June 18	June 20 >

1 June 19

[edit] June 19

[edit] Template:MLB HoF

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this has been brought up twice before, but the reasons why it was kept simply don't make sense. Chief among them was that it was a quick way to be able to tell if a player was in the Hall of Fame or not. Fair enough, but that only works if there's any consistency to where the template is kept, and there's not. Instead, it's scattered in different places in each article with no consistency. How does that let anyone quickly find anything?

So essentially, we're left with a template that looks decidedly ugly (with a picture of a nondescript building to represent the Hall) and is out of place in many of the articles that it's used in. Why, exactly?

I'm not trying to say for a second that being in the Hall is not important to be singled out and have attention drawn to it. However, this is not the way to do it. All of these players can be categorized by their Hall of Fame status, and to draw extra attention, a cue can be taken from {{College coach infobox}}. There, a coach in a respective HoF has a bright bar with the year they were inducted. Adding that would allow for a consistent way to indicate a player's HoF status, and will provide even more information by also giving the year of induction. — fuzzy510 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Several keep votes on the previous TFD (which I vaguely recall following) seem to indicate that being in the hall of fame is a good thing, or that we should somehow draw attention to people who have made it into there. This argument does not take into account NPOV, a core policy. It does not seem appropriate to distract from content to make a special statement. Perhaps a navigational template (please see WP:NAV) containing the names of all those in the Baseball Hall of Fame would be far more useful to the reader than this mere notification? Gracenotes^T § 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. By this logic we would never be able to identify anyone who received any honor ever. We would not be able to designate Oscar winners, or Nobel Prize winners, or anything. Membership in the Hall of Fame is not a POV issue. It is a matter of fact. Vidor 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete hideous template; this information is best presented in a good infobox. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's like a userbox for articles. Redundant to, say, properly including the information in the article. --Haemo 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep, It quickly identifies a persons election to the HOF. Stats alone, even great stats don't tell the whole picture. Pete Rose has great stats, but because of other reasons he is not in the HOF. These days it remains to be seen how modern players will be treated because of the steroid controversy. The template quickly shows a distinction and that certain people are in the hall. It appears in different places on the pages primarily because of logistics. I think it should be kept. Modernist 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- You may wish to see my vote above. Breaking out of text to point out some people, but not others, does not seem that neutral. Gracenotes^T § 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Gracenotes - Your input and your idea makes good points, but the nature of the HOF to begin with is contrary to the concept of neutral, it is a hierarchy of better and best. I like the idea of a simple tag indicating a players selection to the hall, as simple and neutral - as possible. Modernist 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Pointing out that someone is in the Hall, by whatever means, does not violate "neutrality" rules. The problem with the original logo was one of fair-use, not of neutrality. So it went from the HoF logo, to a photo of the exterior, to a photo of the interior, thus resulting in this vote-taking process which probably wouldn't be occurring if the original logo were still there. Baseball Bugs 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Information such as this should not be provided in this way. It is even easier to find if a person is elected to the HoF if it is consistently located at the bottom of an infobox (as demonstrated above), where additional information can also be provided. matt br 16:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Replace. (After further considering the opinions of others, I've changed my vote from "Keep"). Whether or not a person is in the Baseball Hall of Fame is an essential part of any encyclopedic reference, if it is to be considered complete. This template serves that function, without requiring the reader to scroll through the entire article should he not wish to do so. I agree with Myke Cuthbert that a standardized HoF mention in the Infobox itself (with a suitable icon) would indeed be preferable. JGHowes ^talk - 19:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I have never been fond of this template. I prefer the HoF mention in the player's infobox. I believe that would make things easier. The current template is too small, and it sometimes obstructs the natural flow of the text in an article. A customized HoF infobox (I believe one used to exist) would be more suitable, since it would not affect readability or effect the article's layout in any way. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I didn't want to be the one to nominate it yet again, but I do believe it should disappear. Haemo's point about it being essentially a userbox is a good one. The infobox for baseball players could easily be expanded to include hall of fame election year, how elected, and percentage of vote (if applicable), all useful information which this template doesn't add. As it is, the template clutters the page, floating around other little boxes. The image does not immediately convey "Baseball Hall of Fame" to me--I had to read the caption and expand the image to understand what was trying to be conveyed (It could be any fancy marble room). I am not against emphasizing a player's entry into the HoF: Just about every HoF baseball player will have this significant achievement mentioned in the first or second sentence of his article. We can even make the infobox mention of the HoF election suitably regal--even with an image of the player's own monument in the hall if we have a photo of it. But this box is the wrong way to acknowledge this remarkable achievement. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I concur that HOFers should be easily identified, but this template doesn't work for me. It seems to me that either highlighting their HOF status in the infobox or creating a special infobox for people in the HOF is the way to go. --Sanfranman59 01:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per most everything above. //Tecmobowl 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. A prominent mention in the infobox would be sufficient for me; however, we need to take into account the fact that not all Baseball Hall of Famers were baseball players or in the Hall for their on-field careers. Also, Soxrock has already started removing this template from articles, even though this deletion discussion has not yet come to a consensus. I see value in leaving the template (or code to the deleted template) on the pages in order to better mark which articles need their infobox marked. Jpers36 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The above user makes a valid point. Consider, for example, Happy Chandler, who is probably at least as notable for having twice been Governor of Kentucky as for having been Baseball Commissioner for six years. The infobox presently on his page is {{Infobox Governor}}, as it should be, but there is no way to note his Hall of Fame status quickly using this infobox. That said, this template is decidedly not aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps, as suggested above, a template listing all Hall of Famers, to be placed at the bottom of article pages, might be more appropriate. It could be collapsible and sectioned into players, managers, umpires, executives and pioneers, etc. Acdixon 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: Happy Chandler was instrumental in moving integration along in baseball. Landis was against integration. Although Landis was necessary to the stability of baseball in the 1920s, his death in 1944 was a good thing, as it helped remove an impediment to integration. Baseball Bugs 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: If the Hall of Fame election is important enough to have a prominent box on the page, then it's important enough to add to the lede (as I went ahead and did for Happy Chandler); if it's not important enough to be mentioned in the article summary at the top then why should it have a large box on the page? The problems with using one infobox vs. another for people involved in multiple fields are some of the reasons why some people (myself included) would rather lose biographical infoboxes altogether. See, for instance, an older version of the Paderewski article for which the new infobox {{Template:Composer&Pianist&Prime_Minister_of_Poland}} was sarcastically proposed. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It's hardly "hideous". But it may not be necessary. Note the simple and elegant way that the NFL Hall of Fame members are highlighted in the player template: George Halas, for example. Baseball Bugs 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- So, how would you propose adding an MLB Hall of Fame highlight to Happy Chandler's infobox? That is my concern. Jpers36 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Comment:The box is ugly Wahkeenah, but, I think that there should be a small box beneath the main template on the people's pages. Look at Joe DiMaggio, for example. His clearly shows all necessary information and is at least aesthetically better looking than the box up for deletion. Soxrock 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Beauty is a matter of opinion. I think Rosie O'Donnell is a lot more attractive than Paris Hilton is, for example. In fact, the Hall of Fame template is a lot more attractive than Paris Hilton is. Be that as it may, the box for DiMaggio looks promising as a starting point, but it needs more work, e.g. to avoid having the "Edit" tag show up inside its boundaries as I saw just now. The previous Hall of Fame template had a picture of the exterior of the Baseball Hall of Fame, which is recognizable to many fans. Before that, there was the Hall of Fame logo, which makes more sense, but the wiki-nannies quashed it due to alleged "fair use" issues, despite the lack of any demonstrable harm to the Hall of Fame itself. Other than the illustration, the primary complaint here seems to be consistency of use. That's not a problem with the template, but with the individual articles. Baseball Bugs 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Of course Wikipedia should not intend to harm the Hall of Fame, but neither should it intend to support it. This is just my view on the issue. Gracenotes^T § 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Fair-use arguments have to do with harming the entity from which the illustration came, not with neutrality. There is no neutrality issue here. Citing that someone is in whatever Hall of Fame is factual and verifiable. It's also useful to the reader, who might want to know who the elite players are considered to be (by the BBWAA, not by Wikipedia), and a little template like this simply speeds recognition of that fact. You don't want the public thinking that Casey Wise is regarded as having the same stature in baseball as Babe Ruth. Baseball Bugs 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      - I beg to differ; that is not what fair-use arguments have to do with. They have to do with the fact that it is stated in Wikipedia's goals to create a free-content encyclopedia, to be a freely redistributable wealth of human knowledge, not just be an encyclopedia. If that image is spreading to 100's of mirrors on over 300 pages, this is needlessly spreading non-free content.
      - You're right; pointing out that someone is in the Hall of Fame is factual and neutral. But we are giving the Hall of Fame, a privately owned enterprise, undue weight by using a mass-transcluded template to do so. The spirit of WP:UNDUE applies (if not the wording itself): it appears that are giving undue weight to the fact that someone is in the HOF, as opposed to another organization that some person might view as even more prestigious. If this were a navigational template, I would by no means be opposed to keeping it, since that would at least have some utility. But this template's existence has no apparent utility besides pointing out one fact. Gracenotes^T § 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've made a navigational template listing all people in the baseball hall of fame, using a script. It is located at User:Gracenotes/Sandbox. Is this a good idea in principle? The template is obviously too large, however, so maybe we could split it up into multiple templates by date of admission into the Hall of Fame (e.g., 1925-1950, 1951-1975, 1976-2000, 2001-). Gracenotes^T § 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, let me add the disclaimer that baseball knowledge isn't my strong suit. That said, I like User:Gracenotes' template. I think the size issue could be addressed by splitting it into sections by the type of admission (players, managers, umpires, executives and pioneers, etc. as mentioned above) with each section being "show/hide"-able. Alternatively, each admission type could have its own template. Just some suggestions. Acdixon 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- per the other delete votes. I dont like this template at all. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 19:56, 21 June 2007 UTC)
Keep. The template serves a useful function—it provides a quick visual identification of players who are in the Hall of Fame, which is an important honor in baseball. This nomination doesn't meet any of the criteria given at the top of WP:TfD for deletion of a template. (The comment by Gracenotes about NPOV isn't applicable—the Hall of Fame is verifiable information, and all the template does is indicate the factual information that the person has been selected to the Hall; nothing about it pushes a point of view.) Most of the objections that have been raised are things that can be fixed. fuzzy510 doesn't like that it appears in different places in different articles; that's an issue that can be resolved by working with the Wikiproject to standardize placement. Several editors don't like the picture. Personally, I have no problem with the picture, but if you don't like it, you're welcome to find a better image to use. Several people have suggested presenting the same information in an infobox, but as has been pointed out, standard infoboxes don't exist for many players/coaches/managers in the Hall of Fame. In particular, the Hall of Fame articles I most often edit are for Negro league baseball players, who aren't covered by the major league baseball infobox, so most of them don't have infoboxes. I'm not keen on the idea of replacing it with a navigational template; the purpose of the template is to identify the person as a member of the Hall of Fame, and I doubt that many readers intend to navigate between articles about members. (If they want to, it's easily accomplished by clicking on the existing link in the template, which takes them to the Hall of Fame article from which they can link to lists of members.) Finally, I'll emphasize that this is the template's third nomination for deletion and that both of the previous nominations ended with a consensus to keep the template. I don't see new arguments for deletion being advanced, and I hope that the closing administrator will review and take into account the comments made in the last two nominations. To me, the practice repeatedly running an item through the nomination for deletion process until the proponents of deletion finally gets the consensus to tip toward deletion is problematic. There really ought to be more willingness to abide by consensus, even if you disagree with it. BRMo 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The biggest change from the previous two TfDs is the template itself, which used to have the Baseball HoF logo which, if nothing else, quickly marked the players as being in the Hall of Fame. As Baseball Bugs points out, people removed this logo because we only have a letter saying it's fine to use it in Wikipedia, and not a release under GFDL or whatnot which is the new requirement (which is driving me crazy in other forums!). Normally I believe in keeping the XfD consensus for at least a year, but since the template is radically different, I think another round is fair. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. Checking the template's history, the Baseball HoF logo was removed on February 14, 2006, and immediately thereafter the first TfD nomination was put forward. Thus, the previous TfDs that decided to keep the template were reviewing the version without the official HoF logo. There have since been a couple of changes in the picture used (see the template's talk page and history). But I'd hate to see a useful template deleted because of disagreements about aesthetics—it would be better for the interested editors to look at some alternative images and try to work out an agreement. BRMo 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt I had forgotten about was having a picture of Christy Mathewson as the illustration. They might have been onto something. Maybe a picture of a Hall of Fame plague would work. Baseball Bugs 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of what I said was correct, some incorrect, and some sloppy: The First TfD took place right after the image was removed--six of the seven Keeps were in favor of bringing the old image back, so they clearly had knowledge of the just removed version. From May 26 until the Second TfD the HoF logo was not used, but during the TfD (July 7-July 14 (last opinion added)) the image changed several times, and was the HoF image for 3 of the 7 days of the TfD. Note for instance this quote from the last TfD:

Hmm, when I commented it was the logo. I have to agree that if the logo is indeed not fair use for such a template, it should probably be deleted. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of the Keep votes in the past were qualified contingent on getting a more attractive picture. It's been nearly a year, and no one has found one. It must not be so easy. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the Hall of Fame building was OK, but someone didn't like it. The current picture is of the interior, and while it's OK as a photo, it's too small to convey the message, which may be what the problem with the building photo was too. It's not just that it needs to look attractive, it needs to be recognizable in postage-stamp size. Maybe somebody could take a picture of a baseball and paint a laurel wreath onto it. Baseball Bugs 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The attractiveness or lack therof of the photo used in the template is not a valid reason for deletion. The fact that the template is not applied in a uniform manner can be dealt with by BRMo's suggestion . -- No Guru 03:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We already have a way of determining who's in the Baseball Hall of Fame: Category:Baseball Hall of Fame. If we want a visual identification of Hall of Fame status, there are much better ways, as discussed above. This template is little more than decoration, and not an attractive "decoration" at that. szyslak 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It used to be an attractive decoration, until the wiki-nannies decided we couldn't use the Hall of Fame logo anymore. And it had nothing to do with POV concerns, it had strictly to do with "fair use" paranoia. Baseball Bugs 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Attractiveness is not as important as compliance with the Fair Use Doctrine. The removal of fair-use images from templates has solid grounding in U.S. copyright laws. I don't like copyright paranoia, either, but the Fair Use Doctrine is clear on the relevant points. szyslak 07:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's useful and serves a purpose. Surely there are better things for people to do than kill this template. Oh, and as for this--Several keep votes on the previous TFD (which I vaguely recall following) seem to indicate that being in the hall of fame is a good thing--it's the HALL OF FAME. It is, by definition, a Good Thing. Yikes. Vidor 06:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Imho, It's not Wikipedia's job to say whether something is a good thing or not. That would be a bit biased; obviously, not everyone likes the Hall of Fame. We can say that a fair amount of people say that being in the Hall of Fame is a good thing, but an article should be used for that, not a template. Gracenotes^T § 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Listen to me. Reflecting that someone is in the Hall of Fame is not a point of view. It's a statement of fact. Vidor 17:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The template should stay and be neutral per common sense Modernist 15:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  - There is no violation of neutral-point-of-view by indicating someone is in the Hall of Fame, by whatever means. The decision to put someone in the Hall was not made by wikipedians. And it provides a quick visual to the casual reader who might want to know what's "notable" about a given ballplayer. Baseball Bugs 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment I'm not entirely convinced that the template can both "stay" and "be neutral". I should comment that there is nothing wrong with the template per se, only in how it is used. Gracenotes^T § 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Listen to me again, please. Talk of "neutrality" is not appropriate here. The membership of an individual in the Hall of Fame is not a point of view. It is a fact. The template is not a point of view. It conveys factual information. Vidor 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      - You've hit upon the real issue. The problem is not the template, it's the question of where to put it in an article. And that brings us to the real problem, which is the lack of uniformity of the articles for ballplayers. That's what should be under discussion, not debate over this template. Baseball Bugs 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This information is best presented in an infobox and/or as a category. Adding this is simply clutter. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the motivation behind this effort is. The graphic is a short and useful way of quickly indicating to the reader that So and So is in the Hall. It's functional. It serves a purpose. Isn't there something wrong somewhere that needs to be fixed, instead of making a lot of baseball articles poorer in this way? Vidor 17:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, progress - User:Gracenote you say "there is nothing wrong with the template per se, only in how it is used". How then do you propose the template be used? Especially because as you say there is nothing wrong with it Modernist 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I remain gobsmacked that someone can think a note specifying HoF membership is POV. Is it POV to say that George Bush is President of the United States? Vidor 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I have seen other HOF templates used for baseball players, like Template:Infobox_Cooperstown, which are more informative and less obstructive...you can effectively place them below a player's infobox. Also, this template simply does not work for some players...if you have to disambiguate the title of their article, then it ruins the template. For example, "George Brett (baseball player) is a member of the Hall of Fame". That looks awful, in my opinion. I think we should depreciate that template in favor of the other template I've pointed out. -- Transaspie 12:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea...why don't we just include something in the retired infobox that can indicate whether a player is a hall of famer. I analyzed infoboxes from the four major American sports...basketball and hockey uses includes a mention of a Hall of Fame induction, which is listed on equal footing with the rest of the facts. The American football template highlights a player induction into the Pro (or College) Football Hall of Fame...but it's also in the Infobox. Absolutely nothing is used for baseball infoboxees. An older style infobox includes something, but it's ridiculously applied. Actually, I could go on a massive rant about how much crap the Mlbretired infobox is compared to the other sports' templates...but that's another story. Nevertheless, I still think adding something to the infobox is much better than having that silly template sticking out like a sore thumb. -- Transaspie 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WhooopsAs a side note to all this. I saw the mlbhof template dropped in on a number of pages i watched, and i did not realize they were actually reverting a removal of the template. It should not be removed from existing articles and should not be added to new ones. As such, I will go back in an add back the template on those articles. Anyone else who does that, please don't simply revert my edits as I did not revert edits. I also made some changes, most (if not all) should be referenced in the edit summary. And oh yeah, the template should still go :0-) //Tecmobowl 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Infobox - The way the college coaches and players have it merged into the infobox has been effective at quickly identifying it. A small icon could even be put next to it to draw more attention to it, but the current template can easily be rendered redundant with a more efficient way of conveying the information. matt91486 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No one in all this long, long debate has offered an actual reason to remove the template other than they think it's ugly. Which it isn't. Vidor 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive to the flow of the article. Actually, I'll try and give an actual reason here. It's not worth keeping because there isn't one for basketball, there isn't one for American football, there isn't one for hockey, and we can eventually go on with the other major sports. Players in the Halls of Fame for every other sport do not require a template that reads "Athlete_name is a member of the Hall of Fame". Either we include a HOF template like this for at least the four major American sports, or we include a HOF template for none of them. The picture isn't ugly, it looks nice. (So why is it not included in the article on the HOF?) The template is just ungainly and doesn't work for players with disambiguated names. A better idea for a HOF template is to have a template that you specifically put on the bottom of the article, and in this you can include various Wikilinks to articles related to the Hall of Fame and the lists of players inducted. I've seen various types of articles have templates like that, and they're not disruptive. If we decide to keep the template, let's adapt it into something more useful instead of merely saying that this person is a Hall of Famer...the article is usually going to tell you he's a Hall of Famer and some infoboxes include mention of Hall of Fame inductions as highlights. In those cases, it's excessive to include the template because you've already got ample mention of it in the article. If the HOF template can be made into something more than simply stating entrance in the hall, then it should be kept. But in this form, no. And, I must say, as ungainly as it seems to be to a lot of us, it looks even worse when we're attempting to delete it. :) -- Transaspie 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive to the flow of the article--no it isn't, no more than any other infobox or graphic. It's not worth keeping because there isn't one for basketball, there isn't one for American football, there isn't one for hockey--Irrelevant. Interested parties can start up a discussion somewhere else about whether or not there should be a graphic for football players saying they're in Canton. Either we include a HOF template like this for at least the four major American sports, or we include a HOF template for none of them.--There is no logical basis for this statement. In those cases, it's excessive to include the template because you've already got ample mention of it in the article.--This, again, is your opinion and has no factual basis. I, for one, think it is useful to have a picture that tells the reader at a glance that someone is a member of the HoF. I have seen a graphic such as the one you propose in the Joe DiMaggio article. That one is ugly. In any case, there is no legitimate reason for removing the graphic other than the fact that some users seem to have a disdain for it. Vidor 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time arguing with a person who quotes Ron Liebman on his user page. -- Transaspie 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I quoted no one. And there is no solid reason to get rid of this graphic. Vidor 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It was Liebman who posted that comment on Vidor's page. I'm guessing Vidor left it there as a "badge of honor", so to speak. Baseball Bugs 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Replace I believe it is important to identify players who have been inducted into the Hall, and that it should be done in a consistent manner, in in the same spot, and with something other than a generic template. matt91486 suggested an icon in the infobox; I'd agree with that. -- Couillaud 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- The icon, of course, being less visible and less effective. Vidor 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  - And that still gets us back to the question at least one user had: If you have an infobox other than for a player (as you would with Happy Chandler and Morgan Bulkeley, for example), where do you stash the icon? Baseball Bugs 04:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion. Among the arguments for deleting the template are a perception that the current template is unattractive, that there is not a standard placement for it in articles, and that it disrupts the flow of articles. Several editors have suggested moving it to the mlbretired infobox, but that suggestion doesn't work for managers and executives who never played in the majors, for umpires, or for pre-integration Negro league players—i.e., about 20% of the members of the HoF. Although I am lacking in artistic abilities, I decided to try designing a prototype alternative template, with the idea to keep it small so that it could be uniformly placed at the top of articles (similar to the featured article star). An example is shown in the upper right corner of User:BRMo/testpage. I'm sure the design could be improved by someone with artistic ability—for example, a small icon denoting the HoF (e.g., a bronze baseball player in silhouette)—but the basic idea is to keep it small and to place it consistently at the top of articles on HoFers. What do you think? BRMo 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- What happens when this is applied to a featured article? How does it appear in relation to the bronze star? Acdixon 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We can tweak the location to make sure it doesn't conflict with the FA star. I'm just trying to find out if there's support for the general principle of a smaller template placed consistently at the top of articles. BRMo 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to BRMo on why it should be deleted' - My particular problem with the article is its usefulness and not it's look. One of the major problems with bios (especially those of athletes/and ESPECIALLY baseball players). There is a ton of repetitive information that appears throughout the articles. Take for example Babe Ruth. There are successionboxes, templates, categories, and an infobox that all repeat much of the same information. This template does nothing but repeat information that is already available in a number of other places (or for that matter - could be available). There is no question that the infoboxes used on these pages need to be updated so that HOF status is an optional include. It is evident that some adjustments need to be made to the infoboxes currently available OR a new template needs to be developed for sports related figures that don't actually participate in baseball games (umpires - judges - governors - whatever). This template is often nothing more than a restatement of information. For that reason (it's duplicative restatement of readily available categories and templates available) - it should be removed. //Tecmobowl 14:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this template as at all similar to a category. The purpose of a category is to find other articles on subjects with shared characteristics—the appropriate place for a category is at the bottom of the article for the reader who wants to pursue the topic further. The purpose of this template is for the reader first opening the article to quickly identify the subject as a member of the Hall of Fame. It's useful as a visual aid, especially for those who are skimming the content. While I agree that the purpose could also be served by a redesign of the mlbretired infobox, as I've pointed out above, the infobox isn't applicable to many members of the HoF. I'd agree with Temobowl that some templates are clutter—in particular, IMO succession boxes are overused in baseball player articles. But I find the HoF template to be useful. BRMo 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the possibility to use "hofdate=year" to have a HOF template appear in Template:Infobox MLB Player (see example #1) and in Template:Mlbretired (see Tony Gwynn for the only example). It also has "hofvote=percentage" to specify the HOF percentage and "hofmethod=vets" etc. to specify a different method of election. Infobox MLB Player displays the template a bit nicer than Mlbretired, sadly (because of the extra space). I modeled both after the HoF logo, but didn't actually use any part of the logo. I hope that with these additions there is a viable alternative to using the HoF template. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Myke, My understanding (based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Players) was that Template:Infobox MLB Player is to be used for current players—i.e., players who aren't eligible for the HoF—while Template:Mlbretired is for retired players. Am I misunderstanding the intended usage of these infoboxes? Also, as I've mentioned earlier, many members of the HoF never played in the major leagues (managers, execs, umpires, pre-integration Negro League players) and therefore wouldn't be using the Mlbretired infobox. How do you propose to deal with them? BRMo 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:SourceWatch

The result of the debate was deletion. If a link is important, add it in manually, this is not what templates are for. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a sister project. No NPOV policy. Biased articles. ~~Started by a banned sock puppet.~~ Should not be encouraged with template. — MoodyGroove 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Comment. I agree that SourceWatch is biased, but that does not preclude Wikipedia from linking to them when appropriate. Is there precedent for deleting external link templates simply because the target site is biased, or because it is not a sister site? And could you elaborate your claim that SourceWatch was started by a banned sock puppet? Thanks. Rhobite 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a precedent for deleting external link templates for POV reasons. This is the first time I have ever nominated anything for deletion. I just think that giving SourceWatch its own template gives the impression that our default position is that links to SourceWatch are desirable. Unlike a Star Trek or Harry Potter wiki for example, I have never seen an article at SourceWatch that provides a unique resource beyond what our own article would contain if it became a Featured article. Unless poorly sourced, biased, or random, speculative 'pseudo-information' is to be considered a unique resource. The SourceWatch homepage says "Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor." And yet, it's not particularly difficult to find articles like this. We don't need a link to SourceWatch for every neoconservative and every Bush administration official. To me, that takes away from our credibility. The template makes it more difficult to prove the link does not meet the intent of the guideline. MoodyGroove 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Delete. I wasn't aware that there were articles as bad as "Bush regime". And after a quick, random review of a few SW articles (including Disinfopedia:Dick Cheney) I have the impression that SourceWatch is even more biased than it was a couple years ago. I think we should avoid linking to this site in most cases, so I support deletion of this template and removal of most if not all SW links. Rhobite 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The template was not "started by a banned sock puppet". It was created by Nat Krause (talk · contribs), an established user. The first user to edit it was Pinktulip (talk • contribs • block log), a sockpuppet of hardbanned user Amorrow (talk • contribs • block log). szyslak 23:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. MoodyGroove 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Weak delete - while SourceWatch does not appear to necessarily be bad, and in fact it does use the GFDL (free content is one major factor in determining whether to use external links), I believe that a template for linking en masse is mostly inappropriate. I presume that SourceWatch would not be used as a source. Even in an external links section, however (where it appears to be most used), it is generally suggested that wikis should not be linked to. This does not mean that there will never ever be a case where linking to it is appropriate, but I am not in favor of having a template. I am not exceedingly familiar with SourceWatch, so if anyone can shed more light on the situation, I would be more than happy to follow up. Gracenotes^T § 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It used to be called the Disinfopedia, and is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy. I've already voiced my opinion on why I think the template is bad for the project, so I'll just conclude by saying that SourceWatch thinks of itself as a watchdog group that monitors propaganda and manipulation of public perception. The problem is, determining what constitutes propaganda, and what does not, can be highly subjective, and can in fact be propaganda, which is why the absence of a NPOV policy is problematic. This comment in Wikipedia's SourceWatch article is telling:

"[A] number of Wikipedia articles contain external links to SourceWatch entries on the same person or group, even SourceWatch articles containing colorful and exuberant expressions of opinion which would not pass muster in Wikipedia.[citation needed]"

"Colorful and exuberant"? Perhaps the editor should have simply said, "unencyclopedic". But make no mistake, the Center for Media and Democracy is happy to ride on the coattails of Wikipedia's reputation, even though it does not follow our most important editing guideline.

"And, for professors, students or journalists who want to know how they can trust the information on SourceWatch, Wikipedia or any other wiki, my answer is: "You don't have to. Just click through the footnote links." Any encyclopedia is only as good as its sources, which is exactly why we have a strong policy on referencing [10]. Congresspedia and Wikipedia are fantastic resources, but don't get it twisted – critically engaging in information is what we're all about."

There's a huge difference between Wikipedia and SourceWatch, whether they share the GFDL license or not, and frankly we should distance ourselves. Limited and responsible linking to POV sources is acceptable, but the Wikipedia would be well advised not to allow systematic POV pushing in through the back door. MoodyGroove 12:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Strong delete. We need neither more external linking nor the apparent legitimisation of such linking en masse. We do need better encyclopedia articles. — Athaenara ✉ 03:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete on balance. On one hand, I consider them semi-respectable, taking political orientation into account. They are a wiki that anyone can edit, but they also employ an editor. Thus they have a person who is responsible for the accuracy/inaccuracy. But they are not a good source, and their reliabiity is always subject to challenge. So I think their use should be discouraged if there are better, and this template implies that we fully accept them, which we certainly do not. DGG 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to delete. Whether we link to external websites should not depend on whether its contents are neutral. NPOV is a policy in Wikipedia, not in teh entire interweb. External links are specifically for the purpose of directing the reader to content that cannot be or is not presented in Wikipedia. Views of a particular side, that is biased views, are one example of such content. Loom91 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this is not so much a discussion about whether or not we should link to external wikis or POV sources (I think there's consensus that limited, responsible linking to either is acceptable, but needs to be determined on a case to case basis). Rather, the question (at least to me) is whether or not we should encourage this linking, or give the appearance that our default position is that this particular external wiki (with no NPOV policy) has the support of the community. MoodyGroove 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

~~Strong~~Speedy delete - What's next? Templates for MediaMatters? There shouldn't be templates to encourage the citing of poor sources. Even if some of their stuff can be used reliably, a template is not going to filter out the bad. - Crockspot 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Refactor - After reviewing WP:EL again, I'm changing to a speedy delete. SourceWatch appears to meet several of the criteria for links to be avoided. I'd be very hard-pressed to think of a situation where it should even be used as an EL. It's a wiki, and a crappy biased one. - Crockspot 01:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could you point to which parts of WP:EL you think are problematic? JoshuaZ 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - inappropriate external link in most circumstances, therefore template is unnecessary. Let's not encourage spammers. MER-C 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have a view on the template, but I disagree that external links to Sourcewatch are inappropriate, and certainly with characterization such as 'spammers'. Loom91 puts the point well - the fact that external links are not NPOV doesn't mean they are inappropriate.JQ 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize this isn't the talk page for WP:EL, but since you've come to the defense of SourceWatch, I think there are several reasons why SourceWatch should not be linked, and only one would suffice. It's not clear to me reading WP:EL that POV linking is encouraged. Consider these parts of the guideline: What should be linked. 3.) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Links normally to be avoided. 1.) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2.) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Let's look at the underlying principle of: 11.) Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. 12.) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. [Break] Unlike a Harry Potter wiki or a Star Trek wiki, linking to a political wiki without a NPOV policy is asking for trouble. It's inflammatory, and it makes Wikipedia a battleground, whether it shares a GFDL license or not. SourceWatch does not share the same mechanisms for peer review and editorial oversight. It may be a wiki, but it's not like the Wikipedia, where mean spirited garbage is eventually weeded out. MoodyGroove 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Template:PCW Titles

The result of the debate was delete, TfD process isn't needed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Championship Wrestling. Sr 13 06:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of series of fancruft by User:Cwmoneybags, which includes these two TfD from yesterday Template:PCWFWS and Template:PCWTX, and relates to all these article at this AfD [1], all of which for a walled garden. Darrenhusted 12:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Will get deleted when the entire bunch is deleted at the AfD. No need to list it here. Sala Skan 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just following the recommended procedure, this and two related templates were PROD-ed but the PRODs were removed, this and 25 other articles form a large walled garden, I want to make sure the admin closing the debate catches everything. Darrenhusted 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User en-6

The result of the debate was no consensus. HOWEVER: I realize that by closing this TfD as "no consensus" that de-6, fr-6, es-6, etc., are probably right around the corner, when they shouldn't be. We need to determine as a community if level 6 templates should exist for any language, not just English. That being said, I don't find either side's arguments convincing. I see two main arguments on the delete side, and it could even be said that one is a corollary of the other. These two arguments are "language templates cannot/should not go higher than level five" and "there is little tangible difference between language described as 'professional' and 'professorial.' The first of these is instruction creep (who says we can't have en-6? Will the server explode?) and the second is false. There is a difference between professional writing and professorial writing. Read a Stephen King novel and compare it to a dissertation on magical realism in Arabic literature. I have read both of these texts, and I can tell you that the English used in Stephen King's (who could claim en-5) text was much different than that of the literature professor who in such a text could claim en-6.

That being said, the keep arguments "let them claim snobbery" are also not convincing. This TfD is merely one part of a larger debate, and therefore cannot be settled here. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This was possibly meant to be a higher language level of English, meant to mark a person as an expert of descriptive linguistics of the language. However, I am pretty sure that User en-5 serves that purpose already, and we don't need to have a higher template of the existing professional language template.

It might serve the purpose of the template that this tag would tell that the person is not really using English on his daily life, but I don't think that a higher level would be required for that.

Besides of that, is professorial even a real word? — ~Iceshark7 10:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, professorial is a real word. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding. ~Iceshark7 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Migrate This template has no use in communication, but I'd hate to see it deleted, personally, because it's mildly amusing. Evilclown93_(talk) 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete almost the same as {{User en-5}} and besides, the difference is extremely small (professional/professorial) and unnecessary (who knows the exact difference anyway...) Sala Skan 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Salaskan and nom. Per the comments at the Template talk:User en-5 TfD, it's clear that en-5 is already beyond an ordinary native-speaker level, and that template is controversial enough. Rigadoun (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete along with {{User en-5}}. I suppose "professorial" was the inevitable next step in this pretentious template. Rhobite 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the difference is minor. I know many professors who definitely don't converse that even en-4. --Haemo 05:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "that even"? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to be "converse at even en-4." -- Bigwyrm 10:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - User language level templates cannot go higher than 5.--Edtropolis 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "NRV"? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I see no point in this level whatsoever. Whether a person is self-learnt or a professor there is no need for a higher level. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep as author. The command of the English language exhibited by some of the so-called "professionals" sporting Category:User en-5 is sorely lacking. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's their problem, if they call themselves as professionals of the language, and not knowing the language at all. User en-5 is still meant for the same purpose. A change from "professional" to "professorial" to Template:User en-5 wouldn't be a bad idea, however. ~Iceshark7 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - No pressing reason for deletion, and IMHO, it is worthy of retention. After all, if Bulbasaur can be an FA then, the way I see it, there can be a -6 level for Babel. Check-Six 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - There's no harm in allowing users to claim a higher level of language snobbery. -- Bigwyrm 10:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Babel templates are a completely subjective self-assessment without meaningful performance criteria anyway, no harm in having a little fun with them. -- Visviva 11:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete- Funny, when I first put it on my userpage, I thought it said professional, but now I see it says professorial. I think there is too little of a difference for there to be two seperate boxes.

[edit] Template:California Community College System

The result of the debate was Keep. IronGargoyle 01:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This HUGE navbox lists every school and governing board in the California Community Colleges system, totaling about 100 each and taking up a page or more of space. Most of the governing districts don't have articles, so the first half of the template is mostly redlinks. Such a large group of articles (and redlinks) is not served well by a single giant navbox. Let's say you're looking up a college in, for example, Anaheim. Is there a pressing need for links to every other community college in the state, just in case you want to look up a college in Sacramento, or San Diego, or Fresno? Many of the community college articles already have smaller navboxes for their regional governing board or athletic conference. Currenty used in just one article. szyslak 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete blatant overnavigationtemplating (does that word exist? ^_^). Categories will suffice in this case. Sala Skan 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have no opinion on whether it's kept, but if it is it needs to be expandable, as it is way too large otherwise. Also, it should be used in every article, so there should be a consensus to replace the smaller navboxes for regions. That seems unlikely. Rigadoun (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Salaskan. Move the lists back into the article as before. — RandallJones 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and edit. The size could be reduced to half by abbreviating the display of the links. If the article is kept, I'll do it, but as as demo I did the first few. Allow the districts are mainly red, the colleges themselves are almost all real links, so I'd suggest moving the colleges to the top, & I've done just that.DGG 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and fix. It links a large number of articles together, and could be improved to make it very useful. Dfrg.msc 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and fix. I put in the template to bring the article in line with the other California school systems. It is much less ugly and space consuming than what came before it and could if altered provide useful connectors for a lot of future school articles. Jarwulf 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that what came before was both ugly and space-consuming. However, this problem can easily be solved by (a) converting to table format and (b) using columns and smaller text. I infer that you intended this template for this single article. Templates are for more than one page, not just one. szyslak 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've condensed the template a bit. –Pomte 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current television series

The result of the debate was Delete. IronGargoyle 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has long been established not to abuse these types of templates, this one was created in February -- it's primary purpose: to tell you a television series is presently running (liek OMG, lawl). This template is just silly and serves no legible purpose. Matthew 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the majority of television series are not presently running, so this warns the user that information can change rapidly as it comes in (and therefore implying, but not stating, that the information may be out of date, or inaccurate). I agree that it's not the most useful of templates, but it's not "silly" and serves a "legible purpose". If anything it should be updated to include the implication. John Hayes 10:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an immense amount of running shows. "information can change rapidly as it comes in", anything can change rapidly, not good enough reason to add an obtrusive template. Matthew 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but there are (I would assume) far more series that have already finished. The difference is that they no longer will be updated with "the latest news" so it is unlikely that they will change rapidly. This of course doesn't mean the opposite is always true, but I would suggest there is a case for some sort of warning that articles on current TV series, by their nature, will not always meet the standards required of Wikipedia. John Hayes 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe the disclaimer is enough. I'm not really bothered either way then, I still think there is a case for it, but it's not explicitly needed. John Hayes 10:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no guarantee of information being valid, the article itself should make it clear that the show is running. What next: "This article may be vandalised at any moment" templates? After all Wikipedia is editable by anybody, hehe! Matthew 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Delete. John Hayes 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this template was created as a companion one to Template:Future television series that is used by the TV Wikiproject to indicate future episodes/shows/series; there's also a comparable one for future episodes at Template:Future television episode. I understand and agree with the arguments above, but I would see this template in question as one that covers a current running TV show that lack individual episode pages (most reality TV shows for example) where there still is some information of future episodes that come down the line. I agree the current wording, implying "rapid changes" is implicit and need not be there, but if there's some merge of the text from the future episode bar into this one to imply to the reader that future episodes of this show may be based on non-definitive information, then the template should stay. Heck, reading it further, taking the future episode text and just making it "one or more episodes" would to me be a suitable replacement for the current show template's text to get the same point across.--Masem 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles should be able to stand on their own without these types of template. The text should be quite clear that the show is already running without needing a self-reference template. Also remember Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity, regardless. Matthew 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep seems like a reasonable template to me although it's not all that important, but as templates about future television series, current singles etc exist, it serves a purpose in my opinion. But let's not use it at the top of articles, but rather at the == Episodes == / == Seasons == sections or so. Sala Skan 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, other templates exist... I'm sure I stated "Consensus has long been established not to abuse these types of templates", though. Oh, and Template:Future television episode doesn't (it does really...) state "Notice This template is not meant to be on all TV show articles that are currently running/about to be running, just on those articles where containing future information is an issue in some way (such as a show that could drastically change suddenly, an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic, articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is an in-progress or future show, etc)." ... Matthew 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep It isn't that obvious, while most TV series take seasonal break on summers, some don't. TheBlazikenMaster 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete as having dealt a lot with temporal TV templates in the past, I think I should comment.
1. The reason we have {{Future television *}} templates, is because the content of these articles is most often highly speculative and badly sourced. Using these templates is an easy way to keep an eye on these articles in a way that is unobtrusive (you don't get roasted by the fans). Inexperienced editors like banners a lot, so simply copy them from the previous unaired episode. It's far better then trying to fight those "brand new" articles, which is like trying to drink the niagara waterfalls.
2. We do not categorize by which television shows are running (too many, too broad, changes too fast), only by broadcastbegin/ending.
3. All information in articles should be properly sourced, and we have templates for this if they are not.
4. We have {{Future tvshow information}} aka {{future television|type=info}}. This one basically was for stuff like the recent "Britain's got Talent". A TV competition show broadcast over 9? days in a row. This template (and the one we talk about now could be seen as a derivative version of that) has always been controversial and it's usage has been discouraged mostly. I wouldn't mind seeing it go actually, people put it on far too many shows.
5. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. we do not report when repeats are on in every country in the world, nor do we need to tell people something is on a "seasonal break" atm.

So the big question here, is what is the point of this template ? It goes on TV shows that are on the air... It says the article has information about plotlines and characters, but that this is basically still subject to change, because the plotlines aren't finished yet. Does that make the plotlines/information incorrect ? no it doesn't, it might be outdated at most. So basically it's a big obtrusive box that tells you something that you should already know if you read the lead of the article (Series still being aired). All in all, it does not serve a encyclopedic content goal, nor a maintenance goal, and as such is superfluous. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rfa-notice

The result of the debate was keep per WP:SNOW. I think we have a consensus, both in numbers and in arguments. Yechiel Man 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Subtle form of canvassing. If users want to see if a candidate is up for administrator consideration, they can do so on RFA. — Miranda 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep The claim that this is canvassing isn't supported by the linked guideline, which makes reference to talk pages. Endless discussion at WT:RFA has established that a significant portion of the community thinks a notice like this is a fair and effective way to notify people of an RFA, without much risk of selection bias towards supporters.--Chaser - T 06:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep both for the same reasons given by Chaser. This has been discussed at least twice (possibly more) on WT:RFA, and every time the consensus has been that placing this notice on ones userpage is acceptable during an RfA/RfB. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep both. Not everybody watchlists RFA to see if/when editors that they have come across, for good reasons or bad, have been nominated. This notice alerts others to the discussion in an appropriate manner and in an appropriate location. Notices enhance visibility and participation. Bencherlite 07:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Miranda, please read the definition of canvassing: Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group, often in a particular geographic area. Indicating that you are requesting adminship on your own user page is not 'canvassing'. The paranoia that RfA has about this sort of thing has gone too far, and it has to stop now. I also noticed Miranda opposing adminship candidates for using this template; even at RfA, with all its ludicrous standards, use of this template has never been considered an issue. When a user posts the same message asking for votes on fifty different talk pages, that's canvassing. Seriously, if this kind of attitude is tolerated, what's next? Administrators can't state that they are one on their own userpage because adminship is not a trophy? Please use common sense – Gurch 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above comments. It's a sensible restrained notice that a user is requesting adminship. CloudNine 10:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep as if feel this TfD nom is getting a tad pointy; Miranda has nominated this template after she opposed Crazytales at his Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crazytales. Many RfA's failed due to canvassing like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Booksworm, but it wasn't just a little notice on the userpage, which is not defined as canvassing, and IMHO is very benign. The canvasssing there was talk page "ads". Evilclown93_(talk) 11:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep The template, when used appropriately on a user's page, does not fit the definition of canvassing, as defined in the link. Firstly, it does not offer an opinion - it does not request support or dismiss opposition. Secondly, it only appears on the user's page, so it is only seen by users with some reason to visit the page. As such, it's not obtrusive or irrelevant. Leebo ^T/C 11:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep this isn't canvassing, as it's only placed on your own talk page. It serves the same purpose as templates like {{fac}} do, and is just a notification. It'd be something entirely different if it were a template to stick on friends' talk pages stating "I'm up for an RfA, please vote". Sala Skan 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep per everyone. I for one am often the sort of person Bencherlite describes, and it's nice to be reminded if someone I've encountered is up for RfA. Also, I'm as likely to visit someone's userpage with a good opinion of them as I am with a bad, so I don't see how it biases the results either way. Rigadoun (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. To properly evaluate candidates, it is good to have people who interact with them comment, instead of just people who pass by the RfA page. And this advertises the RfA to everyone, not just those who would support. -Amarkov moo! 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Both As Gurch points out, the very first sentence of the guideline immediately makes this a non-argument; it can't be canvassing if canvassing involves posting somewhere else. Also, as Amarkov points out, this is an open declaration to anyone, not just a user's buddies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Note Not that I think this TfD needs it (someone could probably successfully lobby for a Speedy Keep result), but relevant WT:RFA discussion about both templates (and their relationship to WP:CANVASS) can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 94#Recent canvassing concerns. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WP:HoB Header

The result of the debate was Speedy delete on creator's request belowPascal.Tesson 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost unused template (only transclusion is on its projects talk page) with non-standard layout and its projects mandates use of different template for article talk pages anyway, namely: {{WP Bangladesh|history=yes}}. — Shinhan 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-standard project banners are a pain. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Please. I created it, used it, forgot about it, and now that you guys have dug it up, ashamed of it. I beg of you - delete. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete author requests it, no keep votes, and obsolete to a template used by the actual project. Sala Skan 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Needkhmer

The result of the debate was Redirect to {{Khmer}}. IronGargoyle 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

redundant template, already exists at {{Khmer}}. Chris 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This newer template is smaller and more economical, and, with agreement of the editors at WikiProject Cambodia (who are already discussing it) can replace the old, large, tan-colored template. Please allow this to be evaluated by the experts at WikiProject Cambodia rather than simply sweeping in and tagging without first discussing with those dealing with such articles on a daily basis. Badagnani 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge, use the magic of ParserFunctions to display Talk and article versions based on {{NAMESPACE}}. By the way, this is not strictly on topic but IMO edit warring over which version of a cleanup template to use, where to put it, etc., is extraordinarily lame (and it takes two to be lame in this case). -- Visviva 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I understand everything except the first sentence. Badagnani 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like what I did to Template:Khmer just now, so that it displays identically to Template:Needkhmer unless it is placed on a talk page. Please note that if Template:Needkhmer is deleted, my changes will have to be reverted, since the edit history will have been lost. -- Visviva 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Redirect the initial creation of the template had to be discussed and not the replacement. The people from the WikiProject aren't necessarily the ones we ought to discuss this with. I would like very much if they would join this discussion. My main reasons for deletion are a) to maintain consistency with similar script-request templates, and b) placing such templates on the talk page is more suitable IMO. —Anas ^talk? 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to "redirect" per Pomte and recent changes. —Anas ^talk? 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect (for those who are used to the name, that can't hurt), but the tag should be used on talk pages per the arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21#Category:Missing_middle_or_first_names. It's distracting to users who aren't editors (and the vast majority of whom don't speak Khmer) to see a large box at the top of the article that isn't related to the topic per se. The main people who need to use this template are not members of the WikiProject, but random gnomes finding the article missing the original script and sorting it into the appropriate category. For this reason it's good to be as consistent as possible in the titles and placement of all the missing-language templates, so they don't have to look around for them. Rigadoun (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- With all respect to the participants in that (one) CfD, I think that any concern we have over confusing or distracting "users who aren't editors" is misplaced. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we're not going to be finished any time soon; if it facilitates the process to have cleanup templates on the article page, then that's where they should be. Ideally, most non-editing users should be accessing our content through downstream vendors, who remove most of this self-referential material anyway. This isn't to say that I have a strong opinion on template placement; I just think it's kind of a silly thing to be worrying about. -- Visviva 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - This is why this template was designed to be so small/narrow (just one line of text, as compared to the very large tan-colored template that appears on article talk pages). It works well this way, and facilitates quick and efficient addition of the native script, when needed, and as knowledgeable editors come upon the pages (or use "what links here" at the template page to find pages to add native script to). Badagnani 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think it would be suitable to go ahead and delete this template, since {{Khmer}} was recently modified (using ParserFunctions) to enable it to be used in articles, exactly the same way this template is being used. There seems to be no objections to its usage. —Anas ^talk? 11:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this can't be deleted without destroying the edit history, which is a Bad Thing in this case; the article-space version of {{Khmer}} was lifted directly from {{Needkhmer}}. -- Visviva 11:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the now dual-purpose {{Khmer}} to preserve edit history and for those still using this template. –Pomte 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Companion animals in cuisine

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any pages where there is a concensous that this template is appropriate. The corellation is in one sense too broad (try to think of any animal that we eat that isn't a companion to someone) and in another sense too distant (when you're talking about a rabbit as food, why bring up the topic of companionship). — Ed Brey 01:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Template is useful. Badagnani 06:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:USEFUL. Sala Skan 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I don't agree with that stupid page. If a template is useful, I do not hesitate to state that fact. It is encyclopedic as well. Badagnani 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NPOV, animals like for example mice would be very debatable. (by the way, it's "consensus" ;-)) Sala Skan 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This template is based solely on Western cultural taboos. Rhobite 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the above. --Haemo 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Potbellied pigs are fashionable Western pets; pre-bird flu there was a trend to keep a couple of chickens even in small suburban gardens to show the kids where eggs come from; Ancient Crete and many other cultures encouraged snakes to live under the house to keep down the rat population, and would show their appreciation by leaving out a saucer of milk; cows are allowed to wander into business premises in India; let's not even get into aquarium fish; ad infinitum.

Comment - The miniature pet pigs are not raised for food and remain very uncommon as a companion animal in any case. Aquarium fish are generally not eaten as food. Sacred cows in India are not "companions" of humans, though they are revered as divine by many Hindus. Mice are generally not a culinary item. None of the arguments is applicable or even relevant. Badagnani 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently mice are a delicacy in some parts of Africa. And I'd heard about a fad of fried rat eating in Brazil (or was it Argentina?), but that may have been an urban legend. — The Storm Surfer 03:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - eurocentric. Addhoc 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cleveland class landing platform dock

The result of the debate was close. TfD is not needed if it is included in the AfD. The fate of the article will be fate of the template. Sr 13 07:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

These classes of ships do not exist according to the United States Naval Registry, therefore it should be deleted. This TFD is also for the following page:

Template:Trenton class landing platform dock

For the corrosponding AFD debate, see the following link:[2] — American Patriot 1776 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to create a TfD when there's an AfD up already. Await the outcome of the AfD. When the page gets deleted, the template will obviously get deleted as well. When the page gets kept, the template will get kept. This seems like a way to get more attention for the AfD to me. Sala Skan 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citing Links

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 07:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD and WP:BITE. Whether to add this template to an article or not is very subjective, and citations are needed for all controversial claims. It is misleading by saying "in this article, only add information if you can add a reference", which implies that this is not true for all articles. Furthermore, being bold is a good thing. Uncited additions can always be {{fact}}-tagged or removed.. Sala Skan 15:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'd rather see this template to stay, but as a "section" and not the whole article. If there is a specific section on the article which causes, or has caused, usual controversial issues, this tag could be used onto the section, to reduce the amount of original research and would improve the neutral point of view. Also, some Wikiprojects (For example.) have said on some articles, that there must be cited sources on every piece of information, otherwise they would do something about it. ~IS7 16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - is this being spread to our mirrors? Eek! I suggest that we keep the self-references to a minimum. Gracenotes^T § 03:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - uh, duh? We don't need templates that tell people to do basic things - it's insulting, and bites new users.--Haemo 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete As this is basic policy anyway, it is likely be used mainly in aggressive situations, and I consider it to be edit warring. If there is a need to say something for a section, something can be added in comments, so as to be visible during editing but not mess up the article (I've seen it on many pages, and I've added such notes myself.)This template could even be taken as an advertisement that other people have put in spam here, so you might as well put in spam links for however long they might last; I know if I were a spammer it would not discourage me in the slightest.DGG 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - better to use the {{controversial}} tag on talk pages. Addhoc 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This template is unnecessary and confusing. It would be much more helpful to just tag the unsourced statements with {{fact}} and leave a note on the user's talk page about sourcing (such as {{Uw-unsor1}}). --Butseriouslyfolks 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I can see the good faith in this template but it implies that adding sources only applies in some article and can be read as a bit of a WP:Bite on newcomers. Other templates such as {{controversial}},{{fact}}, and {{refimprove}} can cover most of the possible reasons for this template to be added to an article. Camaron1 | Chris 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)