Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 19

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

The result of the debate was Snowball keep, due to the strong consensus and the possibility that he is just using TFD to try and change the functionality of it. Non-admin closure. ViperSnake151 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current sport-related (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Forgive me if this doesn't conform to the normal process exactly, this is my first TFD. I have a problem with the second forms of this template that say "For current sports news on this topic, see..." This is essentially turning us into Wikinews, a newspaper, or some sports blog when we are in fact an encyclopedia. The template is being added to every sports article about a team directing the user to the current news for that season. For example, see Hawaii Warriors football, when college football is not even in season yet, and no games are occurring. The template will also remain throughtout the season even when no games are occurring and then when season is over. I assume this is an off shoot of Template:Current sport, which I have no problem with, but I think the above template goes too far, clutters up the top of articles, and can easily be covered by a see also at the top, or links within the article. Delete "For current sports news on this topic, see..." — KnightLago (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, there are already means to link to other articles. See also, links within the article, templates at the bottom of an article. So why do we need another template at the top of an article linking somewhere and claiming there is fresh news there? We are not a newspaper, or Wikinews. Also, by allowing a template that's sole function is to link to another article at the top of an article and remain there forever, we are opening the door to allow this type of template to be placed on thousands of articles. Policitians, actors, singers, authors, could all have templates placed at the top indicating there is "current news" at another article. This is simply redundant clutter that is unnecessary. KnightLago (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Many people don't realize that we have such articles that the template links to (2007-08 Dallas Stars season for example). This helps readers realize this, and provides for easy navigation for related topics. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While many people do not realize that we have other related articles, there are already solutions to this problem. A see also note and links within the text inform people just as easily. If this template is allowed, then templates could be added to every article where we have another article related to the subject. Authored a new book, template. Work as an actor on TV, template. Politician currently in office, template. Singer, template. The possibilities are endless. I think we are just inviting a clutter of templates that make the articles look unprofessional. KnightLago (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: The template is useful for reminding folks that main pages such as the aforementioned Hawaii Warriors football are not the place for an extensive rundown of the current season's events, instead directing the user to the appropriate article for the current season. Is it your argument that there shouldn't be an article for 2008 Hawaii Warriors football team because it too closely parallels current events already covered by Wikinews? It seems that your issue isn't so much with the template as with the creation of the article itself. -Macuxi (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Take off your tinfoil hat. I picked Hawaii at random from the articles using the template. KnightLago (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was uncalled for. I was merely referring to Hawaii as an example representative of all current season-based sports articles, to be consistent with the example you were using. -Macuxi (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: As highlighted by the above votes, it helps to show people that there are articles beyond the main articles. If season specific articles are allowed (as I believe they should) then direction to them should also be allowed. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: It could use a rewording of course as this is an encyclopedia and not a news paper. It should read something along the lines of "For this team's current season, see...". I don't particularly like the soccer ball image either, especially when this template is used on American football articles. However, this template is all we have currently so it should be kept. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: What most people have said. I vote keep for the reasons posted. Whammies Were Here 10:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful and non-intrusive way to stat that there is more information to be found at X. It also prevents editors from adding a huge amount of current info onto a page that is about the franchise itself and not about the franchises specific season. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Modify I think one problem with the template is that it implies a certain amount of immediacy, which is not precisely true. The use of an icon image with a clock certainly doesn't help for a template that stays up for a whole year! (Perhaps it should be a calendar?) I've always thought the "current event" templates are best used for articles about individual tournaments, perhaps, so they are only displayed for a couple of weeks or so. I agree with comments about the usefulness of a Wikipedia:Hatnote-like link to the article for the current season, but I think the current implementation is poor. I recommend an update instead of deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: I was editing the page for the Atlanta Braves, and saw the link to this template being considered for deletion. (I assume all major sports programs utilize it: NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, colleges, etc.) It seems like a very useful way to link to the current specific season of whatever team you are looking at. Someone mentioned a see also note or links within text, but the see also notes are more of a clutter (less clean looking) than this template, and links within text can be easily overlooked. I like the way this template looks at the top, and it provides valuable information. (I would never have known the Atlanta Braves had a current season article if I had not seen the template at the top.) Liveforever22 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have ways of linking to other articles that do not require templates. See also, links within the article itself, other templates, why do we need another template that will remain at the top of an article forever? KnightLago (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I already told why it is better than a see also, or links within articles, so I won't say the exact same thing again. (since you did not argue my points, but just reiterated what you said before) As far as the other templates, this one seems best suited for sports related articles. I searched a few other pro sports teams, and they pretty much all use them, so it seems pretty standardized. I wouldn't be particularly opposed to using another similar one, or modifying this one slightly like others have stated, but it is better than any other option you have mentioned so far, so I would rather keep it than delete it since it provides a more useful function than see also or links within articles. Liveforever22 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed you argument there. Looking at the Atlanta Brave article, the 2008 season is mentioned very prominently in the 2008 season section, and again in the Atlanta Braves template at the bottom of the article. I therefore don't see why we need a template at the top of the article pointing users to the article another time. As for less clutter, I have never seen a featured article with a template at the top of the article. I just went and looked at the sports related ones, and out of about 10/15 sports team articles, I found this template used once. I think this is a slippery slope. If used for sports, why not others. Thousands of articles could have similar templates at the top. And if there are other important things related to the article, why not add multiple templates to the top of the article? KnightLago (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils is a featured article with this very template in it and was on it at the time of promotion. -Djsasso (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Out of all the sports related articles I looked at, as I mentioned above, I only found one, this is it. And beyond that I have never seen another FA with a template at the top. Also, this template was not in the article when it was promoted. It was promoted here. This template was created in January of 2007, this became a FA in November of 2006. The season this template directs people to is already mentioned in the article, though it could be made more conspicuous. KnightLago (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad I could of sworn we had those notices on the pages back then as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think the difference is that on sport team articles it's purpose is navigational, in that it quickly directs the reader to the most recent article in the series of per-season articles. I don't think your "slippery slope" concerns for politicians, authors, etc. are relevant here, because this template is not used on athlete articles either. To use a more appropriate comparison, see the hatnote at the top of United States presidential election, which serves the same purpose as this template, potentially directing readers to a specific instance of the general article's topic. In another example, I see that Academy Award does not have a link to 80th Academy Awards until further into the article, but I could see advantages in putting some navigation aid at the top. Really, I think the best resolution to this TfD is a discussion about what the best way is to retain this navigation aid, but without the glaring {{ambox}} visuals, or the inappropriate "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" implications. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good points. Part of my argument is that there are other methods, as you mentioned above, that don't require a template at the top of each article. As for my slippery slope, while this template is not used on other articles, it is not a huge leap that substantially similar templates could easily be created under the same reasoning as this one. KnightLago (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, as it appears the nominator is not actually requesting deletion of the template, but advocating a change in functionality on the small-format templates. This is something that can be discussed at the template talk page. Specifically, if the current text is an issue, we can certainly find an alternate text. However, I would advocate the retention of the current functionality, as it is a very useful means of directing a user to an article they may be looking for. Resolute 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like any of them. KnightLago (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and make improvements as suggested. Although we may not be "in-season" for the sport, there is still news that occurs that goes into the "in-season" page. For example, for college football we include recruiting and national signing day information which occurs in February, when the season doesn't start until August. It's a logical place to put it and it fits with the "season" being the whole-year-round. MECU≈talk 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. In hockey, the draft, free agency period, trades, affiliate changes and other news of historical significance occurs outside of the playing season. Resolute 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a newspaper or sports blog. You are looking Wikinews. And there are already other means to link to other articles to so why should we clutter up the top of an article forever? KnightLago (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an almanac, however, and that is the purpose of these articles. Documenting the history of the team and the season. And really, if you look at the articles, the small template does not clutter the article at all. It fits neatly over or in the infoboxes directing readers to the current season's article. Resolute 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Modify per Andrwsc. I do not like having an ambox-style message box permanently displayed on pages. Those should be reserved for notices that are at least theoretically temporary. A hatnote or a {{wiktionary}}-style box should be used instead. Powers ^T 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep By all means. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Unlike many other "current" templates that have been deleted, except for the {{Current}} template, this one actually identifies when a team or sport season is actually in effect, and its existence can be measured by an actual standard...games left to be played on the schedule for the league and applicable teams therein. There should be no subjectiveness with use to this template...only objectiveness. As such, this template should be kept. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Many specific-season articles go unnoticed without it. Pats1 ^T/C 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: this template let the reader know that this is something that is happening right now (a place that we are way ahead of). It's very important, and shouldn't be deleted. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep and probably Modify as per above statements. Noble Story (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the various reasons given above. I do like the idea of modifying to use a calendar icon, though. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with previous comments that the soccer ball image should be changed to something more fitting for a template to be used across multiple sports. The soccer ball looks odd when it appears at the top of a baseball or basketball related article (for example). -Macuxi (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Works great as-is. It lets potential editors know where the current article on a season is being compiled for those major sports programs that have people who care. --Bobak (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I find it very helpful and effective and see no problem with it. I have seen this template literally hundreds of times and "Wikinews" never crossed my mind once; instead, I used the link for navigation because it helps readers and editors alike.   jj137 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Modify: The logo should match the sport in question. It was odd to see a soccer ball on the St. Louis Cardinals page. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - How can you not see how helpful it is? Chaldean (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm just gonna end this now. ViperSnake151 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wales Under-20 Squad - 2008 IRB Junior World Championships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Squads for youth rugby tournaments, even worldwide ones, are not notable. As proven by this template, only three of the members of the squad are notable enough for their own article. What's more, in 5 years, this tournament and the majority of the players who competed in it will still not be notable. Ultimately, only navboxes for current club squads, Rugby World Cup squads and British Lions squads should exist. – PeeJay 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a squad for the Under-20 Rugby World Cup, If your only problem is that you don't think that the players will be notable, 18 of the current squad members have been scouted for either the sevens squad or the A squad and 6 of the players have been included in the senior teams trial squad. - Mr Lee 15:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To assume that any of these players will go on to become notable is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and an obvious reason why this template shouldn't exist. – PeeJay 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Many of these players are notable enough to have played for senior regional sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomos ANTIGUA Tomos (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete I don't see anything particularly notable about youth rugby tournaments, but my bigger concern is that the majority of the names in the template don't even have links. Thus, I don't see any reason for the template to exist, but I don't see an especially stron reason for it not to. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not sufficiently notable sports team to justify a template. Terraxos (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This nomination also includes Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ko, Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/pt, and Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ru.

These templates are not in English. Instead of us maintaining translations of every license tag, just transfer any images of an international nature to the Commons where translation is common and encouraged. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I copied this template FROM commons. If the template belongs there, then we should not need a local copy. I'll double-check that the images which use this tag get copied to commons - is there an easy way to get a list of all of those? Nimur (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We don't need foreign language versions of license templates on the English Wikipedia; these belong on Commons, not here. Terraxos (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was snowball keep 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Inuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is dangerous-what if someone misread it and deleted the entire page? Believe me when I say that, please. --UnicornTwilight (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Even if a user did apply this template and then deleted the text on the page, it's all still available in the page history. If the template remains on a page for more than a couple days, anyone can revert it back to the "pre-inuse" version. Slambo (Speak) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is an effective tool to discourage edit conflicts. How exactly would someone misread the template text to warrant deleting the entire page? (this is in not an article deletion template) If so, why is deletion being proposed instead of rewriting? And why was there apparently no prior discussion about such concerns on the template's talk page? If we are to believe there is a concern about someone deleting a page after misreading the template, shouldn't there be some verifiable cases where this has happened? And if so, how frequently does that occur? Dl2000 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A very useful template which I have used several times, but more importantly, there is no reason whatsoever to delete. I honestly don't see how someone may misread it and delete the entire page. I've never seen any issues arise from the template. I agree that if the message needs rewriting, it should be discussed on the talkpage. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as it clearly (to me, anyways) labels a page undergoing significant editing. A few hours wait is quite sufficient to see if the tag was added, then forgotten. Issues with the tag's wording should be brought up on its talk, not resolved by gassing it. Kresock (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a hugely useful template. Even having read the previous prod reason given by the nominator here, I still can't comprehend the perceived problem. Maralia (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Snowball keep— I don't see any way this is going to be deleted. This is an extremely useful template utilised by many editors. I'm a bit confused by, "if someone misread it and deleted the entire page"? Only admins can delete pages, and they should know how this template works. Besides, I can't understand how someone could misread this in the first place. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. It does not even look like a deletion template. And this just happens to be a template I use all the time. Undeath (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominator's rationale is incomprehensible. Powers ^T 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current tennis tournament (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Duplicates the functionality of {{current sport}}.Kanabekobaton (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete While it may be somewhat close to {{current sport}}, I think it may be useful in its own way, and I don't see a real reason to delete it. I see less of a reason to keep, however. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to {{current sport}}. Dl2000 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant and superfluous template. --Kildor (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect: Superfluous, redirect to {{current sport}}. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and do not redirect. Yet another example of a proliferating temporal template. {{Current sport}} handles the desire for usage adequately without cluttering up the template space. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – as per above. Jared Preston (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (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.