Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 26

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 to keep. Being somewhat familiar with series myself, I think there's enough to justify a nav box but probably not a need for all of those redlinks to become blue. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Beatmania games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redlink city, for a series of games where each individual entry in the series doesn't warrant its own article (interface changes, new options, and new songs are basically the only additions to new games) and the parent articles aren't even well-written. Feels kind of redundant with {{Bemani series}}, which is far more useful. — Chardish (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as the Dance Dance Revolution series, pretty much every game will get its own article with some of the games sharing an article due to being either direct ports or add-ons to existing titles (Look at the code and you'll see that there are several "entries" that link to the same article name). I agree that the articles are in a sad state. Myself and a few others are working on them, I created the template to set the framework (Putting the fourth leg on the chair before sitting down so to speak) and modeled the template after Template:Dance Dance Revolution games. What reasoning are you going by that says the template is worthless or doesn't possess the potential for growth for having "too many" edit links? As a red link encourages the creation of an article where none exists. Is there even a style article that says how much is considered too much? Even so, don't be impatient with a project that you don't have expertise in, and if you do have knowledge of the subject matter please contribute. I personally think that would be a better use of your time than looking for things to delete. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have noticed from my user page that I'm an administrator at Flash Flash Revolution. If it's important to you, I can show you pictures of my Beatmania import collection, my custom DDR pad, or my IIDX ASC. I'm no stranger to the Bemani world, but when I do work here I put my love of Bemani secondary to my desire to improve the Wikipedia project according to its own rules. I do know that a) templates of mostly redlinks are worthless when there's another template that already includes all the bluelinks, b) we should focus on improving the quality of the main articles before expanding into articles on each title in the series, and c) that summary style tells us that we spin off an article on a subtopic (e.g. 9th Style) when we have too much information on it to fit in the main article (e.g. IIDX in general). It is better to have one good summary article on Beatmania in general than two dozen stubs. Wikipedia's quality is not determined by the number of articles it contains. - Chardish (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rank elsewhere is unimportant, but I'm glad you appreciate the series as much as I and the others do... perhaps you could help out when you're not deleting things? Also linking the title page of Wikipedia policies and guidelines didn't really help explain to me what Wikipedia says about your specific issue with the template. The argument that individual titles don't deserve an article was raised with the DDR pages and shot down (The archive of the discussion is on Talk:Dance Dance Revolution) so I don't think it would fair much better with Beatmania. Try bringing it up on the talk page and see what the main Beatmania article editors have to say, my contributions were a since-I-was-there thing. As I said above I realize the state the articles are in. Since you can, why don't you help bring them up in quality instead of using them as leverage to argue the deletion of new articles on the subject? On the WikiProject proposal page there's a proposal for the Konami music game project, sign up and pitch in. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Template:Bemani series is a template of links to series articles, Template:Beatmania games will link to the games themselves and go further into detail with the series than a simple "home page" link. Why you think those two are duplicates is beyond me. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Key word: will. Why make a template for articles that don't exist yet? Furthermore, why generate more articles without improving the articles that already exist? How is generating more content preferable to bringing existing content up to article standards? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is being flooded. This is a very real problem that is not fixed by adding more articles. - Chardish (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you? You have the knowledge but won't fix the pages cause you're too busy keeping other articles from forming? You are your own enemy. And your logic is based on the assumption that what I'm adding is more garbage, Dancing Stage MegaMix was added by me without first fixing the other DDR articles, and somehow it's not garbage or worthless or needing to be deleted until the others are better. In fact, by adding well written articles to the mix I'm making the percentage of bad articles slightly smaller. You might not understand the need for the template, yes it's optimistic to put it in place now given that so many editors think like you, but it sets the stage for a more complete, concise set of articles on the subject, again, bring this issue up with those who created and maintain the existing articles all I did was contribute. It's going to be very hard (Read: impossible) to stop the influx of bad articles when those that care about it don't fix the bad articles that have the potential of being good articles, especially when they know how to. Cause if I'm not mistaken if the articles didn't have any merit at all they'd be deleted long ago right? Try taking your own pills and see what happens. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up wording, organizing the articles, finding citations, etc. - these are what improve Wikipedia, not merely the raw creation of new content. Also I've worked heavily on the IIDX article in the past, so don't say I'm not contributing.

What I am trying to prevent is having someone come along and say "Hey, I'm going to type everything I know about 3rd Style into this box." Then someone else has to come along and clean all that up, too. It improves the quality of Wikipedia if we focus on refining existing content rather than producing more. This is akin to cleaning a house before you decide to build an extra room on the side.

This is how we need to proceed: fix the core articles on the series, then work on expanding them, then break them off into sub-articles when the main article is too long. And a template of redlinks does nothing to further this aim.

Tell me - why is having multiple poor articles on IIDX preferable to having one good article? Please answer this question. - Chardish (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Puts into perspective a project that needs a lot of help and a lot of work from anyone with knowledge on the subject. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not a purpose for a navigational template. Navigational templates link between existing articles. - Chardish (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, there isn't consensus regarding that. I've often seen redlinks that were perfectly acceptable in a nav template. Maybe not as many as this, but who cares as long as the logic is the same. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Remove the redlinks and it's totally redundant with the other template listed above. And there is consensus against redundant templates. - Chardish (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Then we can just merge them.. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not really sure if there should be that many articles for something like this, but that's another issue for another discussion (from what I can tell it's the norm). -- Ned Scott 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, beatmania is just as well known and as vast as DDR (though it is just a tad more obscure in the US). We should seriously start making articles for individual Beatmania games like the DDR game articles. ViperSnake151 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• This is not a referendum on whether there should be more articles about beatmania. This is a referendum about whether this template meets the template guidelines. It does not. - Chardish (talk) 20:41, 5 March 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This template is for several wrestling stables that aren't active anymore. It's also speculative, as the groups aren't related except for the fact they include wrestlers from Canada. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support "Team Canada" is a quasi-common stable name in professional wrestling. Any links between these stables, barring their Canadian heritage (which isn't always even the case), are few and far between. JPG-GR (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete See same notes under NWO. LessThanClippers 19:20, 27 February 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was first instituted as the category Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame, which was unanimously deleted, then recreated as Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees, whereupon it was deleted again. The material was then recreated in template form as {{Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees}}, {{Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Critics Poll}} and {{Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Readers Poll}} by the same editor. Upon seeing these templates listed for TfD I deleted them under WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of material twice-deleted by CfD. A deletion review was opened and several editors indicated that the material should be restored and subjected to immediate TfD, which I have therefore done. Happy‑melon 10:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant to the list in the main article and clutterful in articles that in a number of instances are already overloaded with templates. This template is yet another attempt to end-run around the consensus that a list is the approriate format. Otto4711 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the template was created in response to a suggestion at the latest CFD, so this is most definitely not a case of tendentious editing to circumvent the CFD consensus. If it's too big, let's make it smaller (perhaps hide by default). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I suggested hide by default, too. Awards are a little tricky, and I don't think we yet have a very good policy on WP about them. They're not good for categories and usually die as "overcategorization", but the template lines look nice to me. However, obviously one doesn't want to go overboard with that. To me, I suppose the question is: Is this the most notable award in the jazz field? If so, then I think a template is appropriate (although not a cat, even so). If not, then I would worry about stacking templates for multiple awards. I suppose I think that ideally, if there are several prominent jazz awards, there would ultimately be a single, clean, non-obtrusive template for Jazz Awards; and for people / albums / etc. who have won only one award, the individual template would show up. In other words, maybe we can take this as an opportunity to build a new model / best practice for handling awards. --Lquilter (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer if we had a consistent approach to awards involving an awards section with wikilinks to lists of award winners (rather than categories), supported by WP:MOS. Unfortunately, we don't. What we have instead is an inconsistent mish-mash of award categories (e.g. all the subcats of Category:Award winners) and templates (not so nicely organized as categories, but one example is Template:Nobel Prize in Physics), as well as list articles which often contain the same information and typically more (like year) in a slightly different format. I agree that the question here boils down to: Is this the most (I'd say "a major") notable award in the field of jazz? Jazz Grammys are less exclusive but perhaps more notable. Nothing else at Category:Jazz awards even seems like a candidate (Big Band and Jazz Hall of Fame is defunct, and was apparently not very real to start with). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The template-creator's goal is to see that someone new to the field of jazz can find a list of notable artists to explore; not every artist on the Down Beat Hall of Fame list is linked to the Down Beat article (Billie Holiday, Jack Teagarden), so not every reader will know this list exists, and it is likely editors will not always agree on including this award in the article text. So the MOS-supported method does not work. I did not participate in the award categories discussion, but categories would be a better way to handle these than to have templates for every publication that publishes a list like this one. Otherwise templates would proliferate on Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis, and some templates will be disputed (or removed) as insufficiently relevant to the article topic. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Categories are not a good way to handle award-winners; there's a strong consensus that it is overcategorization to include all award-winners. For instance any Nobel Prize winner has typically won numerous other awards, large and small. There are other technical reasons why categories are often tricky for something like this: They are very difficult to police inclusion or exclusion from. For instance, I just realized yesterday that someone had depopulated an entire category, on a complete misunderstanding of how categories work. There was no way for me to look at the category page itself to see which articles had been removed -- related changes won't pick that up. If multiple people do it, or it is done over a period of time, there is literally no way to figure it out. The function that edg describes would be much better handled as a list, either in the article or separate.
      • edg, what do you think about the idea of having a single template of "Awards won" that, when clicked "show", then displays a single line for each relevant individual award, each with their own "show"? I'm thinking of spinning something off the WikiProjectBanners template. (Drafting at Template:Awardwinners and Template:Awardwinners/doc) --Lquilter (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If we have to go with templates, the collapsible container template seems like a good idea. I'll add further comment to Template talk:Awardwinners.
          I'm seeing from Category_talk:Award_winners#lists versus categories for award winners and Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 2 (not to mention the vaguely-exceptioned Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners) that I may be arriving new to a WP:DEADHORSE issue. However:
          1. As for overcategorization, if a reader has reason to navigate among "important jazz artists" in the manner described above, wouldn't categories then be helpful as a navigation aid from the article? Wouldn't this then be a "common-sensical exception"? It certainly seems more efficient and less intrusive than adding a template (of disputable importance in some articles) to every article that would be so categorized.
          2. The issue you are raising with the difficulty in monitoring changes to category membership is a general problem with categories, and has many implications outside the "awards" issue. While this is not the forum to request changes in the Wikimedia code, I think the ability to monitor such changes is sorely needed. Were this implemented, and were we able to watch articles coming and going within categories, would categories then be an acceptable way to handle these awards? Are we using templates mostly because it is hard to catch category vandalism?
        • Since Award categories are not currently an option, I'll drop it now. I'm not loving the use of templates as a solution, but the container template makes it less offensive to me. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the category issues not being unique to award-winners. However, I keep bringing them up everywhere, because a lot of people come to Wikipedia from sites like flickr, and think of categories like tags. So we have to do a lot of education about how they're different, what they are useful for, and what they're not useful for. Templates, I think, are sufficiently unique to wiki-dom that, while we have to teach people about them, we don't have to clear up misunderstandings. As for the specifics -- vandalism is one of the issues, user interface is another (much the same as with template clutter, i think, too many categories render it visually difficult to read through the list at the bottom of the page). Those are the biggies, but there are a number of other issues that come up too. Anyway, it is a bit off the topic here; I hope to see you on the category talk pages, too! --Lquilter (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sorry to point this out only now, but part of the problem with this template is that there are three (3) of them:

Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Critics Poll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Readers Poll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I listed all three in the previous nomination, but this TFD was relisted for just one template even though all three have been undeleted. For what it's worth, I am starting a discussion in Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Awards parameters about adding awards parameters to that template, which should make these templates unnecessary. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: there does not appear to be much enthusiasm for adding awards to Template:Infobox Musical artist. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Edgarde, your proposal appears to meet all the users' requirements as I perceived them. So far, in my opinion, it appears to present the best usefulness to investment ratio. Unfortunately, I was unaware of its existence until your recent warning. Also I believe that, if adopted, some re-engineering of the Down Beat information should be performed by transforming the relevant portions of the Down Beat article into lists. I would be willing to take on that task. Also, if your proposal is adopted, I would vote for the deletion of the three templates presently being discussed. Jazzeur (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - During my research of a mechanism that would meet Jazz artists' articles readers and researchers as well as the Wikipedia architecture community, I came across a situation involving Miles Davis, a well recognized Jazz artist, that made me decide to bring it as an example for discussion here. The navbox used for the Léonie Sonning laureates is truly similar to the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Critics Poll and Readers Poll navboxes presently being discussed. I consider that, as proposed in other interventions here, a music artists Awards and career recognition navbox, whether included in an artist's infobox or in an awards navbox would meet the two objectives that I evoked earlier. Jazzeur (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all three per WP:C. These are lists compiled using novel criteria and are almost certainly copyright. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 5 March 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 deletion. Unsuitable for template namespace. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Was nominated for speedy as spam. Am adding here out of courtesy - I have no opinion. — SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:29, 26 February 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Team has not done enough to warrant its own template. Templates for NASCAR teams are reserved for those that have won many races/championships or have ongoing partnerships with other teams. This team has not done that. --D-Day (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep They are in a partnership with Gillett Evernham Motorsports. --Boss Big (talk) 19:55, 26 February 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.