Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< May 12	May 14 >

1 May 13

[edit] May 13

[edit] Template:Bray Coastcare Group

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. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Created by a new user and if kept at all it needs to be moved into the article namespace. A quick Google search indicates that verifiability likely won't be a problem, but notability will be. — Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete It is not even notable as an article. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Template masquerading as an article. Would not be acceptable in mainspace, even less acceptable here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ
Delete - not a template and nn company. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Christendom College

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template probably used for fair use rationales/copyright statements. However, it is orphaned, and it would be trivial to type this out for the few images it would be used on.. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:32, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Delete Judging by the edit history of the template maker, this was only ever used on one image that was deleted for copyright problems. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:44, 15 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.

[edit] Template:CT of Mikael Häggström's brain

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template consists of an image w/caption. Only useful on a handful of articles and has obviously been substed into those as it is orphaned.. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:22, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998) flag IOC alias BiH

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Template is orphaned and consists only of the name of an image. Even if the image was actually in the template it would still serve little purpose due to the extraordinarily long title. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:12, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G6 or G2, perhaps. Looks like a malformed attempt to update Template:Country flag IOC alias BIH. Also, it should be pointed out that the latter is a meta-template, and therefore, the length of the name is irrelevant. Editors never type the "Country flag IOC alias" string in their wikicode. Be careful you don't draw conclusions about a template's usefulness from the length of the name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'll keep that in mind next time. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:01, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bc

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A template consisting only of ']]'. Useless as it takes more characters to type {{Bc}} than to type ']]'. Orphaned.. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:07, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Also note its companion, Template:Ob. Neither is currently transcluded or linked, outside of this TfD. Not seeing the utility, myself, but the creator appears to have made a large number of edits in template space and might have some reason for these (they've been notified of this thread by the nominator). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete both. These two were used in some fairly complicated templates, in which syntax was constructed in a way that prevented using plain "[[" and "]]" in some situations, hence the need for these templates. The templates using these two have since been re-designed, but I completely forgot about {{bc}} and {{ob}}. Currently, after the parser upgrade, these two are no longer of any use whatsoever. Thanks for catching and nominating them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete both per nom and with creator's recommendation. JPG-GR (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Banjo fusion genres

The result of the debate was Case closed - Template [made into a redir.] deleted per CSD G6, article that it was moved to PRODded. Non-admin closure. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ

Article erroneously created in Template: space. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:05, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Moved into mainspace; suggest deleting the template (now a redirect) and using {{prod}} on the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article now PRODded and template tagged with G6. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:12, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Aon hotVolleys Vienna

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Template consists entirely of a link to an article with the same title; redundant.. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:41, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom - useless template. Terraxos (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:!2

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:RockMFR CSD G3. JPG-GR (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Likely a test page, only consists of a templated userpage [which happens to be empty].. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:20, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Delete That user can create a subpage and do this kind of testing.--Crzy cheetah 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:-rtl

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This template seems to be redundant. Apart from the category, it consists entirely of '</div>'. I fail to see how that is a typing aid as it takes longer to type '{{-rtl}}' than it does to type '</div>'. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Delete, {{rtl-para}} can be used instead. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Amir. Redundant when exist {{rtl-para}} --AlefZet (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If we had some in-line template at {{rtl}}, a matching closing tag might be nice, but currently {{rtl}} simply redirects to {{rtl-para}}. I could be missing something, but I don't see utility, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pokeinfoboxmedium

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan template. {{Pokémon species}} and {{Pokémon character}} do the job. Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Clearly the truth, and it won't be used again. I figured this might as well be a speedy deletion, and this comes from me as the "creator" of the template. :P Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-09 NHL game logs

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Single use templates, these could only possibly be used in one article each, which are not even created yet. There is no need to template it, as the other 1000 articles for team seasons simply includes the charts in the article. Also, very poorly formatted - a simple copy/paste from the NBA templates, and while this can be corrected on the template, there really doesn't seem to be much use. If deleted, the category can go with it. — Reso lute 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

{{2008–09 Atlanta Thrashers game log}}
{{2008–09 Boston Bruins game log}}
{{2008–09 Buffalo Sabres game log}}
{{2008–09 Calgary Flames game log}}
{{2008–09 Chicago Blackhawks game log}}
{{2008–09 Detroit Red Wings game log}}
{{2008–09 Florida Panthers game log}}
{{2008–09 Los Angeles Kings game log}}
{{2008–09 Minnesota Wild game log}}
{{2008–09 Montreal Canadiens game log}}
{{2008–09 New Jersey Devils game log}}
{{2008–09 New York Islanders game log}}
{{2008–09 New York Rangers game log}}
{{2008–09 Ottawa Senators game log}}
{{2008–09 Phoenix Coyotes game log}}
{{2008–09 San Jose Sharks game log}}
{{2008–09 St. Louis Blues game log}}
{{2008–09 Tampa Bay Lightning game log}}
{{2008–09 Toronto Maple Leafs game log}}
{{2008–09 Vancouver Canucks game log}}
{{2008–09 Washington Capitals game log}}

Delete Single use templates which serve no purpose. Code might as well just been put on the season pages for those teams anyways as is done with all previous seasons. -Djsasso (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Single purpose and probably won't be used. --Michael Greiner 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Those templates are already subst-ed in their respective season pages, anyway. --Crzy cheetah 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah the author moved the code to the respective pages when he was notified of the TFD I believe. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete for now - too early to have those templates. The schedule for the 08-09 season hasn't been published yet. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete for now It is too early. Raymond Giggs 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NBA Championship Templates

The result of the debate was Deletion. There are several arguments which come into play here. Many of the keep arguments center around the fact that the templates are nothurting anything, and that they are helpful. These are not valid arguments. The arguments which do have the weight of policy and guidelines behind them are the style guidelines which say that navboxes should be kept to a minimum (that may be my paraphrase, but navboxes should not proliferate without limit as has been the case on some of these articles) That being said, I realize that these same types of templates have exploded in number on articles on players in other sports, such as Tom Brady and Brett Favre. However, there is inconsistency - note the lack of numerous navboxes on Wayne Rooney. This gap in policy has been brought to TfD many times and needs to be resolved. As it would be foolish to delete these templates at the current junction - especially because such a deletion would expand the scope of what needs to be deleted, I propse that these templates be placed in limbo, so to speak. I am certain someone would like to open a WP:DRV on this issue. There is insufficient policy evidence to close this debate in either direction and I am unwilling to close it as no consensus again. Therefore, I remand judgment to what is effectively a higher court. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

These roster templates for championship teams have been tfd'd and deleted numerous times now. They are a clutter on player pages and there is already a list of who was on that years team on the years page for that particular team. Players liked Bill Russell would have 11 for the various Championship teams he was on. The most recent applicable one is Stanley Cup winners. There have been similar tfds for olympic medalists in team sports as well. Not only is it a clutter on those pages but it is not defining of that player that he played with those particular players. Its is defining he won a championship of course but there are categories for that. Having played with a certain team mate is not defining and nav boxes should also only include articles which would otherwise already be linked in the article and not every player on every team a player played on would be linked in an article. . — Djsasso (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete A player's teammates in any given year is generally non-defining. Templates such as these are not necessary to denote that the player won a championship. Reso lute 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep All I do not believe that just using a category would be enough to help navigate through an entire championship roster. If clutter is the only issue, then we should figure out a way to reuse them, not delete them altogether. This seems like an unnecessary delete in my book. Dknights411 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am not suggesting that they all be placed in a category. The championship roster should be on the season page for that team's season. And a link to that page should be on the players article in amongst the prose mentioning that they won the championship. All those other players do not need to be directly linked to from this players page. That is the point, these other players are not defining of the articles main subject. The players on the roster is defining of that particular teams season, but the various players on it do not define the other players on it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Well, it is interesting to know about a player's teammates. A team needs good chemistry to win a championship, and a player's role at a particular point is defined by the teammates around him. I agree that the templates are ugly, but they're still helpful for navigation purposes. Zagalejo^^^ 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Correct the team needs good chemistry and is definately defined by the players on it. But each player is not defined by his other teammates. As mentioned below, the fact that it is interesting to know a players team mates can easily be covered by linking to the NBA finals page which would have the roster of the winning team. It's simply not necessary to have it listed on the players pages themselves. -Djsasso (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      - A player's role on a particular team is defined by his teammates. Take Ron Harper, who went from a 20+ ppg scorer with the Clippers to more of a defensive specialist with the Bulls. Because he played alongside Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Toni Kukoc, he had to take a different role than what he was used to. Zagalejo^^^ 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        If certain players have had an important role for the career of the player, it should better be mentioned in the article text. And besides, these templates are only for winning team rosters. What about navigation boxes for other team rosters? Wikipedia would really not benefit from such a development. The fact that a player won a championship is better highlighted by other means. --Kildor (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        I've thought about navboxes for every NBA team roster. As long as the aesthetic and technical problems could be worked out, I don't see a real argument against it. Zagalejo^^^ 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        I believe an article is better off if the number of links being provided is not growing too large. By linking to any possible related article, the most important subjects will somewhat be lost among the others. There is no guideline specific for navigation boxes, but the Wikipedia:Embedded list is the closest we get. The Related topics (navigational lists) section says: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. I do not think that every player that once played with Magic Johnson would (or should) be featured in the article. Is it likely that I would like to navigate directly to Marty Byrnes after reading the Magic Johnson article? I would say it is more likely that I want to visit the Los Angeles Lakers or 1980 NBA Finals articles instead. --Kildor (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Bingo! This comment is spot-on, and helps point this TfD discussion towards some relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        3 points: 1) If the navboxes are collapsible, then we don't need to worry about diluting the "more important" links. 2) I'd still like to browse through the names of Johnson's teammates, even if I don't intend to click on the links. The navboxes aren't solely navigational tools; they're a form of article content. 3) The navboxes are especially valuable when one is only interested in the championship teammates for a certain player. If I'm only interested in Robert Horry's teammates, I'd have to go through seven articles to collect the information I wanted without the navboxes. The navboxes do eliminate a lot of work. Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Of course, you would only see Horry's teammates on the championship teams only, so this argument isn't terribly compelling. I'm certainly not suggesting we create navigation boxes of team rosters for all teams for all seasons; see below for my recommendation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Well, the championship teams are arguably the most important teams in NBA history, and the ones that have the most resonance with people. I'm not trying to draw out this argument -I'm going to turn my attention to your proposal below- but I just hope to explain my thinking. Zagalejo^^^ 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Obvious strong keep all These are all helpful templates. Now I agree that some nba player articles like Bill Russell will experience clutter. But that can be fix through editing, not deletion. —Chris! _ct 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nav boxes are intended to allow a user to not have to search through the article to find links and to put them all in one place. An article is not going to list every player a player played with in a given year. Thus there is no need for a nav box of that players team mates for that year. I would actually argue that they aren't useful as they aren't linking relevant information to that pages subject. -Djsasso (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment If the article doesn't list the players in the given year, then there is no need for this nav box. What are you saying? Yes, I know that a nav box allow people to find links without having to search through the article. But that is definitely not the only use. It can be used solely for navigation purposes. What if one person want to view his team mate in one of his given championship team. Without this nav box, they actually have to go around searching for this information. So it is obviously less helpful to those editors. I don't understand why you would argue they are not useful.—Chris! _ct 02:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment There is a requirement that navboxes only include articles that would already otherwise be linked on the page. This is to stop any random page from being thrown in a template and then placed on a page. It is for templates like these very ones that that exists. The fact that these players played on a team one year with this player is not relevant to this player. There are a number of reasons why it is not useful, one of which being it links articles that aren't relevant to the player. Some browsers do not have the ability to hide the navboxes as is mentioned below as a way to save on clutter so the clutter still affects them. And it discourages non-regular editors from adding prose to articles because they think the information is already there in the template. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      - Comment One of your reason of the so called "unusefulness" on the nav box is not that valid. You claim over and over again that a player's teammates are not relevant to the player. Yet, you have provide no reason whatsoever why the teammates are irrelevant to a basketball player. As far as I see, the teammates are relevant to the player because they have or had play as a team. As for the ability to hide the navboxes, most browsers (include popular IE and Firefox) can hide them as far as I know. So that is not even a problem we need to consider. For nav box, I think the most important job it has is to make navigation easier. And these navboxes are certainly up for that job. Also I am pretty sure that some links to a player's teammates are in the article somewhere, so it doesn't really violates the navbox requirement. As I said, these navboxes are solely for navigation purpose and I certainly don't think they discourage non-regular editors from adding prose to articles. —Chris! _ct 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        A players teammate does not define who he is. The way being a male does or being from the united states does. Or being born in 1978 does. Yes they did play together. To use a "real world" example. Does the fact you may have worked with someone for a month way back in 1995 define you. Are you a different person because you worked with some random person for 1 month. Yes there are going to be some people who do change who you are. But not every single person. As for the ability to hide navboxes, you are incorrect. Not all versions of IE can hide them (I know this for a fact as I am using one of them right now at my work). Not everyone is able to use the newest and best browser out there or refuse to use the "newest and best". And yes some players will be linked in the articles, but not ALL of them. -Djsasso (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        I didn't say a players teammate define who the player is. But I am saying a players teammate is relevant to the player. Well, working with a person for a month might not relate them together. But for someone who play ball games together, win together, lose together for a period of a few seasons will certainly establish some sort of relationship. So to say that a player's teammate have no relation to the player is simply not correct. To answer the second part of your comment, I think that it is just unfortunate there are some people whose browsers cannot hide the templates. But that doesn't change the fact these templates are useful. To deprive the convenience for a majority of editors to navigate through articles just for some editors who uses old browser is simply not the right things to do. —Chris! _ct 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. I have long disliked these kinds of navboxes, and I am glad someone has taken the initiative to delete them. They are a prime example of "navbox creep". In my mind, navigation boxes should only contain lists of links that are tightly coupled together, and simply being teammates for a particular season is not a strong enough relationship between the articles linked from each of these boxes. I think there are much better ways of presenting this information in a navigable form—for example, each player article's infobox could have a field for "Championships", with appropriate links to the relevant playoff articles, which is where you'd find the winning team's roster. With a concrete example, Bill Russell's infobox would have links to 1957 NBA Finals etc., and that article would be expanded to include the championship roster. There is no reason to link to all of Russell's teammates for those 11 championships, plus the NCAA teams (!) from his article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You have long disliked these navboxes?? That sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And for saying that "simply being teammates for a particular season is not a strong enough relationship between the articles linked from each of these boxes," I don't think you know basketball. Basketball games are played by a team. So how can it be true that teammates do not a strong relationship with each other.—Chris! _ct 02:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment He isn't arguing to delete them because he doesn't like them so it doesn't fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT whereas your aguement has smacked of WP:ILIKEIT. He has reasoning behind his arguement. A personal relationship is very much different from relationship of information. Those articles are not related enough on an informational level. In otherwords they don't define the particular subject of the article. -Djsasso (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Reply above. —Chris! _ct 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Ok, if you prefer, I have long ~~disliked these kinds of navboxes~~ thought these navboxes are inappropriate, for reasons I shall now describe. I did not make an IDONTLIKEIT comment; I clearly described why I think these navboxes are misplaced. And I object to your comment of I don't think you know basketball. That's the second time I've been accused of that in this TfD discussion, which is quickly deteriorating with all sorts of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Holy crap, people, please stick to the content discussion! Finally, please do not confuse my words about the relationship between wikilinked articles with the relationships among teammates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    - You still have not explain why you think there is no relationship among teammates.—Chris! _ct 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep all There are no other recordings about team rosters for certain years (for 90's and older), and oftentimes they link in the title to the event. They are quite helpful. I could understand it if every team had a template for each season, but those are only for the NBA Champions. On player's articles, it is also possible to see how successful a player was in terms of NBA Championships (how many rings one has). As for players like Russell, all those championship boxes can be integrated into one box on the player's article (see example: NBA Finals Champions Navigation Boxes), so that there would be one box for all the templates. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to see how many rings by looking at a "Championships" field in the infobox at the top of the player article than by looking at a list of navigation boxes of other player names at the bottom of the article? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And why not? It makes the information just as easy to access, streamlines the page and still makes you aware at a glance that they were on a championship team. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. Unnecessary clutter redundant with season articles. Bill Russell's article is eye-searingly bad.-Wafulz (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, all those championship boxes can be integrated into one box at the bottom of the article (see example: NBA Finals Champions Navigation Boxes), so that all the templates would be inside a box, which would removed the "cluttered" look. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And as noted that isn't the only reason to delete. Nav boxes should only contain articles which would already normally be linked in the article they are on. All the players on a championship team would not be linked on any one players page. -Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You said, "Nav boxes should only contain articles which would already normally be linked in the article they are on." But that's not how it works in practice. See the nav boxes at Liechtenstein, for a random example. Yeah, I know, WAX -- but what's the point of having a navbox as you describe it? Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of nav boxes was always to not have to search through the articles to find the links. It wasn't to link to other interesting pages. That is what "See Also" sections are for. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've routinely used the navboxes to find "other interesting articles". As ugly as they may be, I think they're an excellent navigational aid. *shrugs* Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. As Wafulz notes, the bottom of Bill Russell demonstrates why this is horrible clutter. Stationary (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and how about the problem of an athletes teammates not being a defining characteristic for an individual? You wouldn't write a section in Russel's article saying "In year x, his teammates were A, B and C, while in year y, his teammates were D, E and F." It is just as meaningless to do it in template form. Reso lute 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why it should be in template form. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 12:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather curious where Wikipedia's guidelines argue that templates should be used to contain non-defining and often irrelevent information that isn't fit to be placed in prose. Reso lute 14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't irrelevant information, as all of the links in the box are connected to the article. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep All. The Bill Russell argument is truly hilarious. Check out this article as an example of how this can be easily discarded.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Bill Russell arguement isn't the only reason however, its one of many. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I think the "clutter" argument is a red herring, let alone truly hilarious. I think the bigger point here is that it is not useful or logical to provide navigation between articles whose only connection is that the players were teammates that season. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- And, just to pile on, do you have an actual argument behind your keep !vote? Reso lute 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep All - anyone who writes "being teammates for a particular season is not a strong enough relationship between the articles linked from each of these boxes" makes it readily apparent that they don't have a basic understanding of: (a) the game of basketball, (b) the needs of those of us who research NBA basketball past and present, or (c) what information a casual basketball researcher (aka "avid fan") typically comes to Wikipedia to find. For example, I knew Fennis Dembo was on one of the Detroit "Bad Boys" championship teams, but not the other, and I was trying to remember which one. So, I went to his wiki page, scrolled down, and lo-and-behold: He was on the '89 team but not the '90 team. Then, I wondered who took his place on the '90 team. So, from the navbox I clicked on Isiah Thomas, scrolled down again, and saw on the '90 team that it was David Greenwood or Scott Hastings who likely filled his place on the second championship team. This was all made possible (or at least much, much easier) by the navboxes. Gabefarkas (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Imagine that the 1989 NBA Finals and 1990 NBA Finals articles had complete (and much more useful) roster tables, as the 1977 NBA Finals article has. Wouldn't it have been easier to simply compare those two articles to find out what you wanted? That fact that you had to go through the Isiah Thomas article to answer your question perfectly illustrates why these navigation boxes are inappropriate compared to the suggested alternatives. You should have been able to link directly from Fennis Dembo to 1989 NBA Finals from the infobox in the Dembo article, then link from 1989 NBA Finals to 1990 NBA Finals using the appropriate {{National Basketball Association Finals}} navigation box at the bottom of that page. By the way, please refrain from comments that other editors "don't have a basic understanding". Focus on the content, not the person. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Gabefarkas needed just one mouseclick to find his information. Your model would require two clicks. And I understand where he's coming from with that "basic understanding" comment. Any casual basketball fan would be interested in a player's teammates. I can't understand why anyone would argue otherwise. Zagalejo^^^ 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Because not any casual fan would care about that information. Many of us on the deletion side are hardcore sports fans, and have routinely deleted such templates on the hockey side for the same reasons. There is no difference between basketball and hockey. Regardless, if the reader is interested in knowing who all played for team x in year y, it is far more logical to assume they would search for the article on that that team's season, rather than start guessing at players who might have played that year. Reso lute 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A casual fan wouldn't care, but Wikipedia isn't made for basic information, but for details. And yes, people could search on the team's season article. The problem, however, is that this information doesn't exist there. So basically, this information is one of a kind on Wikipedia, and unless team's season articles will be re-edited with this information, the templates should stay. You can't just remove information. Either you fix it, or keep it. And as it would take way too much time to implement all the information into respective articles, it is much wiser to keep the templates. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh but wikipedia is made for the casual user. Regular editors often forget it isn't made for the people editing, it is made for the people reading. If the information doesn't exist on the season page, then one of my points is perfectly presented. Non-regular editors when seeing a template on a page will not add the missing information to the article because they think it is already there on the template, not realizing a template is supposed to be in addition to the information that is already there. -Djsasso (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, you are arguing that these templates should be kept because edtiors are too lazy to complete the relevant articles? Reso lute 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If a template should be an addition to already existing information, then what exactly is the point of deleting the templates? Just add the info to the season pages. If the info was there on the season pages, I could somewhat understand the wish to delete the templates, but not if it's one of a kind on Wikipedia. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Any information that isn't already there when the templates are deleted can easily be merged onto the apropriate pages. Just because something is missing from another page does not mean an invalid template should exist. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If it can be easily merged, then do it. This information cannot be just deleted. And numerous users have already said that it is fast (one click) and thus quite useful, if somebody wants to find out about the Championship team connected to this person. And note that we're talking about Championship teams, not only season rosters, which means it is worth mentioning. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

- - - - But what if a reader begins by looking for information on a specific player, and then decides he/she is interested in that player's teammates? It's helpful to have that information right at the bottom of the page. Really, I don't see why we can't provide this information in both the season articles as well as the player articles.
      - For the record, Gabefarkas wasn't just "guessing" at players who might have played that year. I'm pretty sure he had some prior knowledge about Isiah Thomas and the Pistons, which allowed him to take advantage of the navboxes in a different way than the casual fan. (In truth, that was a very specific situation he described. That's not how the navboxes were really intended to be used.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- To User:Resolute: I think you are making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Just because such templates on the hockey side were deleted, doesn't mean such templates on the basketball side need to be deleted also.—Chris! _ct 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  - As opposed to the WP:ILIKEIT arguements that almost every other keep !vote has used? No one has even touched on why we should ignore the fact that nav boxes should only have links to articles which would already be expected to be linked in the article. To again use Bill Russell as an example. A template listing all of the 11 teams he was on that won the championship and linking them to the season pages would be fine. From there users could get the roster information they seek. This would be ok because all of those pages should already be linked in the article anyways. This is different from a template listing all the players that he played with on those teams as they would not already be linked in his page. -Djsasso (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  - No, I've made my relevant arguments above. The comparison to the hockey templates is to point out the fact that even hard core sports fans often find this information non-defining, never mind the casual fan. Unless, of course, you wish to argue that basketball fans are some kind of "superior breed". Reso lute 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep all Sportin This is the perfect way to navigate and learn. It is easy, fast and helpfull. 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. It also doesn't disturb anybody, but still people want to delete it. The problem should be fixed, not just removed, in order to come to a solution. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 12:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

- Comment Users have vote keep so many times why we are discusing this again and again????? [[User:|Sportin]]
- Comment If you read Michael Jordan article you can see that there is no clutter probelm using Navigation Boxes template. Sportin
  - Comment Except that they haven't been !voting keep over and over. They have been voting delete. And I know you know that as in your edit history right before coming to this debate that you !voted in another similar one about soccer championship winners and that one was closed as delete. Never mind that 5 tfds linked above that are also deletes. There is ample precedent that these type of templates are not useful and in fact can hinder article creation as non-regular users that come up to a page of a player and see he has a template for winning but has no prose about winning will not think anything of it cause the information is already in the template, whereas if they come up to an article with no template they are likely to go hey wait a minute he won the championship in 1982 and add the prose into the article. And I am sure everyone would agree we would rather the prose be in the article than just the template. -Djsasso (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso, Please do not bite the newcomers. Instead of plainly criticizing his comment, you should explain to him the right way to !vote in deletion discussions. Your checking of Sportin's editing history shows that you are trying to scare away those who attempt to participate in this discussion. —Chris! _ct 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, he is not a newcomer and has been involved in these tfds a few times now. Secondly just because I checked someones history does not mean I am trying to scare aware people. I check everyones history all the time. It is the reason why we all have edit histories. I do it so I can relate to them on a playing field they may understand better. For example if someone is not a NBA fan but is a huge NHL fan based on their edits I will use an example based on the NHL. Please refrain from WP:ATTACKing me when you have no basis in fact. -Djsasso (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Neither did I attack you nor does my comment above violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks in any way, so stop accusing me. Again, it is extremely bad faith for you to bite on editors who is trying to contribute or participate in a discussion. While it is nothing wrong to check people's history, it is certainly not a good thing to do when you are engaging in a dispute. Focus on content not contributor. Also an editor who participated a a few tfd still qualifies as newcomer. —Chris! _ct 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying I am trying to scare someone off is definately an attack and not assuming good faith, perhaps a more appropriate link was WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as you were definately not doing either of those. I was not biting a user, I was pointing out to them that they were providing false information which they knew to be false. A user who has been here since 2007 and has over 3000 edits is definately not a new user. Just because there userpage is redlinked does not make them new. I don't particularely consider this a dispute, I consider this a debate. I was focusing on the content of their statement. My comments had nothing to do with the editor themself. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your action of checking someone's history during a debate will definitely scare some off. I am speaking of truth and therefore not an attack and an act of good faith. —Chris! _ct 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It may scare someone off, but its your use of the word trying that makes the difference. I wasn't trying to scare anyone off. You assumed I was trying to. Anyways there is no point arguing this. -Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. Djsasso outlines the arguments for deletion very well. The same arguments have been given for recent nominations of similar templates, which all have been closed as delete. --Kildor (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Very weak argument, and more of a personal opinion. This is also not connected to other templates. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is connectected to other templates as previous deletions show there is a concensus among wikipedia as a whole that this type of navboxes should be deleted. Secondly other than you stating that you like them or that they shouldn't be deleted because other pages are missing the information you haven't come up with much of an argument for keeping them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many people actually participate in Templates for deletion on a regular basis? It's pretty bold to say there is "consensus among wikipedia as a whole" for deleting these navboxes. You can get four or five editors to delete anything here. (Especially when the creators of the navboxes aren't actually contacted.)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced by the deletion side. I see 1)vague assertions about defining vs. non-defining characteristics, 2)wild claims that only hardcore fans would ever want this information, and 3)concerns about technical/aesthetic issues which are potentially fixable. Ultimately, I've found these navboxes very helpful, and I'd be upset to see them deleted. Zagalejo^^^ 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I am not saying there is a concensus as a whole but that stating these templates have been deleted over and over again is an attempt to show that there is a concensus and precidence for deleting them. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be a earlier example at work here, but that really shouldn't dictate what should be tfd'. I'm just extremly frustrated that there was NO attempt at a discussion about this before nominating these templates for deletion. It shouldn't be just tag then discuss, there should have been discussion about weather or not to tag it in the first place. Dknights411 (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to disagree with that! In retrospect, it probably would have been better to discuss some proposed improvements on WP:WikiProject National Basketball Association before proposing template deletion. I would strongly suggest that these templates were only deleted after an improved replacement is in place on each transclusion (my suggestions are below). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete all -- I've put the {{Navboxes}} on Bill Russell, but I must agree these templates are mostly pointless. It is misplaced effort on the part of editors. Show some attention span, people and add content, not navboxes. Alaney2k (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of these navboxes are "pointless"? Please elaborate. —Chris! _ct 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would call it the "Yeah. So?" test. Player B was on the same team as player A. Yeah. So? It doesn't tell you anything about player A, and by itself there is no context. If you wrote in the article that player B was a wing-mate, or were a good passing combination, that's something. Can't represent that in the template.Alaney2k (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the NBA, then I think that's a fair assessment. But if you're coming at the templates with some prior basketball knowledge, then the templates can give you a good feel for the skillset of that player's team, which helps you understand how that player's team won the championship. There are lots of causual basketball fans out there who will recognize the names in those navboxes (at least, the templates for the more recent seasons), so the navboxes are not entirely useless. Zagalejo^^^ 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly —Chris! _ct 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We agree. As you indicated it is about the team, not the player. As for recognizing the last name of the other players, that fails the "yeah so" test too, sorry! :-) I will suggest a use for the template, but it does not need to be a template. The team's season page (e.g. 2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers season) There the template makes sense, as a roster. Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

- Comment Looking at history of Template:Boston Celtics 1960-61 NBA champions I can see that created at 25 October 2006. Some people worked for this and tryed to improve it spending time (having knowledge about basketball and this is very important). After 2 years some users want to delete them. So you must have in your mind that today maybee you are working for nothing bacause after 2 years someone who may not like your work will delete it. I can see that some of the users that vote keep have a knowledge about basketball and have spent time working for basketball at wikipedia. Why you don't respect their effort? User:Sportin
Keep all Obviously both sides have a case but I'm more in favour of keep. I've co-written/edited a number of FAs about successful NBA players, and I can say that most championship-winning teams are perceived to be built on the backs of at most a couple of superstars. In truth, there are many other important team mates that would never see the light of prose in the entries on those superstars. There are two possible scenarios. If I'm into basketball and I'm curious about who played with superstar X in championship-winning year Y, the box is handy -- I'm likely to come across useful information which I'm keen to explore without clicking (if I even think of it) the link to 19xx NBA Finals. If I'm just a "casual reader", the odds of clicking on the link to 19xx NBA Finals is no greater than looking at the box. Chensiyuan (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep all as of Chensiyuan and WP:IAR. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I do NOT see that navboxes make the article worse, so why delete? —Onomatopoeia (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - in regards to the arguement give, if these templates are "Taking to much space" then why is it ok for having templates for individual trophy winners? How is Pavel_Datsyuk related in any way to Thomas Vanek? (plus-minus leaders) Chaldean (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are no templates for individual trophy winners on that article. What you are referring to is a succession box, and that is an entirely different issue altogether. (In that context, I'm no fan of them either, personally). Regardless, this is a WP:WAX argument. Resolute 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - We need to use {{Navboxes}} more. The proliferation of navbox templates is making for some ugly pages, people. Alaney2k (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments I am sick of the "we know basketball and you don't" implications of superiority permeating this TfD discussion. For the record, I first started watching the NBA before some editors in this debate were even born, and I was a season ticket holder for three years (some time ago), so let's assume I know something, ok? All I'm asking people to do is to use a little logic and perhaps a little imagination so we can progress towards the Right Way™ of presenting this information. Using Robert Horry as an example, I think there are much better solutions than the current mess of navboxes at the end of that article. It looks like a plate of hurl. I think there are several ways in which NBA player articles could be improved:
1. Add a "Championships" field to {{Infobox NBA Player}} and {{Infobox NBAretired}}. In Horry's case, that field would be populated with something like: [[1994 NBA Finals|1993–94]] and so on.
2. Update all of the articles in Category:National Basketball Association Finals to include the rosters of the championship teams. (Some do, some don't.)
3. Add complete rosters to articles like 1993-94 Houston Rockets season. This is an entirely logical place for them, and affords much more detail than just a list of last names in the navigation box. Also, you'd do this for non-championship seasons too (such as 1992-93 Houston Rockets season), so it's a far more useful solution than the championship-only navbox approach used now.
4. Add a "Career statistics" section to player articles. For Horry, it might look like:

Year	Team	GP	GS	MPG	FG%	3P%	FT%	OFF	DEF	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	TO	PF	PPG
1992–93	Houston	79	79	29.5	0.474	0.255	0.715	1.4	3.5	5.0	2.4	1.0	1.0	1.97	2.70	10.1
1993–94	Houston	81	81	29.3	0.459	0.324	0.732	1.6	3.9	5.4	2.9	1.5	0.9	1.69	2.30	9.9
and so on

Doesn't this all seem more effective and logical than what we're doing now? Each player's article only includes the relevant wikilinks for that player, such as to the specific teams he played for and the specific championship series he's been part of. Wikilinks to his teammates are one level of indirection away from that, which is much more appropriate for player articles. Also, I think I understand some of the frustration from people who have worked on these templates for a couple of years, but please look at the problem with an open mind. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this all seem more effective and logical than what we're doing now? No because none of your suggested changes provide links to a player's teammates, which is really the biggest problem with the deletion of all these template. —Chris! _ct 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it provides links to where the team mates should be located. Links to the players should not be directly on each others page. -Djsasso (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Very asinine. It would not only mess up the article, but would take millions of years to do. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things, how would adding the information that should be there in the first place mess up a page? Secondly, just because it will take awhile to do doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. That is sort of the point of wikipedia, its an on going work in progress. -Djsasso (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need, however, to rework this, as the information is already present in a non-disturbing way. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion, its obvious there is also a great number of people who find the information is currently presented in a disturbing way. -Djsasso (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the essence of the discussion: Do we agree that it is very useful to have roster lists for each team? Yes, and not just for championship teams. Do we think each of those lists ought to be included on each article for every list member? I think no, but this is apparently where there is some dispute. My proposed solution offers a logical place for team rosters—championship or not—while the current status quo makes a distinction between championship teams and all the rest, with an illogical place to find them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you took the initiative to move this discussion forward. As I said above, the distinction between championship rosters and non-championship rosters is not abitrary. The championship teams are arguably more important than the others, and there's a more immediate need for readers to get a feel for a player's championship team roster. But, overall, I think your proposal is pretty good, and I wouldn't fuss about removing the championship navboxes once your proposal is implemented. (I'd still like to keep the championship rosters for the time being, because regardless of everything the deletion side has said, I do find them useful as a Wikipedia reader.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Responding both of you together: Well, that is why we are having this argument. You two think the links to the players should not be on the each others page. Ok, but why? I think the delete side is trying dodge this question. As I said, I don't see how it is illogical to have links to the players at the bottom of the page. I just don't think the new proposal will even be sufficient to replace all these nav boxes. —Chris! _ct 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that question has been answered a number of times in a number of ways. But here is one very simple reason, the more minor related links you throw into nav boxes at the bottom of the page reguardless of if you can hide the boxes themselves or not the harder it becomes to figure out which links are the actual important ones. Even if you hide the links when you expand them suddenly you are faced with say 50 links...how is someone who isn't fully versed in the subject supposed to know which 3 out of the 50 are the actual important and relevant links. Which is why WP:EMBED specifically says Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. And has been pointed out not all the players on the team would have been featured on a particular players page. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly because not all the players on a championship team are featured on a particular players we need these templates. So that editors can use the links to navigate through article. I think this is a perfect situation where WP:IAR applies. The WP:EMBED is restricting editors to conveniently use these links to look up relevant information and should be ignored. —Chris! _ct 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is not restricting them from finding that information. They simply click the link to that championship team and low and behold there is a whole roster sitting there full of not only player links but the team/player stats etc. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is easier to click once than click twice. —Chris! _ct 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And its easier to find the information you want when you don't have to wade through a hundred links and 10 different nav boxes to find it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with keeping the links to other players on the players' pages. I still haven't been convinced that there's anything wrong with that. (Are there any actual studies to show that "overlinking" is a real problem? People don't just randomly click on links hoping to find something useful. If the content is organized properly, they can find what they need.) Ultimately, though, I think Andrwsc's proposed solution is a reasonable compromise. If it takes me a few more mouseclicks to find my information, then I can live with it. It's not the sort of thing I really want to argue about anymore. Zagalejo^^^ 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider the wordings of WP:EMBED, I believe there is consensus on not including too many links in an article. I think Andrwsc's proposal is a good idea, but it will take some time to make it happen. It is perhaps a good idea to subst these templates on the corresponding finals articles (if rosters are not already present) in order to preserve the information gathered in these templates before deleting them. --Kildor (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider the wording of WP:IAR, if WP:EMBED prevents editors from improving the article, ignore it. It is just not smart to delete everything and having to express essentially the same info in a less convenient way. —Chris! _ct 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a fair amount of the people involved in this discussion seem to think that these templates do not improve the article - rather the opposite. --Kildor (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not arguing with you or anything, but there is also a fair amount of the people involved in this discussion who seem to think that these templates do improve the article.—Chris! _ct 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete Having categories or articles for the championship teams is more than sufficient to satisify the linking requirements for those readers starting on a player's page and wishing to go to another player on the same championship team that was not otherwise sufficiently relevant to make it into the article text. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment If those templates should be deleted, which doesn't seem likely as of now, all the naysayers can get right to work and implement all the information into articles. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Remeber this isn't a vote, so just because people come and say Keep, if they don't have valid arguements it can still be deleted. Its not purely a numbers game. And yes I am sure if they are deleted people will get right on placing the rosters on the specific season pages so the information isn't lost. subst'ing doesn't take too long. -Djsasso (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right. The deletion side has not been able to argue convincingly that deletion is a good idea, so keep is more likely —Chris! _ct 22:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An I like it argument and an ignore all rules argument vs arguements based on policy and the manual of style. Hmm... yeah definately looks that way... :P -Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

- - Comment WP:CLN. Categories, lists and templates are not mutually exclusive. There is no policy stating that only one of those formats can be used for any particualr subject matter. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it's time for somebody to say this. There is obviously a HUGE gap between the objectives from those who want to delete the templates and those who want to keep them. And I'm sorry to say that both sides aren't really accomodating at the moment. Whether or not the templates should get the axe is not the only thing I'm seeing here. There seems to be a lack of respect between the two sides (and I regrettably do include myself in this as well, and I'm sorry for it). Djsasso's assertion in his last comment is particularly discouraging. Just because this isn't a numbers vote doesn't mean we should devalue their concerns about the issue. Besides, determining which arguements are ineed "valid" varies from person to person, so you can't just make a deletion decision based on just one view of the validity of an arguement. Honestly, each side seems to have one mindset going into this with no room for compromise or discussion. This whole tfd represents two groups of people with completly different "solid" opinions on what should or should not be a part of an article, and is starting to look like its decending into a shouting match. Maybe both sides should set their own prides aside, as a person who looks after the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia, or as someone who edits the NBA and other basbetball articles. I really think we should just restart this whole discussion trying to be a bit more accomodating than before. Dknights411 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't devaluing their concerns. I was just letting the other editor know that it was incorrect to assume based on the fact there have been a number of drive by keeps that it was going to swing that way. I see their point of view and understand it could be discouraging to see their work deleted. I can see why they feel the links can be helpful, but I obviously completely disagree. I think it does completely the opposite to have so many links at the bottom of a page that are not useful. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Well said. I was hoping to spur some constructive discussion with my proposal above, as I also feel that a mass TfD was not the best way of initiating these improvements, despite my conviction that these improvements are absolutely necessary. In general, I think that before we delete templates in widespread usage, we need to install a better alternative. However, it was awfully discouraging to see that my proposal is "very asinine". I was hoping that there would be some more open-minded, thoughful discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I can see why a mass nom was not a good idea. I couldn't think of any further way to cut the number down than to split it by league. We deleted the NHL ones, and at that time notified all the major sports projects to join that discussion. Almost no one from the NBA project showed up and thus it seemed clear that NBA editors would not have an issue with having them deleted so they were the next ones nominated. -Djsasso (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually now that I look back the person who did the notifying notified the college basketball project instead of the nba one. So it makes sense that no one showed up. That being said no one really showed up from any of the other projects either which I suppose could have been a not my sport I don't care type of reason. -Djsasso (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep and comment While the "navbox bloat" issue may be a problem, the templates provide an information (the names of the players of a champion team, which is a defining information, unless basketball has suddenly turned into an individual sport) which is hardly, if not at all, found in other pages. So for now, the templates need not to be deleted; instead we should agree on a better way to present the data contained in the templates, and only then delete (for example sum them all in a page named NBA Champions team rosters), or in a guideline to their use, such as putting them in the team page only instead than in all player pages. Asendoh (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- You do have a point. I think that there could be a better way to fix this problem. —Chris! _ct 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - A blindingly obvious first step would be to add the rosters to each of the articles in Category:National Basketball Association Finals, I would think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Yeah substing them onto those pages would be the most obvious step and one I will do later tonight when I have some time. -Djsasso (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      - Do you really want to subst them? All you'd get is the bullet-separated list of last names in a small font size, which is next to useless. If we're going to do it, let's do it properly. See 2007 NBA Finals#Playoff rosters for an example with complete rosters, which is what I have in mind. I'm not so keen on the gaudy table formatting, but the information shown in those tables is pretty helpful. Even better would be a statistical summary of each player in the series, but that could be a second step. I'm just not so sure that subst'ing a navbox is the best first step. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Well I just meant so they atleast were somewhere for now. -Djsasso (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep and comment I think they do have value in the fact that they are the only page/template that consistently has the roster of the championship teams. Some team/playoff pages do and some don't. Unless there is an effort put forward to correct this I don't think it is right to remove this piece of information. As for the value of the information, as a fan it is interesting to know who besides the stars were on the team. Most people know that Shaq was on the Lakers championship teams of the beginning of the decade but how many was AC Green on and how many of them was Horace Grant on. This is something that the boxes give in a clear and straight-forward fashion. As for the bloating of the pages, this will only occur in a few cases (Russell, Horry, etc.) and I don't think it looks that bad. It shows that this player did have success in multiple years. Now if these roster templates were made for every year or every minor accomplishment (i.e. Pacific Division Champs) then that would be too far. But in this case I like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreasjb (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It was never meant to delete any information. The objection is to where and how it is presented. The most logical place to include rosters is on the team or finals articles, and not on the articles for every single player. I have now checked every template that is listed in this nomination and copied the rosters to the corresponding NBA final articles, unless a team roster was already present there. So deletion of these templates will not make any information being lost. --Kildor (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep and comment I don't have too much time to waste so I did not read the full discussion. But I say keep it, its not that much clutter (one turn of my mouse wheel and its out of my sight). Also, it's interesting to see how many championships someone has been apart of. Whoever nominated it for deletion is way off, in my opinion. I think every player bio should include every piece of information possible (including complete season by season stats and other facts of interest).--Futbol81 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps you should read the full discussion, as your suggestion is precisely what I have proposed. Instead of navigation boxes with links to teammates on each player's bio, I want to see complete season by season stats, with links to the team by season pages (e.g. 2007-08 Los Angeles Lakers season) where you would find the rosters. This approach is superior to the current situation for two reasons: 1. you would also be able to see the roster for all non-championship seasons, and 2. you would have much more detail attached to each roster than just a list of last names and jersey numbers, which is all you get now. It's more information, and more logically presented. How can that be a bad thing? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are trying to mislead this editor as your proposal is definitely not the same as his suggestipon. Your suggestion called for the deletion of these templates and replace them by season by season stats. What User:Futbol81 wants, if I interpreted correctly, is keeping all these templates while adding season by season stats to a player's bio. —Chris! _ct 06:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User Chrishomingtang is correct, I would like to see both the season by season stats and the templates. User Andrwsc also has good suggestions, however, I think keeping the templates and incorporating team season pages would best serve wikipedia users and would greatly ease navigation. A link to the team's season would be good to add onto the current templates.--Futbol81 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think these are helpful and should be kept. --SportsMaster (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Improve them instead of deletion Raymond Giggs 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Except that the problem is that they exist, so in order to improve them you would need to remove them. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep All Seems like the guys from the hockey project are moving in on the other navboxes. Seems like a personal preference thing to me and I agree with the editor who cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I still haven't heard a reasonable argument that these navboxes take AWAY from the respective articles. Regardless, I reiterate my arguments from the hockey navbox debate. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You don't feel they are reasonable, I think all of the arguements are very reasonable. Most of the arguements to keep are very much WP:ILIKEIT arguements. Besides in deletion debates onus is on the keeps to prove why it should be kept rather than on the people wishing to delete. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  - As a general point, WP:ILIKEIT arguments should carry some weight here. This isn't a notability discussion, like the ones at AFD. We're just trying to see whether readers find the navboxes helpful. Zagalejo^^^ 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I can see your point on that, which would of course mean that WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguements would also hold the same weight. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      - That's true. Zagalejo^^^ 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just to throw the arguments I used in the hockey debate out there. The clutter issue is a non-starter, as in cases were there are a number of navboxes, they can be collapsed into one (see Babe Ruth). Regarding the argument of being non-defining, I think it is exactly the opposite. If the template in question were a random season, Template:1992 Los Angeles Clippers for example, I would see the point, but the fact that a player played on a championship team in a major league is defining and notable, and that grouping is notable. There is no wiki policy stating that that particular group can only be expressed in one particular format. See WP:CLN. I also think that the navbox attracts more editors to the linked pages, which increases possible contribution to those articles, though this is just personal speculation. Regardless, I reiterate that this seems more like a preference battle than anything. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  - No but, WP:ENBED says that articles should only be listed on nav boxes that would already otherwise be in the article. That is where most of the links in these nav boxes fails. And again the fact they played on the teams is notable and defining. Completely agree. What I don't agree with and I think a number of the others on this side of the issue don't agree with is that they fact they played with a particular player on that team is defining. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you are continuing with this WP:EMBED argument. In any case, I already explain why this is a non issue per WP:IAR. —Chris! _ct 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply because WP:IAR is brought up by the keep side in almost every single controversial deletion debate, and rarely with valid reason. We can't ignore every rule because the rule is not liked by one subset of wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is funny for you say so because I already provide a valid reason below. If you feel that my reasoning is invalid, try refute it. Simply calling it invalid doesn't make it so.—Chris! _ct 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say yours was in that comment.? That being said I have refuted it a number of times. The idea behind IAR is that the letter of the policy sometimes doesn't mesh with the spirit of the policy. In other words its about common sense and making sure the spirit of the policy is followed even if in a unique situation the wording would contradict the actual purpose of the policy. In this case the spirit of EMBED is to make sure there isn't a very large list of weakly associated links tacked onto the page. So deleting them perfectly fits both the letter and the spirit of EMBED. -Djsasso (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of common sense, it tells me that deleting these templates is a mistake. Now, because the wording or spirit of EMBED is preventing editors from keeping them or from using them continently, then according to IAR, it is a correct decision that we should ignore this policy regardless of what the letter or the spirit says. Even if we do consider the EMBED, deletion doesn't make sense. If the "spirit" of EMBED is as you said and I quoted "to make sure there isn't a very large list of weakly associated links tacked onto the page," then it doesn't apply to the current situation because the links in the list are definitely not weakly associated. Unless you can make a valid point on how the links are loosely associated, or on how IAR isn't being applied reasonably, I think you will have hard time convincing the keep side that deletion is a good idea.—Chris! _ct 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its easy to show they are weakly associated. They would not otherwise be featured in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"They would not otherwise be featured in the article!" That doesn't mean the teammates are loosely associated. It is actually quite the opposite when you think about it. It is exactly because the teammates would not otherwise be featured in the article that we should keep these templates, so we can make sure that these teammates links are featured in the article.—Chris! _ct 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think none of deletion arguments make sense. First, they tried to go with the clutter argument. When editors pointed out that that is really an improvement issue, not a deletion one. Then the deletion side attempted the "teammates have no relation to a player" argument. When that didn't work, they tried to use WP:EMBED to justify their deletion nomination. This became a non issue because WP:IAR states that if a rule prevent us to wikipedia, ignore it. So after all this effort, the deletion side is leading us through loops and circle and is basically trying to justify their WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I pretty much agreed with User:Masonpatriot's assessment. BTW, most of the keep !votes are not just WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but argument with valid reason. I think it is time to close this, as this deletion nomination is wasting our time when all of our efforts can go to writing and improving this project. —Chris! _ct 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually if you read the nomination WP:EMBED as an arguement was in the original nomination. No one in here has given a valid reason why we should use WP:IAR and ignore WP:EMBED. Embed exists exactly for lists of this type. This is the whole reason why it exists in the Manual of Style. If you think we should ignore a particular rule, you need to have a reason why it would improve wikipedia to ignore it, currently its quite clear there are a large number of people who think that it doesn't improve wikipedia by keeping them. So until a reason is given to ignore a rule, yes most of the !votes are WP:ILIKEIT. -Djsasso (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I already explained that. Because WP:EMBED is preventing editors from using these templates to navigate through teammates' articles which are extremely relevant to a player. Based on the exact word of the rule, these templates should not exist because the player article might not have links to the teammates' articles. But logically speaking, of course they should exist because they are helpful. That is where WP:IAR applies. —Chris! _ct 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would say they are not helpful, as they clutter the page by have unhelpful links among helpful ones. Clutter in the sense that there are so many links, not as in how they look on the page. It becomes hard to identify which are the useful links and which are the unuseful links. Which is the point of that rule, to stop from having weakly linked articles linked in such a manner which will cause pages to have an over abundance of navigation links obscuring the actual useful ones. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, you are repeating the same argument that didn't work before. Clutter is an improvement issue, not a deletion one. And it doesn't make them unhelpful. If you have any suggestion on how to avoid that problem, perhaps start that discussion on the template talk page. But not a deletion discussion. —Chris! _ct 17:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No the clutter arguement used before was about how they looked on the page and yes it was mentioned how that can be fixed. This is a clutter arguement based on how many unuseful links there are. Which is why I specifically explained how I meant clutter in this instance. It's like you don't even read what people are writing. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what's useless to one person may be useful for another. People come to articles looking for different things. And as I said above, people don't randomly click on the blue links hoping to find something helpful. They usually have some idea what they hope to gain from a certain link, based on the context of that link in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but finding that link they are looking for among 100 links they aren't looking for makes it needlessly hard. When if you have 5 links that link to the 5 championship teams for example where you could find the other links related to that team would be considerably easier than sifting through 100 links. -Djsasso (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Each template is separated, so how can there be 100 links when there are less than 20 links on one template.—Chris! _ct 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you might not know which template the link you are looking for is on. I believe it was you yourself that indicated you wouldn't necessarily know which team a certain person you were looking for was on. Nevermind the fact that if you knew who you were looking for you wouldn't need the template anyways and could just do a search on their name which would be faster than finding the link. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But each template has a name (eg. Chicago Bull 19xx-xx championship), so you know what team championship roster you are looking for. I think a person might not know everyone on that team, but basketball fans definitely have some previous knowledge about some players, like Micheal Jordan. —Chris! _ct 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But how does that make it easier. It actually takes more clicks this way. One click to expand all the templates, One click to expand the specific template you want to use and then a third click to open the link you want. As opposed to on uncollapsed infobox with all their championship teams listed. So it would take one click to get to the championship team and one click to get to the specific player you want for a total of 2 clicks. And I only mention this because someone above mentioned how this solution would be more clicks when it would actually be one less. -Djsasso (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you're referring to my comment, I should explain... If you only need to get to one specific player, then it might take up to three clicks to reach that page, depending on how the navboxes are organized. But the navboxes definitely save time if you want to gather information on multiple players. If I want to know which players played with Michael Jordan on each of his championship teams, then I'd need at least six clicks to find my answers without the navboxes. Zagalejo^^^ 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You would still need 7 clicks if they were nav boxes. One to open the container that holds all the navboxes and 6 to open the individual templates. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you're right. Never mind. Although we could probably streamline things so that all the championship templates open at once. I don't know off hand how to do that, but it seems feasible. Zagalejo^^^ 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out one benefit with the template. If an editor just want to look the championship roster that the player once belonged in. They can look at the template to get that info without even leaving the article. So that is helpful.—Chris! _ct 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And it takes the same if not more effort to open up the templates as it does to get to the other page. So I still don't see how it makes it easier. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, it does take slightly less time to open a template than to move to an entirely different page. Sometimes it will take several seconds to get to another page. I've never experienced such delays opening a template, though. Just saying. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

From that standpoint you are probably correct, but the time clicking the extra links to open the templates probably evens it out. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Drive character box

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an orphaned copy of {{Infobox character}} with just a couple of extra options. Completely useless. Never used for a year. Magioladitis (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom - unnecessary template. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Midkemia character

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan template. It was used only by one article, but not anymore. Not useful. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom - unnecessary template. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden category: Non-talk pages that are automatically signed