Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

Template:Chess position

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Chess position (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was replaced in 2005 with Template:Chess diagram. There is no reference to it in main space, only old talk pages and user pages. Time to delete it. SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – change all {{chess position}} to {{chess diagram}}, then delete. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, Chess Position is not used. If not it can be deleted. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect to Template:Chess diagram. There is no reason to destroy the revision history. — Reinyday, 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (or at least delay deletion). Template:Chess position is currently being used on almost a hundred pages, including the Chess Portal. I tried to quickly switch a page over from the {{chess position}} to {{chess diagram}}, and it seems I was not able to easily do it yet. I will have study the matter more to figure out how to do it. Also, I like the larger size squares/pieces and colors. They are better for playing a chess game with, in my opinion. If I think so, somebody else on some Wikimedia page may share my opinion. It would be a good idea to retain this template somewhere. H Padleckas (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's easier to play a game with, because of the larger square pieces. It's harder to fall for stupid traps. Also, consider the historical interest! I'd rather keep the old Chess championship on Wikipedia in the diagrams they were originally played in. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There seems to be a predilection for deleting things that it does not make sense to delete. There seem to be almost 150 instances of this template still in use. Transferring or deleting those almost 150 positions will waste time and effort better spent elsewhere. I get the feeling there must be more effective and efficient means of freeing up space than this. Identify the largest unused files and then delete them. Going after templates like this one is a waste of time. I suspect this entire system of putting articles and items up for deletion is being manipulated by trolls and vandals. Unless there is a clear unambiguous reason to delete the answer should be keep. Lambanog (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The editors who are asking for this template to be kept because they like it for playing chess games might want to read Wikipedia:UP#Games, which is part of the guidelines on what user pages are not supposed to be used for. --RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. GUIDELINE, RL0919, not POLICY. And please note the existence of the Department of Fun and the category for Wikipedia games. If this should be deleted, everything in there should. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Reading my comment above, I used the word "guideline" not "policy", so I'm not sure what your point is. In any case, please note that I did not say the template should be deleted. If the sole usefulness of the template is to play chess on user pages, then probably it should be deleted, but I did not state such a conclusion. I also don't see a lot of relationship between this template and the other pages you mention. I recommend reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you want to make such comparisons. --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment/Keep. Although the template may have been superseded, that does not mean that it cannot necessarily be deleted. Having looked at the two Templates, I have an idea. One is a red colour and one (this one) is green. Could we not keep them both, update the code so that this one matches the other one, and then offer them both as alternatives? Green or red?Help!!! (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. You can use transparent PNGs for changing the colour. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as it is redundant and unused in article space. If you want bigger squares, then why not add a width option to {{Chess diagram}}. If you want an alternative colour scheme, then why not add that to {{Chess diagram}}. Keeping this just for historical reasons is unnecessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep since they are two different templates with completely different chess board diagrams. Also, as Lambanog said, this template is used on hundreds of different pages. Gnowxilef (talk) Hello! Goodbye! 19:36, 17 November 2009 (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.

Template:Printable

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This template is redundant with the link in the left sidebar, which itself is only needed for non-CSS browsers or for troubleshooting. See Help:Printable for more information. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - seems redundant, agree with nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This template was deliberately created to be used on pages like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/V&A rules where it is necessary to provide a big obvious link to the "printable" option. The museums found this to be a useful aid to participants in this event, because the great majority of participants were not regular Wikipedians and would not have been able to easily find an obscure link on the left sidebar.--Pharos (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the Printable link does not actually print anything, nor is it really a print preview? It is only useful for older browsers that do not support CSS print rules such IE6 and older. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The "printable" option here serves exactly the same function it serves in the left sidebar, except that the non-Wikipedians this is meant for are even more likely to be using older versions of browsers (IE6 is in fact still the most popular browser).--Pharos (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 17 November 2009 (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.

Template:ScrollbarTOC

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This template places the table of contents in a scrolling box. This violates the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and Wikipedia:Accessibility#Scrolling and collapsible sections. Similar templates that placed the references in a scroll box have previously been deleted; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref . -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Placing the TOC in a scrolling box will break it for quite a lot of uses. Since the TOC is the most important navigational tool in any article, breaking it will break navigation in those cases. Even where it doesn't break things, it still adds an ugly scrollbar. For pages with formatting issues in the first section, there are other fixes available that don't cause such problems. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – The MOS actually says: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists). Because the TOC would be considered a navigation box, it would be accepted, and so, I keep. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - A TOC is not a navbox (understanding that a navbox is a box with link to other articles, generally). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and add code to make sure it can't be used on article or talk pages. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I considered adding namespace detection, but the use is still questionable. The TOC will still have accesability issues, and even non-articles should be mostly accesible. If a TOC is just too long, there are templates to limit the depth. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per accessibility issues. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 17 November 2009 (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.

Template:Inline need translation

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

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Inline need translation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason to have this template, its not in use and {{notenglish}} does the job fine Jac16888^Talk 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and rename or create a shortcut for. Perfectly good for marking specific sites that are in dire need of translation, in a partially or mostly English article. Should be used in conjunction with notenglish. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. {{Notenglish}} is a full-article header, whereas this is for inline use, so they are not redundant. I would hope that the need for using this would be sporadic, so I don't think it is a problem that it is not being used at this moment. (Note: I updated the TfD notice on the template to use the inline version.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The current template can be changed to refer to a section, like so {{Notenglish}}, an inline template will simply never be used, it is far too complicated a template name for starters, and articles where just a line needs translating are non-existent, there is no reason to keep this--Jac16888^Talk 18:54, 16 November 2009 (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.

Template:Filipino food

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

The result of the discussion was Keep and discuss renaming, presumably "Filipino cuisine" was the intention but as there was no discussion of the proper name a rename is not binding from this decision.. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Filipino food (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like many other dishes in different cuisine, Filipino cuisine has many foods included under it. It is impossible to list all of them into a single navigational template since the list of food is complex and growing almost everyday. It is also redundant to categorizing each article, concerned article into "Filipino dishes" category. Perhaps categorizing these articles would be better, than to find them into a template that seems to be not useful. What is the point of integrating them into a single template if there are so many food in Filipino cuisine? JL 09 _^q?c 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete - we shouldn't generalize about country-lists of food. Anyway, Filipino food is quite extensive, so delete. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the creator of the template. I have been doing extensive rewriting on the entire topic of Filipino cuisine. The template is based on Template:Thai cuisine. The template is a very useful navigational tool that allows readers to quickly navigate the topic. Interest in different cuisine I would argue is largely exploratory in nature. The template is not meant to be exhaustive, but people interested in exploring a different cuisine often do so by sampling, and the template by allowing people to do exactly that, with their eyes if not with their taste buds, it is likely to be judged a very positive and appreciated aid in learning about the subject. In any event how comprehensive the template becomes is something up to the people and editors interested in the topic. One of the tasks of an article editor is to wikify and create hyperlinks. This template is very useful, logical, and germane for cuisine topics. I have noticed an immediate increase in traffic of various otherwise isolated articles. The template helps to unify and give context to all the articles related to the topic. It boggles my mind what topics should use this kind of navigational template if it is inappropriate for cuisine. If it is necessary to be any clearer and the degree of my support for the template as its creator still needs to be gauged then it is Strong Keep. Lambanog (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I note further the reason JL 09 gives for deletion is dubious. Many such templates do not exhaustively itemize all items that can fit into the domain. Lambanog (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as long as similar templates such as Template:Thai cuisine exist. Perhaps rename it though. — Reinyday, 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep & Move - Per Reinyday. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question for those who are concerned about the scope of the template: Have there been actual examples of cuisine navboxes getting excessively large, or is this just a hypothetical concern? --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing no reply to my question, and not seeing anything immediately wrong with this template as it is currently, my recommendation is Keep. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (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.

Template:R.E.M. singles

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

The result of the discussion was delete and replace with {{R.E.M.}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:R.E.M. singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template redundant to the main R.E.M. template. Space is not an issue on the main R.E.M. template, and by creating a separate template for singles results in several R.E.M. articles requiring two templates when one would suffice. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a merge? If so TFD is not the place to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to {{R.E.M.}}. Contrary to Djsasso's comment above, it is entirely acceptable to suggest a merge here, although it would be desirable to discuss it on the affected template talk pages first. However, there doesn't seem to be anything to merge because the singles are already listed on {{R.E.M.}}. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since the singles are already on the other template. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• I just used the template as a shortcut, but its merits are few. No opinion. Varlaam (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (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.

World Series championship roster templates

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 New York Yankees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Everything other template in Category:World Series championship templates

These types of navboxes, listing the rosters of championship teams, have been frequently debated here on TFD. Among those that have been deleted within the past two years are the ice hockey ones and the Association football ones. Other discussions on this topic include: 18 April 2007, 12 October 2007, 23 November 2007, 4 December 2007, 12 May 2009.

Yes, I think all those that are deleted in those two catagories should be reinstated and made to this current consensus, which is to keep these and all championship template navboxes! You should not have deleted these in the first place at all!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, a specific discussion on the World Series templates have never been posted here on TFD before, so in good faith, I would like an official one on record – especially since the 2009 World Series just concluded, with more users actively editing the article, and therefore the issue can be opened to a wider audience.

So what are some of the problems with these templates? First, in a way they can be considered embedded lists masquerading as navboxes. Secondly, under WP:CLN, such information might be better suited on a central list page or a particular category, not a navbox; This content, listing teammates that played toegther in a specific season, tends to be tangentially related since "Player X played with Player Y to win the 20YY championship" is not a defining aspect of a player's career. And it seems highly unlikely that users would want to navigate through the players of the 1903 World championship team, for example. Thirdly, they can create clutter on player articles, especially for those players who have won numerous championships, and therefore have numerous navboxes on their pages. Other objections to these types of templates can be found in the TFD discussions I mentioned above, but I believe I covered the main three disadvantages. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete all These templates only tell you two things: That they won a championship, which should be said in the infobox anyway, and who they won it with, and really who cares about that? This should really be expanded to all championship roster templates in all sports. BUC (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all You should've discussed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball before listing. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because other sport groups have decided against these templates doesn't mean these should be deleted. As for clutter, stick them in a condensed navbox and they make no clutter. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the category argument doesn't work, as some pages are already overloaded with categories, so that navigating those is much tougher than navigating templates, of which many pages have fewer. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OWN is not a good reason to keep either. The baseball project was notified, that is all that is really necessary. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Baseball project was notified by me after I stumbled upon the TFD by monitoring Hideki's page. I stand by my comment that the nominator should have started a discussion at WP:BASEBALL before listing. Noone is claiming ownership, but WP:BASEBALL has it's own standards, which differ from the ice hockey project and others. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right but the baseball project has no more right to their standards than does any other non-baseball editor. Wikiprojects are just groups of editors who like to edit the same subject, and have no more right than anyone else to apply a standard to any given article. To claim otherwise is Ownership. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep allper Muboshgu. Also to the above comment "And it seems highly unlikely that users would want to navigate through the players of the 1903 World championship team": this is simply not true. Readers who have a specific interest in one team or another may want to read articles on each member, and there's no reason that they should have to go back to the team season article to do so. It's a hindrance to navigation. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Something perhaps you don't realize is that it actually takes more clicks to expand the navbox you want than to go back to the season page. ie. One click to expand the navbox container, and one click to open the specific navbox. Whereas just clicking straight to the championship season takes one click. It's actually more of a hinderance to use the navboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete Violates WP:EMBED in that all the players in the infobox would not be linked from each others pages if those pages were at their perfect version. Also violates WP:NAVBOX in that navboxes should not be used for winning a championship or for gaining a position. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this fails WP:EMBED or WP:NAVBOX --Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all per Muboshgu and KV5. Provides useful navigation tool for someone interested in the championship teams. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all Nominator fails to note that NBA, NFL, and US college basketball and football use these templates. The hockey and association football projects' decision not to use them does not prove the existence of a rule or a widely-held consensus amongst various sports projects. WP:CLN also does not state that information must be exclusively limited to one of those formats. It seems like these debates center on nominator's second point and whether or not these navboxes demonstrate a "defining aspect" of a player's career. At this point, I think the two camps on this issue just need to agree to disagree, but it's just hard for me to see how winning a championship is not defining aspect, since that's pretty much the point of playing in the first plce. What is the basis for saying it's unlikely for users to navigate to different members of a championship team? Any argument on those grounds is subjective based upon personal preferences, likes/dislikes. Also, I don't know why the clutter argument keeps coming up. As Muboshgu stated above, collapsible/condensed navboxes make this a non-issue. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Winning the championship is defining, what we are saying isn't defining is that they won it with Joe Blow so and so who they only played on the field with a few minutes. You take care of the defining aspect of the championship by adding him to a world series winners cat and by mentioning it in the prose/infobox. However the fact that he played with a certain person is not defining of the individual, its defining of the team. As for clutter, collapsing does not remove the clutter, the issue with clutter is that the more and more nav links you put on the bottom of the page about only tagentally related stuff the more the important links get swamped causing navigation to be hindered. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because other projects use them does not make it right or within WP policy. blackngold29 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all: While Other Stuff exists doesn't apply, each World Series champion team meets and exceeds the notability guidelines for inclusion. As such, there is no grounds for deletion. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability doesn't really apply in this situation, as everything on a navbox is going to be notable by default since the pages they link to are notable. The question is, does it follow the other guidelines such as WP:EMBED which says navboxes should only contain links which would already be found the page that they are placed on. In otherwords for these navbox to be valid you would have to expect that every player they played with on that team would be linked from that page if the page were complete. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" does apply in the sense that it's one of the arguments used for deletion by the nominator and some who concur with the nominator, and it is faulty logic. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say other stuff exists. I said notability. Neither did the nom btw. He was just posting related discussions.-DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out related discussions is "other stuff exists", or in this case "other stuff doesn't exist". I do agree that notability isn't relevant here. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out related discussions is showing prescedence. Prescedence is valid on wikipedia. It can show that the wider community has a specific opinion. It differs from otherstuffexists in that the otherstuffexists arguments generally are just a case of "Hey but this article is still here/not here" which can just be a case of no one has noticed those articles yet. Showing specific discussions is completely different. It shows consensus to have or not have certain types of templates. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the 2009 template. It is trivial clutter of almost no value. A player's teammates at any given time is neither notable nor defining of that player. Procedural keep on the rest, as they have not been properly tagged for deletion. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How these templates "aid" navigation. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all per Djsasso. blackngold29 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per KV5. Also note that WP:NAVBOX is an essay, not policy or even a guideline, it can't be violated. GlassCobra 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It still can be. It does not have to be aheared to, but it can be violoated (ie not followed). WP:CLN however is a guideline which suggests the same thing as navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Violating an essay is inconsequential and has no bearing on a legitimate XfD. You (and the nominator) also have yet to prove how exactly these sports navboxes are against WP:CLN or WP:EMBED. GlassCobra 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EMBED links in these sections should have been featured in the article. Are you saying that every player that another player played with would be featured in each others articles? That's how its violating EMBED. None of these players could be expected to be on each others pages. Navboxes are intended to be a collection of links already found on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All All you people saying who cares about the templates know your role because I care, I absolutely love the templates and I feel as though all should be kept.Beast from da East (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep ALL You all because this is a uniform thing done on all sports championships like golf i.e. masters champs, usopen champs, openchamps, pgachamps, tennis i.e. AusOpen champsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, FrenchChampsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, WimbledonChampsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, USOpenChampsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, NBA championship teams, NFL championship teams, and MLB championship teams! Category:Golf major championships navbox templates, Category:Grand Slam tennis tournaments navbox templates, Category:NBA Championship templates, Category:Super Bowl championship templates, Category:NFL championship templates, Category:American Football League championship templates, and Category:World Series championship templates . Now do you all think this has not reached consensus in each project and wikipedia as a whole criteria of Wikipedia:Navigation templates and if this is done to these, I think ALL navboxes should be made illegal on wikipedia and subjected to deletion!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is 8-5 to keep!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by vote counting, but by strength of arguments. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is it is consider voting and can be used similar to a poll, bingo HERE.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the part that specifically says the opposite? polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. -DJSasso (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on my read, considering the worthwhile arguments on both sides, I would say there is no consensus to delete. There needs to be a consensus to delete, rather than a consensus to keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all - per WP:IAR - because deleting these templates hinders navigation within Wikipedia, which is detrimental to the project.—Chris!_c/t 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR only applies if you can show that template clutter actually aids navigation in the first place. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's an unfair comment, Resolute. You're characterizing the templates negatively by calling them "clutter" without even considering the validity of their navigational help. Of course, no one is going to say that "clutter" is good. However, the navigational functionality of these templates is helpful and does facilitate moving between articles. A good point was made at WT:MLB on this same issue: WP:EMBED 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. Typically this will include three types of links: Links to related topics - topics similar to that discussed in the article." WP:CLN also says that "all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box". The specific World Series is the subject of the box, and the players are all related to it. Per WP:EMBED, they could also be considered "lower order" articles: components of said topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There are TWENTY such templates on Derek Jeter's article. they have been provided as an example, and you have to view full to appreciate just how ridiculous this is. There is no way you can convince me that this is an improvement on navigation. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • They help with navigation when used properly. As in, when they aren't all expanded the way you present them. They autocollapse. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Except you miss the point, someone who is looking for a specific link will have to expand all those to find it. That is the whole problem, also remember we are supposed to write for people who know nothing about the topic. As such they won't know what which box to find said link in so they will in the end have to search through endless lists of links to find the important ones. This is the exact reason why navboxes are only supposed to include links that would already be found on the page. So as not to drown out the important links. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't agree. If you're looking for other ROY's, you expand that template. You don't expand the USA 2009 roster looking for ROY's. The article explains all of these things in the text, as it's supposed to. The navigation templates exist at the bottom to allow for navigation after the person who knows nothing about the topic has read about the topic. That said, I do think that the navboxes may be further condensed. Instead of all 20 in one collapsable box, maybe there should be one collapsable box for awards, one for championship rosters, one for international play, etc.--Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Navboxes are also supposed to only include articles that the reader is most likely going to want to go to next. So if there are 20 templates and for arguments sake 10 links on each. Thats 200 links. A reader is most likely going to want to go to 200 different articles right after reading this one? That doesn't compute. Navboxes are to help show a user who only knows what they have just read on this page to identify the most important topics to go to next, but including every player they played one game with hides that and hinders the user being able to find the next most important subject on the topic.-DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Who ever said that a reader has to go to 200 links? Your line of argument makes it seem like there is a complustion on the part of a reader to look at them all, whether there are 10, 20, 50 or 200. All that leads to is an artificial "link cap" governed by subjective personal preference. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • I am not saying they have to go to all 200. They are supposed to be able to at a glance see the next most important topics on the subject so they can go to those pages. By adding the 190 very slimly related links to the 10 important links it makes it hard for a user to know which article to go to next. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • How do we know if a reader of the article on Derek Jeter is most interested in reading about the WBC, or other ROY's, Gold Glove winners, Silver Sluggers, or the Yankee championship teams? If they're interested in the Yankees, why wouldn't they want to click on other members of the Yankees World Series championship teams? You assume they would have no use for this, but I disagree. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Also, just saying there are twenty doesn't in any way address the argument KV5 just made. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually, it does. He's challenging my argument that this is just clutter. 20 templates to minimally related articles is clutter. Even with them minimized, it becomes difficult to find what one is looking for. When you get down to it, using the search box to find the Rookie of the Year article is far more useful to navigation than hunting through 20 templates on Derek Jeter's article to find some odd player. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KV5 that resolute is being spiteful. I have had a battle with resoulte before.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have? That would be news to me, as I had never heard of you before this debate. Care to link that discussion? I'd be curious to know. That being said, failing to assume good faith is no better a defence of your position than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that the "cluster" problem only arises if readers don't use these templates properly. No one will look for a particular link by uncollapsing all 20 unrelated navboxs at once. And if a reader thinks search box is more useful, they don't even need to uncollapse the templates.—Chris!_c/t 23:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But it does cut to the heart of the value of these templates. If I am reading Jeter's article, and my thought is "Gee, I wonder who won the AL ROY in 1973?" am I really going to go hunting through that mess of navboxes to try and find the needle in the haystack? The claim that these add navigational value is almost as laughable as the idea that these should be WP:IAR kept. We all know however that these templates will be kept - this is is a classic no consensus XfD. I'm simply trying to show just how poor a tool these are for navigation. The Yankees template itself might just be the worst template on all of Wikipedia for this reason. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's easy to "show just how poor a tool these are" when you are propping up straw men like "If I am reading Jeter's article, and my thought is 'Gee, I wonder who won the AL ROY in 1973?' am I really going to go hunting through that mess of navboxes to try and find the needle in the haystack?" Really? A needle in a haystack? A clearly marked "Rookie of the Year" navbox is a needle in the haystack? Why are we making the assumption that users only navigate through WP in a prescribed way? - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Assume you are a reader, not an editor. You likely won't be expecting that such a template would exist hidden amongst two dozen other templates within a collapsed box. This is a classic example of editors making decisions for editors rather than readers. Certainly some reader might, probably by accident, find what they are looking for in that mess, but that does not prove the overuse of navigational templates to be of any real value. This is the heart of the opposition to these templates: They become so oversaturated with low value links that it becomes more difficult for the reader to find what they are looking for. They are an exceedingly poor navigational tool that become even worse with each template added. Most readers will have already found what they were looking for a different way long before they found their target article in that mess. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • We are all readers as well as editors. I don't understand why you assume that people are unable to navigate navigational templates. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • That is because you are making assumptions up and trying to attribute them to me. My argument is that the clutter reduces navigational ability to the point that it is the least effective way to search for articles, not that people are unable. I'm sure one or two people might wish to navigate through that mess, but the fact that the odd reader might does not justify the clutter it creates, imo. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Again, you're making assumptions about how people use these pages. Who says it's only "one or two people" who use those templates? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I'm using logic, which you are willfully ignoring. I never thought this template had a prayer of being deleted, but I was hoping the discussion might encourage some positive change in the absolute mess that the overuse of these navigational templates has become. Seems that is to be unsuccessful. C'est la vie. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't see you using logic, I see you setting up strawmen and knocking them down. Nowhere in here has anyone said the templates clutter articles and impair navigation. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it isn't backed up by anyone. In my opinion, the reduction in the hockey templates has made those articles less navigable. You and I have gone through this before (especially at Template:Calgary Flames). Neither of us are changing our minds, and in the baseball project, consensus remains on my side. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • How is it making them less navigable? You have yet to show this. You keep claiming it but show no proof. There are many more efficient ways currently to find the links hidden in that mess of navboxes than the navboxes themselves. Things like categories, or the season page for the championship team or even the search box will find the link someone is looking or alot faster and easier than this mess. There are actually more clicks to expand the navboxes (Two. One to open the single box, and one to open the specific box) than there is to click to the championship season page which is a single click and will have the roster on it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • • We are really getting away from the topic of this debate now. It may be better to move this string to one of our talk pages, if we choose to continue it. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You know, there is a big problem with all of you that want to delete templates.. you simply fail to understand and appreciate how great sports are.. probably because you haven't played them. (being a former high school athlete, i should know)... but i think all of you who want these templates to be deleted are BIASED against sports. You should all have your eyes opened. they are collapsible, for crying out loud. I've had the same problem when I edit the Mexican soccer pages here on wikipedia. STRONGLY KEEP all the world series templates. they already took away the MLS cup and Stanley Cup ones. They can't take away this one. Nore100 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • lol! You should actually look at people's contribution histories before commenting. Might save you from making a complete fool of yourself. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing Admin - as of this writing, none of the "Everything other template in Category:World Series championship templates" (sic) has been tagged alerting editors that said templates are up for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all - Pretty established that some sports are notable enough to have templates such as this. And yes, if we ditched these, then we'd need to ditch them all. Just not practical. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all - I don't understand why hockey does not use navbox templates. I like having an assortment of navboxes at the bottom of articles to navigate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all as vital guides to navigation among a strongly defining characteristic in a baseball player's career. As a reader, I actually have read from article to article on the members of several World Series championship teams. Are there a handful of super-accomplished players who have been on several WS champs? Sure, but the outliers shouldn't ruin it for all the other articles, especially as there are existing ways to deal with multiple templates. - Dravecky (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all Your so called disadvantages are extremely miniscule and are in no way detrimental to the articles as well as the fact that these are put at the bottom of articles when they are done reading. You also have to consider in team sports, the team personnal are of great importance especially dealing with championships.Transaction Go (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I guess we should delete those awards and achievements navboxes since they take up so much space yet link to very few articles.

Transaction Go (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually no. Those aren't navboxes those are succession boxes and would be perfectly fine. Because you would expect to find the person who won an award the year before or after they did on their biography. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ready to be closed because enough has spoken to keep these, because it helps in navigation and reading on teams of champion players on wikipedia. That is what navboxes are suppose to be for and don't give me this clutter crude at all, which is a cover for your hatred of the Yankees winning another WS. How come the User:Bucs is advocating these be deleted, when he is not from the States and would not understand the significants of the WS is simmilar to the World Cup is to the International non-US countries and WS is to the US look at Pele should his World cup ones be delete, too! I think NOT!!!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually every team is nominated not just the yankees. So you can be sure its not because people hate the yankees. And yes Pele's world cup ones should be deleted as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are actually on the wrong side of this debate to reach consensus, because look how many want to keep them! Get over your deletionist ways, ASAP!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am actually an inclusionist if I am anything. You might want to stop attacking users or you will be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an attack if it is a fact!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only a fact if you can support your statement. I suggest that you take a very thorough look at WP:AGF and start to apply it. Incidentally, XfD debates typically run seven days. While it does seem extremely unlikely that deletion will occur here, there is no harm in allowing discussion to continue. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all. What's next? a Template for AL & NL champions; division champions, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand the "slippery slope" argument, but saying you don't support navboxes that don't exist doesn't reflect on the vailidity or utility of the ones up for deletion. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you image how the Yogi Berra article would look (he's got 10 World Series titles)? GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahhh, I just seen it. Thanks goodness for collapsables. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all per similar discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:1915 Vancouver Millionaires, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 13#NBA Championship Templates, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 6#Template:2007 Houston Dynamo (just one example of longstanding WP:FOOTY consensus) all of which resulted in delete consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair, in the second example you cited (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 13#NBA Championship Templates), the closing admin says, in pertinent part, "There is insufficient policy evidence to close this debate in either direction." Those navbxes were not deleted. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It is worth the time to read the discussion, and the closing admin's statement. I believe the right decision was made, despite the lack of effort by anyone (yet?) to tackle the large task of replacing the navboxes with more appropriate article content and infobox links in hundreds of player bio articles. Nobody was going to simply delete and remove the NBA navboxes and do nothing else. The same principle applies here; if we have even a slim consensus to delete (once all the ILIKEIT arguments are discounted), then a no-thought deletion spree would not be productive. Proper links from each player article to the respective World Series articles—and complete rosters on each of those articles—would need to be in place first. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly remove all from player/coach/person-related articles per Yogi Berra and other heavily overlinked appendices containing multiple levels of trivia. A list of all teammates and coaches at a particular time is not sufficiently relevant with regard to any one player. Retain in team articles, in collapsed form, because that's a somewhat reasonable place to include a team roster for a notable period in the team's existence. Retain in event articles (e.g. 2009 World Series). In this case, full-sized is fine when there are few teams so represented (e.g. the final round of a tournament, but maybe not an article about an entire playoff ladder). TheFeds 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all Per everyone else. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove from player articles; retain in team/event articles per TheFeds. BRMo (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This tfd discussion is about if these boxes have value... what pages they are placed on is a discussion that should be held on the baseball project talk page.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How a template is used has obvious relevance to the question of whether or not it has value. BRMo (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I made this argument here but it needs to be logged here for future reference:

In collapsed form, the template is SMALLER than the succession box. When expanded, it's not much larger (wider, yes, but only slightly longer). Yet, it contains WAY more information than the succession box. And as for "high value links", I don't see how Marty Cordova is nearly as important to people reading about Derek Jeter as any other AL ROY, and he's probably far less important than other former Yankees, like teammates (Chuck Knoblauch) and nonteammates (Chambliss, Piniella, Righetti). If you want to reduce clutter, the succession boxes are far less valuable than the templates. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have missed the entire point of the arguement. Its not about size of the navboxes that is the problem. Its about the number of links they through at you. That is the problem. Therefore by your own logic Succession boxes are greater than navboxes. And the people who won before and after are by far the most important links because it shows who their contemporaries are that won it. Which is a more important comparison than with someone who won it 50 years earlier. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it's a much more efficient use of space. But as a reader and an avid fan of the Yankees and Derek Jeter, I have no interest in Marty Cordova, and much more in other Yankees and players who had better careers than Cordova (just using myself as an example, I acknowledge I may not be representative). Maybe we should find a way to poll non-editing readers to see if the amount of links in a template is overwhelming or not. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I have no idea how you say that "by [his] own logic Succession boxes are greater than navboxes." I don't see his logic going there in his previous statement. Next, "And the people who won before and after are by far the most important links because it shows who their contemporaries are that won it. Which is a more important comparison than with someone who won it 50 years earlier," is a completely subjective assessment besed upon your own preferences. As Moboshgu just stated, he doesn't care a flip about Marty Cordova, so why are "contemporaries" high-value links? They obviously aren't to him. The long and short of your argument is "we should only link to high value articles, and the way we determine high-value article links is if I think they are based upon my own preferences and biases." There is no consideration given to the high probability that readers navigate WP in various different ways, and all this argument does is attempt to close off one of those ways. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because he is saying that there are less links in a succession box. My arguement is less links is better, thus he summed up the arguement. As for the other, links in navbox should be defining and directly related to the subject that the navbox is on. Players who won something the year before or after define who is is, because he had to win it against those players. Thus he is defined by that. However, he is not defined by the fact someone won it 50 years ago that is in no way directly related to him. We should not be making it harder for 90% of readers to satisfy the desires of the small minority of super baseball fans. We need to edit for the lowest common denominator. Navboxes like these cause things to be less navigatable rather than more. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all - For all the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the argument that "it seems highly unlikely that users would want to navigate through the players of the 1903 World championship team, for example" is simply untrue. I did exactly that, with the 1903 Boston Americans a few weeks ago, although the template needs to be expanded. Also, the argument that this information is better in lists or categories is irrelevant, even if true, because, per WP:CLN "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." And also, the argument that "This content, listing teammates that played toegther in a specific season, tends to be tangentially related since "Player X played with Player Y to win the 20YY championship" is not a defining aspect of a player's career" also doesn't hold water. That Player X and Player Y won the 20YY championship is a defining aspect of each player's career, and so there is a relationship and what WP:CLN actually says to this issue is "As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is "no", a category or list is probably more appropriate." Since winning the 20YY championship is something that would be mentioned in both Player X's article and Player Y's article, such a navbox is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The arguement against that of course is WP:EMBED which says "links in these sections should have been featured in the article." And would Player X be featured in Player Y's biography article. And the answer most times is no, and thus should not be in a navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If this is a violation of WP:EMBED then virtiually all templates are such violations. An article about Hideki Matsui is not likely to feature all other World Series MVPs, for example. Or an article about "Like a Rolling Stone" is not likely to feature Bob Dylan albums. So either your interpretation of WP:EMBED is mistaken, or templates in general would not exist. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes I would suggest that a great many navboxes should be deleted. What happened is that some people created some and then there was a race to create more and more without regard for the issues raised by creating many useless ones. -DJSasso (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all: There seem to have been a lot of different arguments on both sides of this. I just want to address some of the arguments for deleting these. First off, the votes that fit into the "I like them" or "I use them" category would have to be a strike against them being hard to navigate. Regardless of the relative ease or difficulty in using them, those votes establish that they are used for navigation by some percentage of readers and editors. A general rule of interface design (something I've got a bit of experience with) is to provide for the user's expectations. It seems to me that these templates have been around for long enough that at least some users expect them to be there, and taking them away will hinder the navigation for those users.

WP:EMBED has been used by a few people to justify the templates' deletion, based on the statement "Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article." I've added the emphasis only because some quotes of the statement here have left that out. I would be crazy to suggest that every single article that's linked to in one of these navboxes would mention/link every other article in the navbox. There may well be some examples that fit that, but I'm not going to suggest they all do. However I think that - assuming for a moment that all of the articles in question are at FA quality, with exhaustive content - it would make sense for most of the articles to link to several of the others: members of the starting rotation would likely mention each other and members of the bullpen, and vice-versa, as well as mentioning the catchers. Similarly infielders would likely be linked, as would the outfielders. And there would be an expectation that there would be several links across those groups as well. Let's face it, a complete article about someone would reference some of the more significant people they'd played with, and playing in a championship winning side together would increase the likelihood of the link.

One part of WP:EMBED that doesn't seem to have been mentioned though is something at the end of it: "We have to try to put ourselves in the readers' frame of mind and ask "Where will I likely want to go after reading this article?"." It seems to me to be completely reasonable that someone who's just read an article about someone who won a World Series would want to read about another player who was involved. Will everyone want to? Probably not. But I doubt anyone could establish that no one would want to. After all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to use encyclopedias for research, and if I'm doing some research that involved reading an article about someone who won a championship, there's a good chance I'd want to read at least some of the other player articles as well.

Another thing to consider is that this is meant to be about the World Series championship templates, rather than any and all baseball-related navboxes. With that in mind, there would be a lot of player pages where there are no such navboxes so no problem, a handful where there are five or more (I don't know records and numbers of the top of my head, but I'm thinking Derek Jeter would be in the minority with the number of rings he has), while the rest would likely only have one or two. With that in mind, even in the cases of the championship hogs like Jeter, given that the navboxes autocollapse, they will not take up much in the way of space, yet still provide valuable links to other players involved in that milestone.

But for a moment, let's consider the other templates, because significant amounts of the discussion have involved them. There's been a comparison between navboxes and succession boxes, and arguments about which is better. I think its important to consider that they both suffer from similar problems as the number of each increase. Derek Jeter seems to be the favoured example for the against argument, so let's look at his. And, let's look at the version prior to the grouping and further collapsing of the navboxes and succession boxes here. Obviously there's a lot of stuff there. Now maybe I'm just crazy, but I find the list of navboxes (while collapsed) easier to work my way through than the succession boxes. Both are essentially listing topics, which have a connection to the article or some part of it, and going back to the end of WP:EMBED, they are candidates for the next destination for the reader. I find it easier to find the topic I'm interested in out of the list of navboxes than the succession boxes. Some people have mentioned that the navboxes are harder to navigate because there's an extra click involved. I think that's at best a minor argument against. The navboxes list the topics, then when you expand the topic you're interested in, you click on the article you want to go to. With the succession boxes, you're mixing the topics and the content of the topics together. Going back to interface design principles, that's a no-no. Obviously the more navboxes there are, the harder it becomes to find the topic and therefore the article you're after, but the same problem happens with succession boxes, and I think to a greater degree.

The other comparison between the two has been that the links in a succession box are more relevant than those in a navbox. Statements like "...you would expect to find the person who won an award the year before or after they did on their biography", "...the people who won before and after are by far the most important links because it shows who their contemporaries are that won it. Which is a more important comparison than with someone who won it 50 years earlier." and "Players who won something the year before or after define who is is, because he had to win it against those players." (I also note that as far as I can tell, only one person has been arguing for the succession boxes, and that these quotes all came from that person.) I'm not sure why you would expect to find the winners of an award either side of the player in question mentioned in the player's article and not expect mentions of other previous or future winners. I think we need to look at this outside of the context of a particular player or award. Are the comparisons between a particular player who won an award and the player who won it immediately before or after them valid? Of course. Establishing that someone had a performance well above, below, or on par with the standard of the time is normal, adding further context to the event. But that's not limited to just one before and after. That could be two, or three, or five, or ten before and after. There's also the comparison with the winner from 50 years before or after: establishing how the standard for an award has changed - or how its stayed the same - over time. I don't think any of us are in a position to say which of those comparisons is more likely. Each of us would have our own interests, and in the course of doing research would have our own methods of going through the information. But even if the one-either-side path is more likely to be taken than the ten-, fifty-, or hundred-either-side path, both will be used, and so both should be available.  Afaber012  (talk)  00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Are we ready to close this yet? --Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We're not quite at a full seven days yet, but I imagine an admin will be along reasonably soon to close it. There is a long discussion for them to read first, so it is probably best to be patient. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

KEEP ALL: Per everyone else--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This should have been closed three days ago because it is now in its tenth day, which means an Admin needs to get this read and DONE!BLUE_DOG^TN 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is normal, you need to relax. -DJSasso (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, let the process play out. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not normal at all because it is suppose to just take seven days, which by my recollection it has been 12 days now, which is not normal. I think the process is finished, done, over, vanquished, which means an ADMIN needs to close this immediately, and allow for other things to get done here. So, your points are mute and void with respect to keeping this discussion active on here any longer.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the guideline says discussions take a minimum of 7 days. Not a maximum. Continue to be obviously disruptive and you will end up blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep All These templates come in handy for people who happen to be obsessed with Wikipedia and baseball. C'mon, could this possibly hurt anybody or anything? Jonathansuh (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2009 (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.

Template:Hasidic dynasty characteristics

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - no objections. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hasidic dynasty characteristics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(OR) Definition of HD transcluded to many HD articles. They just need the link to HD, we don't transclude defns to all members of categories. Rich Farmbrough, 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. Assuming it is not original research (I assume that is the implication of the "OR" at the beginning of the nomination statement), this information belongs in List of Hasidic dynasties and Category:Hasidic dynasties. It does not need to be transcluded as a template into the articles about every individual dynasty. This is something to be handled via wikilinking to the pages that have the relevant information, not through a template. (If the material is original research, then it should not be in the encyclopedia at all.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2009 (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.

Template:Human body diagrams

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - sole objection was withdrawn. . Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Human body diagrams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Häggström diagrams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banner template is for a project on Wikimedia Commons, not a local WikiProject, and is being used to tag files which are uploaded on Commons. This isn't relevant to the English Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant for the English Wikipedia, because the diagrams are found there. Rather than deleting the template, what could be done is to move that project page in Commons to a WikiProject page in English Wikipedia instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

commons:Human body diagrams exists only on Commons; it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If you want to start something similar here then you're certainly welcome to do so, but if you just want to direct users on Wikipedia to commons:Human body diagrams I would suggest placing a banner on the file pages on Commons, as this would be visible here also (if you see what I mean; if you don't then let me know and I'll try and explain it better). PC78 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - can't see how this is useful for enwiki. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - it seems the main problem is that it is a link to Wikimedia Commons, while the page itself could very well be moved to Wikipedia, and I think a suitable place would be a task force page in WikiProject Medicine. The template is important on individual diagrams, because many of the discussions that have ended up in individual diagrams have actually concerned issues that are common for multiple images in the project. I may find those comments myself by watching the image pages, but they'll be difficult to track afterward, or for anybody else who may have an opinion. Also, absence of the template would make more comments end up in individual Wikipedia article talk pages, and it's impossible to watch for all changes in all those articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Its proposed as a task force at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Human_body_diagrams.Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to propose a new task force for that WikiProject, but if accepted it should be included as a parameter in {{WPMED}}, not a seperate banner. A new task force here seems like an unnecessary duplication of effort to what you're doing on Commons, but that's not really my concern.
    • All Commons images on Wikipedia have a link back to the Commons file page, and all of these file pages that you're tagging already have a link to "Human body diagrams" on Commons. I don't see why the extra talk page banner is necessary, and I don't see how it helps you to keep track of comments. I don't see how it benefits the English Wikipedia to promote your Commons project in this manner, especially when it's already linked from the file page. PC78 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason was to avoid having people ending up in the discussion page in Wikipedia and add any comment, and that's why the template was placed there. However, it is really not that big deal, since there is already a great deal of dissuading text in the edit mode to prevent such misplaced comments, so the template may indeed be redundant. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (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.