Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 20
| < October 19 | October 21 > |
|---|
October 20
edit
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the fact that it's essentially a random compilation of numbers from one link with little to no rhyme or reason (it mixes and matches subcutaneous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, and intravenous measurements, frequently ignoring species), the entire concept is completely and utterly scientifically invalid. It's like a list of the ten best athletes or the ten safest cars - there is so much that goes into any given measure that the list winds up as being utterly meaningless. Never mind the fact that we only have measurements for ~5% of species. It's meaningless trivia that tries to reduce a complex and intricate subject to a top-10 list, and even then it fails. Even if it wasn't riddled with errors, omissions and inaccuracies, it would be counterproductive, useless, misleading, oversimplified, and so fundamentally flawed in concept as to be a detriment to the goal of education. Mokele (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The web page cited as a source in the template itself starts off with disclaimers, including one saying (in bold text), "these sort of lists are not all inclusive and should not be taken as absolute rankings." Based on that, using its lists for a "top ten" navbox seems unwarranted and contrary to WP:V. (I note that this template is currently not used on any articles, but that is due to a systematic effort to remove it by the nominator, so its orphan status should not be taken as grounds for deletion.) --RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Two main reasons: 1) Based on imcomplete and partly inaccurate data 2) the concept behind this ranking is meaningless as User:Mokele already stated above. As long as this list exists some users will continue adding it to articles as seen in the case of Boomslang, where it's ranking is completely off and detrimental. --Burkhard (talk) 09:16, 24 October 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.