Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29 edit

MLB batting and home run titles 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 no consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AL batting title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NL batting title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AL home run champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NL home run champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to WP:NAV, "for a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, consider using a {{succession box}}. I believe these succession boxes exist on all the articles for these players who have won batting or home run titles, so the navboxes are redundant and excessive.}} --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how these templates are any different from the awards ones. They are better than the succession boxes because you can navigate to other players much easier. For example with the template you could easily go from Nap Lajoie to Miguel Cabrera, but with the sucesion boxes you can only go year to year. The succession boxes are the ones that should go for being redundant, not these.--Yankees10 23:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them both go. Freddy Sanchez winning the batting title in 2005 has nothing to do with Bill Madlock winning in 1976 or Matt Holliday in 2007. This could also lead to an overabundance of these navboxes - Runs Batted In, Stolen Bases, Hits, Doubles, OPS - there's no limit where it can end in baseball. None of these are awards (which at least seem somewhat limited), they're just who happens to have the most at the end of the season. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Just happening to have the most at the end of the season" in certain categories leads to things like the Major League Baseball Triple Crown, so that needn't be discounted or pushed aside like it matters very little. — KV5 • Talk • 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these statistical championships are defining descriptors that link players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the policy/guideline stated in nomCurb Chain (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom didn't state any policy or guideline. WP:NAV is an essay. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the "policy/guideline stated in nom" noted by above !voter is merely an essay, not a hard-and-fast rule (of which we actually have none). This template is eminently more useful than succession boxes. I believe that the succession boxes should be removed before the navboxes, as the succession boxes are extremely limiting and the navboxes provide for greater flexibility in terms of navigation. — KV5 • Talk • 14:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oopps, Killervogel5 is right, WP:NAV is not a policy/guideline, but it should be listified.Curb Chain (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of these do have lists already. — KV5 • Talk • 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In addition to the nominator's argument, per WP:NENAN and per the fact that the templates spam low value links onto irrelevant articles. There is no useful reason to add a link to Jose Bautista on Nap Lajoie's article, as an example. Throwing a list into a navbox does not make a useful navigational aid. Resolute 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Characterizing links of players who accomplish the same feat as "spam" is a stretch. NENAN is also an essay. — KV5 • Talk • 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to a list of players who accomplish the same feat is useful. A hundred links to other players is not. NENAN is just an essay, but one that should be considered highly. Given the proliferation of these navboxes in several articles, "spam" is, I think, an apt term. Resolute 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is another in a long line of NOTDUP deletionist request, which means that all mechanisms must work in harmony and in conjunction with each other, and if these are in fact deleted would not allow for them to work as specified under the guideline.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The navbox is much more useful than the succession boxes, as said above by Yankees10, and they're useful for not just seeing the full list quickly but also quickly getting to articles on other players who accomplished the same feat. WP:NENAN is just an essay, and there's Wikipedia:A navbox on every page for the opposite view. And since the navbox collapses to one line, it doesn't take up much room in the article. Some users prefer categories, some like lists, and some use navboxes, and it doesn't make Wikipedia easier to use by removing them. Having the navbox there provides information about a significant feat the player accomplished; removing it doesn't improve the article. PaulGS (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PaulGS, particularly the point about the navbox being more useful that the succession boxes. Succession boxes assume that the reader is going to want only the articles for consecutive years, which is overly limiting and actually makes navigation more difficult. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Are you serious? CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KV5 and PaulGS. Rlendog (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is a valid use of navboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Keep 'em all--better to have too many than to have too few ways to reference data that occurs regularly, such as MVP's, batting titles, etc.
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:HighestWorldwideGrossMovies 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. Purpose is already served by List of highest-grossing films. Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a list that is not even accurate. It claims to be worldwide, yet some only account for US/Canada totals. The more footnotes you need in a template means the better off with just a list. That list exists and even that is just a subsection of List of highest-grossing films. These just take info at a moment in time, while the films themelves can continue to make money. What is the cutoff anyway? At least award winners have the connection of winning an award for a specific year. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as the creator) I am not sure I understand your question about what is the cutoff. This is an annual determination so if you understand the calendar, it should be clear what the cutoff is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide source that each one is for the year from 1/1 to 12/31? Especially that one for 2011. :)
  • Delete as something that requires a bit of verifiability. It's not like a grouping of works by one director, which is easy to look up. This information can be challenged and has issues like some films having only US/Canada totals, which really should be resolved in a list article. In addition, the information is not very valuable because it does not account for inflation (another issue that requires verifiability). While that is fine, I think it tries to link the articles together to suggest too much that all these films are in the same league as each other. In other words, it is tangential, and we're going to have more relevant templates, especially for recent films that have franchise templates, series templates, and director templates. I think a topic like this is better off in a "See also" section. We need to be using footer templates a lot less; there's not supposed to be a whole crop of them at the end of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You as well seem to be misunderstanding the template. Inflation is not an issue because all films of the same year are converted to dollars at the time which is comparable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've struck out the sentence, but I think it still indicates that this grouping is something that needs verifiability via inline citations. It's just not a straightforward grouping. I also have concerns about overuse of footer templates. I would be supportive of linking to the list version of this template in each film's article, but I think it's a bit much to connect all of these films on each individual article on that basis alone. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CONTENTFORKCurb Chain (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Putting a list (which is article content) into a template is still a list, and still applicable to article guidelines. In this case, the template's only real purpose is to spam irrelevant links across numerous articles for no appreciable gain. Resolute 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since NENAN is just an essay and in no way a policy guide, you might consider WP:NBFILL just as relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That essay actually supports my argument: "..a navbox serves the function of a see also section...", except that none of these movies belongs in the see-also section of any other. It's just cruft. Resolute 15:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There already is a list. Better to link to that list in prose than to have this template splattered everywhere. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Remurmur (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Why not since it's nice and fun to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.27.98 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:NYB 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 speedy deletion, per author request. -- Mentifisto 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't see any reason why we need this template – typing "{{NYB}}" is only four characters less than "Newyorkbrad". Seems to have been created to prove a point at a recent TfD. Jenks24 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per overwhelming precedent with {{BCD}}: it is useful and harmless. Maybe you can remember the correct capitalization and spacing of Newyorkbrad, but unless you're glued to the ArbCom pages it's easy to forget after a while: New York Brad, NewYorkBrad, Newyorkbrad? It saves time not having to try all of those. And unlike BCD, NYB doesn't have any article-space meaning. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BCD example is completely different, IMO. Typing delta's triangle is practically impossible on standard keyboards, but it's incredibly easy to type Newyorkbrad. And regarding spacing and capitalisation, why would anyone care if you got that wrong? If someone types "New York Brad" it's blindingly obvious who they're talking about. Jenks24 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously? "&Delta;" is hard to remember? It produces "Δ". (Quotes added for readability here, it works without, it's just a HTML entity.) And even typing just Delta would probably not be mistaken for someone else. Yet it's preferable to be precise, and the template makes it easier for some. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you learn something new every day. That said, I still think the Delta template is a unique and that keeping this template would set a poor precedent (e.g. where would it stop? Does every high-profile user need a template? And how would you define high-profile?) Anyway, I'll take a step back now and see what others think. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're curious, I also created {{DirkB}}. His last name is hard for me to remember. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...which I have now nominated for TfD. --NYKevin @205, i.e. 03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I note that the amusing Bradspeak-like documentation was added by someone else [1]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need this. What's next? Does everyone with more than N characters in their username get one of these? --NYKevin @962, i.e. 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User specific things belong in userspace. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simple text substitution; not needed. And pointy, to boot. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I have already called him out on how POINTY creating this was --Guerillero | My Talk 23:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly and useless template. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no precedent at BCD, it isn't even closed yet. This isn't a non-ASCII string, it's a simple ASCII string. It saves only 4-characters! Newyorkbrad is 11 chars long, {{NYB}} is 7 chars long. That's just too little for a type saver. It occupies a name that doesn't even indicate that it's a user template, since there are plenty of encyclopedic possible uses [[2]]. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatantly ridiculous use of templatespaceCurb Chain (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:Ed, Edd n Eddy 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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ed, Edd n Eddy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Template links to six articles. I think this is enough for a navbox. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 07:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The template only links to the main article, two of its sublists, three licensed video games, and the creator of the franchise. There's not much to go around for the navbox to be of use.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think there's enough to keep it but is there enough for it to be useful, IDK. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tinkered with the template a little, putting it all into one row, in order to make it seem a little less empty. I don't know if it did any good, but it may just simply be too small to be a good navbox. Or maybe not. Who knows. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, there is barely enough there. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:Replaceable fair use 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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replaceable fair use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Correct me if I am wrong but this template is now superseded by Template:Di-replaceable fair use. Fleet Command (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_29&oldid=1138695581"