Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30

edit

National Football League Pro Bowl navigational boxes

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 per Bagumba, Rikster2, and others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1999 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1999 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2000 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2000 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2001 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2001 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2002 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2002 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2003 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2003 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2004 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2004 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2005 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2005 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2006 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2006 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2006 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2006 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2013 Pro Bowl AFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2013 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:National Football League Pro Bowl navigational boxes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigational box overkill, which just leads to more clutter (see the number of navboxes in John Elway, for example). unlike other sports where the best players participate in the "all-star game", this does not happen in the NFL, since the players in the Super Bowl are banned from participation. a more meaningful award is say the Pro Football Hall of Fame. we do not need a navbox for more trivial awards. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to flawed logic on the part of the nominator - Super Bowl players have only been prohibited from playing since 2009, when the Pro Bowl was moved to before the Super Bowl... However, even with that these templates still cover those players (as well as players that dropped out due to injury) because they were voted in as starters. Being a 'starter' at the Pro Bowl does not mean you started the game, it means you were voted in as a starter. Thus, this template covers those voted as starters in the Pro Bowl, not players who played in the Pro Bowl, so the argument the nominator makes is incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hold on, are you suggesting that Pro Bowl starter templates are on par with Super Bowl champion team templates like the one linked? Becuase I really don't think the are, either in importance (a championship is typically the most significant achievement in a player's career) or in terms of the connections between the people on the template. Have you ever heard of Pro Bowl teams having reunions 20-30 years after the fact? Because Super Bowl championship teams often do. Rikster2 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To misread your words for a moment, a navbox can be created if the players on it have a reunion. Do note, though that each member was on the same team and played 17 games together. I understand that the Pro Bowl is not as important as the Super Bowl, but my point for keeping it is to help navigation from the Pro Bowl articles to the player articles and vice versa. In addition, I feel that the Pro Bowl starter templates are on par with Super Bowl champion team templates in terms of known information being presented. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox. Cutting them at less significant awards controls clutter. Verifiability is not the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually don't think the fact that Super Bowl participants played prior to 2009 matters. I totally agree this is navbox clutter. Just as a point of reference, none of the other "big 4" American sports have navboxes for All-Star starters or participants and I know not long ago at WP:NBA we actually TfD'd navboxes for yearly All-NBA teams with very clear consensus on the matter. Pro Bowls are certainly worth mentioning in the article and maybe including in the achievements section of the infobox, but templates are overboard. Rikster2 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rikster's comments immediately above. I had been struggling with how we, as WP:NFL editors, should handle these navboxes. On one hand, selection to the Pro Bowl is clearly a significant and notable honor for NFL players. On the other hand, these navboxes clearly contribute to bottom-of-the-page cruft that can overwhelm other navboxes that are likely to be more useful to a reader seeking information on other closely-related players. I fully recognize that this is a judgment call, and that long-time sports editors are going to have a significant split of opinion on point. The fact that we do not have navboxes for "all-star" selections for Major League Baseball (MLB) or National Basketball Association (NBA) is, I think, the tipping point and the determinative precedent for me. These honors are clearly important and deserve prominent mention in the player articles' infoboxes, but I see navbox-assisted navigation from one all-star player to another as a lower priority among the multiplicity of other professional sports navboxes currently in use for MLB, NBA and NFL players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry I can't be more original with my argument but I agree with the other deletionists here. These navboxes do nothing more than clutter articles. In college athletics (primarily basketball, football, and baseball), the closest equivalent are All-American navboxes, which have been determined to be notable and valuable. But as far as professional sports are concerned, football is the only sport which utilizes these and I personally think it's WP:CRUFT. Good for Peyton Manning for being one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, but we don't need to banner-hang every Pro Bowl selection with unnecessary navboxes on his page. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While you mention WP:CRUFT as a problem, I would like to mention that there are more award NavBoxes than there are Pro Bowl NavBoxes. Are all of those awards important enough to be kept automatically or should they become template for discussion as I can see the reverse being true. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS everywhere on WP, but it's not a good reason to expand it. At the very least, an annual award that is prestigious has winners that the article might reference to put the player into historical context. These Pro Bowl navboxes are for single years, so such historical comparisons are unlikely. Championship teams have navboxes for their rosters, but it is reasonable to expect that a championship season occupies a large amount of prose in a players bio, and references to his teammates are likely to already exist. A Pro Bowl is but a single exhibition game, and the game is rarely mentioned aside from a selection count in the lead or a brief mention in the body that a player was selected for the exhibition in a given year. Some other navboxes might be worthy of deletion too, but be wary of being WP:POINTy.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, though you are making me question why Template:Pro Bowl MVPs should be removed as well. (Referring to, "an annual award that is prestigious has winners that the article might reference to put the player into historical context.") --Super Goku V (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Bowl MVP is not prestigious, if you look at its TfD entry below regarding its lack of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles already for the games. Why do we need the clutter of a navbox also?.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Bowl is notable and has an article. It is the navbox that is being considered for deletion. I hope you are not keeping on an alleged technicality of the nomination, and ignoring the arguments others have given.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2013 (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:Pro Bowl MVPs

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) 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pro Bowl MVPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

recently created navbox which is just adding to clutter. unlike other sports where the best players participate in the "all-star game", this does not happen in the NFL, since the players in the Super Bowl are banned from participation. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This fails WP:NAVBOX on multiple points. One rarely would want to go from one Pro Bowl MVP to another, there is not even a standalone article for Pro Bowl MVP like Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award, and nobody would be adding see also's to the other MVPs just because the template did not exist. Guidelines aside, what reliable sources really writes about all Pro Bowl MVPs as a group? Pro Bowl MVP isnt even worthy to mention in the lead of any bio that would be an FA. Other sports All-Star games are at a higher level, witnessed by the fact that the Pro Bowl is on the verge of being cancelled, and is the only sport whose All-Star games get lower ratings than a regular season game.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bagumba. The Pro Bowl is not on the same level of the MLB and NBA All-Star Games, for various reasons. I didn't even realize the Pro Bowl had an MVP award until just now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really important as an award. Any information could easily be noted in the articles of the people who won it (ie. this play went to x pro bowls and was named the Pro Bowl MVP in x of them). Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the Pro Bowl has lost popularity in the last few years, NFL contracts are still written with bonus opportunities based on the game itself. In response to its comparison to MLB and NBA All-Star Games, the Pro Bowl still receives higher TV ratings than both these even though it occurs at the end of the year. Any true NFL fan knows of the Pro Bowl MVP award and the fact it has already informed one person of its existence proves its validity. Dabullzrule (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Dabullzrule (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument of "Any true NFL fan knows ..." reads like WP:FANCRUFT, especially in light of the fact that no standlone article exists for the award, since it would not meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MLB and NBA hold their game midseason, and is one of the annual highlights for the league. The NFL game is the only major North American league with their All-Star game at the end of the season, and is considered an afterthought. That probably explains why the MVP only gets WP:ROUTINE coverage. These games, and hence awards, are not equal.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2013 (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:Uw-npov3

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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-npov3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am proposing this template for deletion because:

  • It is poorly thought out, giving WP:OR-oriented policy advice ("adding commentary and your personal analysis") into articles concerning WP:NPOV (which is more likely to involve an editor deleting text and sources he doesn't agree with and/or adding text that is unreliably sourced, though indeed it may be unsourced as the template suggests). The way that the template is meant to be used, as a sort of pocket summary of NPOV, is more likely to confuse than enlighten the unwary newbie it is likely to target.
  • As discussed at [1] (where also I reference earlier comments I've made) there is now published argument that these templates in general are harmful to newbie retention and are a significant cause of the decline of Wikipedia. This template, the second one I chose at random, may be a trial balloon for the elimination of user warning templates, Twinkle, and Huggle as we know them.
  • It is my recollection that bot usage of level 3 and up user warning templates "does not assume good faith" and can escalate automatically, leading to assumption of bad faith made by a machine against what may well be a good user. Additionally the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars encourages discriminatory usage.
  • Formally the reason for this deletion or merge is "2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template". Specifically, its function can be better accomplished by Template:Uw-npov2. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the nominator, this is the standard level-importance designation type template for vandalism of type "npov" to go along with {{uw-npov1}} , {{uw-npov2}} , {{uw-npov4}} ; it can't be redundant with the level-2 template, since this is a level-3 template. You've been around Wikipedia for a long time, haven't you ever seen how the vandalism templates are used? Rewriting the template does not involve deletion. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw how they were used [2] - that's why I favor deleting them. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No offence intended Wnt, but you seem to have misunderstood how the series warning templates work, I recommend reading WP:UWUL. They are an escalating series, as 65.92.180.137 said this template can't be redundant to the level 2 warning because this template if used primarily when the user in question continues after they have already been warned with the level 2 warning, which is why the bots (and everyone else) will use this template after using the level 2 warning. Feel free to suggest a new wording for all of the NPOV series if you so wish at WT:UTM, deletion should not be used over deletion, plus there is also a series of warnings designed for original research {{uw-nor1}}.
I'm suggesting we don't actually need to have a set of templates to allow an editor to keep saying the same thing more and more rudely. If the first two levels haven't gotten the point across, the editor should be explaining the exact part of the policy he thinks applies - not posting nastier and nastier wording of vague statements. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to put up 100 TfD templates on 100 pages and nominate 100 authors and so forth without some indication that it has a chance of success, even though I think Wikipedia needs the reform. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think this nomination is going to give you any idea at all of whether warning reform has any chance of success, because people are just going to think that deleting only one message would be stupid - which it would be. (But no, I don't think a mass nomination would be the right way either - it's the warning policy that should be addressed, not the mere presence of the templates) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want to reform the warning system it needs to be done, as Thumperward says, at an RfC or similar - not by nominating one warning template for deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Boing. Wnt, I think you have got the message you were looking for: you do not have any chance of getting consensus to abolish all Level 3 and 4 warnings. One may argue about the exact wordings, but any progressive warning system is going to need, for those who ignore earlier warnings, variants on "If you persist in doing that, you may be blocked" and "If you do that again, you will be blocked!". JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2013 (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/2013_January_30&oldid=1142562804"