Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26

edit

Template:Split-apart

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).

The result of the discussion was Merge then redirect to {{split}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per T3, and redir to Template:Split. This is redundant with Split, as both templates produce identical output, and Split has more features. (I'm presuming it did not when Split-apart was created in 2006, back when we were regularly creating variant templates for minor differences, instead of merging them when feasible.) Split-apart is used on about 80 articles (vs. Split at around 275). Simply replacing Split-apart with a redir to Split will work seamlessly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply redirect there is no need to go through deletion, when you could simply redirect, faster and easier than a TfD -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine by me; I listed it because the template has been around a long time, and people tend to get "attached" to old templates. I've also had people rip me a new one for single-handedly deleting, effectively deleting, or even renaming "stable" things without discussion. Someone else is welcome to be bold, but I've been pillories for it enough times I think I'll pass in a case like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:15, 2 November 2015 (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).

Template:Split2

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).

The result of the discussion was Merge then redirect to {{split}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per T3, and redir to Template:Split. This is redundant with Split, as both templates produce functionally identical output (Split2 is just slightly more verbose), and Split has more features. (I'm presuming it did not when Split2 was created in 2006, back when we were regularly creating Foo2, Foo3, etc. variant templates for minor differences, instead of merging them when feasible.) Split2 is used on about 30 articles (vs. Split at around 275). Simply replacing Split2 with a redir to Split will work seamlessly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (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).

Template:Creighton Bluejays women's basketball coach navbox

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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 11. Primefac (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links and no mother article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SMcCandlish: Actually, Mac, most of the sports WikiProjects (and a number of others) replaced the clunky and graphically hideous succession boxes with navboxes four to five years ago, and the use of navboxes for this purpose has been upheld in multiple TfDs in 2010–11. The question here is whether there are an adequate number of linked articles to justify a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah OK, as long as they don't do both, it should work either way. (I co-founded a sports wikiproject, and we never had such a discussion, so I'm not sure that preference is universal). In this case, there's just one article, which wouldn't seem adequate. It has a number of redlinked entries, but I'm skeptical that being a coach at a private university (i.e. being an "athletics professor") is notable in and of itself, per WP:ACADEMIC. So it may not be likely that any of those redlinks will ever be articles [for long], except where the subject is notable for some other reason. As with the case below, there is no article about being a coach at this university, so this fails one of the navbox criteria. This is just like having navboxes for films' actors and crew members, basically. Who worked on a team, like who worked on a film, is better handled in article text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, which sports WikiProject did you found? The consensus about preference for navboxes over succession boxes, which Dirtlawyer mentioned above, and which I also mentioned below in the discussion about Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox, applies to most North American teams sports at the pro or college levels, and has also been adopted for a number of sports outside of North America; see Category:Sports coach navigational boxes. Also, your analogy for having a navbox for a film's actors and crew is inapt here. That would be analogous to having navbox for the roster of every team each season, e.g. a navbox just for the members of the 2014–15 Creighton Bluejays women's basketball team. Generally, such navboxes only exist for league champions. The navbox in question denotes an succession over time of one office. Finally, I'm not sure WP:ACADEMIC is applicable here. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is better. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CUESPORTS (and, yes, there are collegiate-level team pool competitions; I competed for the University of New Mexico in the ACUI southwest regionals back in the day, and the Billiard Congress of America was running university tournaments for decades before ACUI got involved). But whatever; I'm not challenging whether or not any discussion ever took place, it simply does not appear to have been as inclusive as some think it was, and probably only involved "big-time collegiate sports" projects. Anyway, I don't see anything at WP:ACADEMIC that suggests "immunity" to it based on the subject area that a university faculty member is an instructor of. Meanwhile, WP:NSPORTS does not appear to be applicable, since it addresses pro not collegiate/amateur sports primarily. See wording such as (under American football): "players and head coaches are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues [list elided], or any other top-level professional league", followed by a note that it doesn't even apply to pro-league assistant coaches. And similar wording under other sports. University coaches and athletic directors do not appear to be encompassed, except in a very short amateur section, that assumes notability only for hall of fame inductees, major award winners, and those who are independently notable aside from their am/college sports connection. Back at the notability guideline on university faculty, it does not specifically draw some circle around athletics departments and exclude their faculty. Perhaps it should be clarified to mention them specifically and remove all doubt that it applies to them as well as to physics professors and university presidents. It's not problematic that two guidelines can apply in a non-contradictory way to such individuals. Notability for leadership of a sports team and notability as an academic or university administration figure are not identical (a coach might be non-notable, due to lack of major coaching awards, in the first case, but notable under the latter case as an oft-cited expert in sports psychology and phys-ed pedagogy journals, for example). Similarly, a physicist could be notable as a science writer (i.e. as an author) and notable as an academic (theoretician); or a theatre figure might be notable as both a playwright and an actor; or an attorney notable as all three of a solicitor, a businesswoman, and a politician (or, in an actual case I can think of, a prosecutor, a fashion model, and an activist).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a "mother article," Creighton Bluejays women's basketball, which included a list of head coaches by season. That said, I am skeptical of the navigational value of a navbox with two links, but I am mindful that navboxes that represent a succession series are one of the possible exceptions for navboxes that are mostly red links. Can someone stub out another couple of articles for some of the more prominent coaches in the succession, so we can have a clean "keep" vote? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Navbox denotes a notable position. Now has three blue links to bio articles of notable people. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." A list that satisfies WP:LISTN would avoid the banter about whether these entries are actually notable; WP:NCOLLATH says college coaches generally are not presumed notable. It seems these navboxes are circumventing the more stringent requirement for pages, which would not take to kindly to a list of red links without demonstrated notability as a group.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2015 (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).

Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox

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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Nov 11. Primefac (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just three links and no mother article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The "mother article" for this navbox is San Jose State Spartans, the intercollegiate sports program of San Jose State University, of which the listed persons are the executive directors. A separate list should not be required. Whether three links (and a relatively small percentage of the listed persons) is adequate for a navbox is a separate question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is what succession boxes are for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [Changed to weak delete, below, for different rationale.][reply]
    • Creating a succession box is just kicking the can down the road. It dosnt deal with the real issue of determining whether the subject it worth the clutter of any box, succession or navbox. It seems like needless churn to convert just because succession box may be less stringent.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this navbox captures the succession of San Jose Spartans athletic directors, who—perhaps, aside from some of the interim office holders— are presumably notable. Generally speaking, an athletic director for an NCAA Division I school like San Jose State is going to be notable. We have 189 other navboxes of this class; see: Category:NCAA Division I athletic director navigational boxes. Is there minimum number or minimum percentage of blue links that would obviate the nominator's complaint above of "just three links"? Also, per SMcCandlish's comment above, this is actually not what succession boxes are for, certainly not in practice. There is a broad, stable consensus among an number of sports-related WikiProjects that navboxes are preferable to succession boxes to capture the succession of office holders in the footer space of articles. We have several thousand of such navboxes; see the category tree at Category:Sports coach navigational boxes and elsewhere. Navboxes are dynamic, easily standardized, collapsible, and contain comprehensive coverage of a succession, whereas succession boxes are static, more susceptible to irregular formatting, clunky and space consuming, and provide limited context. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Create a list that meets WP:LISTN would clearly demonstrate the notability of this subject. Accepting the broader subject of San Jose State Spartans as the "mother article", is a bad precedent to invite cruft navboxes under the guise that an article of a more broader topic presumes notability of any list even remotely related. No prejudice to recreate once LISTN is met.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bags, we have never required list articles for coaches, and have accepted main team articles that included the lists as the parent articles for these navboxes. I don't see the AD succession navboxes being much, if at all, different in that regard. That said, I would like to see at least one more live blue link to satisfy what has been considered a reasonable minimum in the past (see my comment below re Tom Bowen). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"we have never required list articles for coaches": I don't see a compelling reason to go against an editing guideline in this case. It's not like SJSU is a Power 5 school.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jweiss11. Clearly part of a well-established class of navboxes. At the very least, this is valuable information that we should WP:PRESERVE somewhere, and it's probably best, easiest, and most logical to just keep it right here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: While three entries is enough to serve a navigational purpose, just being a university faculty member does not auto-confer notability, per WP:ACADEMIC, so we can expect some of its entries to remain redlinks indefinitely. And the navigational purpose can be served by "preceded/succeeded by" entries in the infobox. Not every template that could possibly be used on a page should be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If someone will create a stub article for Tom Bowen (athletic director) (or retask the present Tom Bowen redirect for that purpose), who is a Bill Walsh protege and a former NFL executive and was the SJSU AD for 8 years, that would give us four blue links and presumably satisfy the minimum number for a succession navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With Jweiss11's creation of a new article for Tom Bowen, here are now four blue links to existing articles about notable individuals who have served as the SJSU athletic director. That's plenty to support a navbox for a succession, especially when successions are listed as one of the possible exceptions to a 100% blue link navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I question the wisdom of creating a one-source micro-stub on a probably non-notable minor figure simply because he's connected to American sports, when the result is essentially not really an article, but a trivial biographical index entry, the sole seeming purpose of which is to have a place to hang three navboxes. Having been employed by a university doesn't make someone notable, just presumptively competent enough to find work in that sector.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, NCAA Division I athletic directors are clearly notable. Apologies for not taking the time to expand the Tom Bowen article beyond a short stub, but my focus here on Wikipedia is on cleaning up thousands of other articles and establishing standardized formatting for all them, including navboxes like the one in question here. Frankly, it's time to admit you're wrong here and move on. If you're truly intent on whacking some American sports navboxes, I can point you in the right direction. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMcC, Tom Bowen is highly notable for his roles as AD at San Jose State and Memphis, as a simple Google News Search will reveal. The initial one-reference stub did not accurately reflect the depth of media coverage for Bowen, and I've started to build out the article with quality sources. That said, even the article in its now-present condition (@10:25 a.m., November 2) is sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. It's not an accident I suggested Tom Bowen for stubbing; I looked at the coverage before I made the suggestion, because I remembered his association with the 49ers and Bill Walsh. Bowen got a lot of good ink for turning the SJSU sports program around, and he had been rumored to be a candidate for the Stanford and Cal AD jobs before Memphis made him the highest paid university employee in October 2015. We can argue about the proper role of sports, etc., in American universities and academics, but Bowen is legitimately notable. I won't go so far as Jweiss11 to say all Division I athletic directors are notable, but most are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2015 (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).

Template:Major video game publishers in Metacritic

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template fails WP:NAVBOX #1 (is not coherent), #2 (not mentioned in every article), #3 (each article not mentioned in the others), and I certainly (#5) wouldn't want to link each of these to each other, especially with this kind of trivial grouping. Izno (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per trivial and non-notable grouping. I was thinking about turning it into a possible category or list, but for the former, it is non-defining, and for the latter, the list is non-notable, thus there isn't much we can do with this unless reliable sources have coverage of this Metacritic "award" (so to speak). I also don't think "list of video game publishers" would be particularly appropriate in the see also-section of Metacritic, as "list of video games" would be just as appropriate... or "website," or "Video game journalism." I'd rather put GameRankings there, but this is a different topic and not particularly important here :p ~Mable (chat) 11:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an appropriate grouping for a template. Even a category might be a little "iffy", as this really isn't a defining characteristic... Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial; I agree that even a category would probably be deleted. How Metacritic categorizes things is not an encyclopedic topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the arguments above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't understand it's purpose at a glance, and I doubt anybody would be looking for a template like this on some pages. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: This template provides absolutely nothing of value to any article whatsoever. It is trivial and pointless. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:48, 1 November 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_26&oldid=1138533264"