Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4 edit

Template:Ponteland and Darras Hall Branch 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 relisted on 2020 June 11. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (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:Not WMF 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 relisted on 2020 June 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2020 (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:Indianapolis Colts 2020 draft 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per prior discussion Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per consensus at WT:NFL and the fact that there are navboxes for literally every other team in Category:National Football League draft navigational boxes. Unlike the navbox creators back in 2018, I intend on using the navboxes accordingly. The deletion nominator (Zackmann08) has a history of submitting many templates for deletion right before they are transcluded into the articles. (see here and here) Many of the arguments in that discussion are also naive and/or dated such as the idea that "since some players don't play for the team they were drafted by, there would hardly be any connection between them and the team". Many players from other sports such as Kobe Bryant and Jarome Iginla didn't play for the teams they were drafted by, yet there are still mentions of that fact in both of the overall biographies multiple times and at the bottom of the page. Or the idea that the draft infoboxes don't have a main article when in fact they do: the draft list itself. Additionally, the template doesn't even fail WP:ACCESS considering how simple it is to navigate through the navbox itself and the colors aren't even harmful or too bright. Also, the footer at the bottom is meant to make it faster and more convenient to access other navboxes in the navbox catgory without having to look through the category or searching it up. We have a whole bunch of these for not only sports, but other general topics such as film and music awards and politics. Team-specific draft navboxes represent a franchise's draft class and all of those players share a strong connection in that they were all drafted by the same team in the same year. An argument could be made for categories similar to that of NBA, WNBA, and NHL draftees, but that leaves a lot of large questions such as supplemental draft picks, undrafted players, pre-draft players, players that were drafted in pre-merger (AAFC, AFL, etc.) and post-merger (USFL, UFL, AAF, XFL, etc.) football leagues, etc. which would all lead to overcategorization. In fact, I'll allow @Dissident93, @DetroitFan7, and @Yankees10 to explain further. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion nominator (Zackmann08) has a history of submitting many templates for deletion right before they are transcluded into the articles ... you do realize that Zackmann08 hasn't edited in 14 months and this was actually nominated by Frietjes? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Being drafted is a notable accomplishment, so having them grouped by draft class (which aids in navigation) just seems logical. We don't need any sort of navbox for supplemental draft picks, which is something you might only see every other year or two, and undrafted players, since they should be treated as any other type of free agent (we don't create articles for every single player). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mention above. Additionally the deleted navboxes of the mentioned TfD should be restored.--JTCEPB (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no substantial difference between these templates and the ones deleted in the previous TfD. Keeping these template would leave Wikipedia in a self-contradictory state, given that this TfD cannot overturn the previous one. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised nobody has challenged that assertion yet. We absolutely can overturn the result of the previous discussion. It happens all the time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an opening for a mass spamming of navboxes in the bottom of articles. Is being drafted to a team, more important than being traded to a team? We don't have templates for players of a team for a reason, as it will quickly run wild on some player pages. Seeing as how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says to that navboxes should be placed on every page it links, one would assume that the most important page, which in this case is the two links in the title Indianapolis Colts and 2020 NFL Draft, should we really have ~70 or so placed on the Colts page? Template:ColtsFirstPick is one of the worst ones, placed in the middle of an article as if it were real content, without even caring that more than 50% of our readers can't even see it. Also, I got to say, for a mass amount of templates, there is not even 1 page for List of Indianapolis Colts draft picks why is that? --Gonnym (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • One, there is a list of all of the team's draft picks: Indianapolis Colts draft history. Two, yes, being drafted is more important than being traded and receives a lot more media publication than you think. Being drafted is considered an honor in NFL culture (and many other sports around the world) as it implies that the player is considered a highly valuable prospect and worth investing in over other many other college players. Three, the template doesn't fail WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and your statement on that is ridiculous. By that measure, {{WWE Hall of Fame}}, {{U.S. governors}}, {{Group of Seven}}, etc. which all have bluelinks to Donald Trump should all be included at the bottom of his page yet they aren't. This isn't only true of only the president but many other popular figures such as Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, LeBron James, etc. You're creating a ridiculous hypothetical which you know nobody would support, but are trying to imply is the absolute law, when it isn't. Also, lmao at that strange, unnecessary anecdote about {{ColtsFirstPick}}. I'm not even gonna bother on that statement as the navbox and its usage speaks for itself and reads like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can tell from a quick glance at Indianapolis Colts, there are not ~70 navboxes at the bottom of the article. More importantly, you've got WP:BIDIRECTIONAL backwards. Here's the actual quote: Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. That means every article that displays the navbox should be linked in the navbox, but it doesn't mean every article linked in the navbox needs to display the navbox. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus at WT:NFL. Players are often categorized by their draft class and team's draft classes by year are often covered and evaluated by sports media. All the previously deleted templates should be restored. It should also be noted that the previous deletion decision was by a slim margin and likely would have reached a no consensus had there been another keep vote. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct venue for discussing whether templates should exist or not is TfD. TfD decided, in April 2019, that this kind of template should not exist. The closeness of that decision is now irrelevant, and an informal discussion at a venue like NFL cannot overrule it. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I believe that they should be kept, as was discussed at that venue, and that previous draft templates should be restored. You are also completely glossing over the point that draft classes receive significant coverage and that is common to refer to players by their draft class. Hopefully this TfD overrules the previous one. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage of players in terms of team draft class are not just limited to instant analysis (ex: ESPN, Sporting News, Associated Press) but also sustained coverage (New York Times, CBS Sports, ESPN). Sources clearly show that team draft classes are important and that who selects a player and where he was drafted is quite defining for an NFL player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GPL93 said above, "players are often categorized by their draft classes." These navboxes improve our article navigation. If there is a compelling reason to delete them, nobody has brought it up yet in this TfD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2020 (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:Tunnel Rail Stub 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; deleted as G5 by Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tunnel Rail" is the signal of a sock of Linde Place; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linde Place for this new sock Spirit Place. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2020 (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:Yugoslavian Government Cabinets 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided in this template are all broken because there aren't articles for every Cabinet and Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia, which is in-line with all other Cabinet/Council systems on Wikipedia. Of the 46 links provided on the template, all 37 of them are red. ItsPugle (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, but remove the redlinks since they are not useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that redlinks have been removed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper Frietjes. The links in the template do have useful navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2020 (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:Infobox pipe band 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox pipe band with Template:Infobox marching band.
WP:INFOCOL? Seems like at least some variables in Infobox pipe band that do not exist in Infobox marching band would be relevant there still. May as well simply merge it altogether, no matter if not every single page using the infobox would not call on every single available variable, comme-il-faut? PPEMES (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (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:Infobox drums corps 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox drums corps with Template:Infobox marching band.
Per WP:INFOCOL, would these two be similar enough to amalgate them altogether? PPEMES (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (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:UsernamePolicy 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 relisted on 2020 June 11. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2020 (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:Uw-generic4im 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 speedy delete , a G7 speedy deletion logged here. Seems like Fastily wasn't aware or forgot about thsi TfD. (non-admin closure) {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 17:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the previously existing {{uw-generic4}} is to provide a generic level-4 user warning when it would be needlessly redundant to the level-3 warning to have a specific template for the given behavior at issue. However, this newly-created template, uw-generic4im, fundamentally departs from that. Uw-generic4 is only used as the next template in progression from a lower-level, specific uw template. Having generic4im is problematic because the user receiving it will necessarily have had no prior warning, and therefore will not have received notice of the specific conduct at issue. Furthermore, the reason a "4im" generic template does not exist is that there is consensus that only certain behaviors warrant a "4im" warning and, for those issues, a "4im" template has been created. The generic template defeats that. Bsherr (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if an editor uses proxies or creates a new account and starts (obviously) doing the same behavior as they were before, this template could be useful. I agree that it shouldn't be used in any other circumstance. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the same user, the level 4 template, not the level 4im template, should be used. --Bsherr (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized disruptive has no level 4, so this can now be deleted. CrazyBoy826 16:49, 5 June 2020 (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/2020_June_4&oldid=962368522"