Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 March 12)
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12 edit

Template:PD-screenshot 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. Happy‑melon 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-screenshot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used once. Redundant with {{PD-release}} and the {{PD-art}} templates, and those are superior because they specify why the image is in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to be like the PD-art template. ViperSnake151 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not used and redundant per nom. Odie5533 (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2009 (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:Models.com 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. Happy‑melon 16:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Models.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New template using rankings from the site apreviously deleted template also appeared to have used (albeit in unacknowledged and more limited form), with the same problems: the rankings are non-defining, ever-changing, and lack encyclopedic value. I'm sure two editors will show up and vote keep on the argument that the template is necessary to link important models, but existing templates on the Victoria Secret Angels,Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covermodels, and now Voguecovermodels accomplishes this as much as is neccessary, while using properly defining criteria.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP What is a navbox suppose to do? I believe it is suppose to serve as an aid to help people navigate to similar articles given that they are interested in the article that they are reading. People interested in the current top models will find the template useful. This template provides information to the reader of who the current top models are. The only question is whether this is encyclopedic content. This type of template has been debated here in my absence, I believe, because I think both top ten ranked golfers and tennis players templates have been deleted. I think current top performers should be linked. I think weekly listings of top models may be borderline encyclopedic. There is probably a broader template policy issue on whether weekly updated top listings of this sort are encyclopedic. I have never been involved in such debate and have not been convinced they are not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template doesn't show who the top models are - it shows who other people think are the top models. Even if the people doing the voting are industry insiders, their votes are subjective and based on vague criteria.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I see no reason for this ephemera to be enshrined in an encyclopedia. Studerby (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, the need for navigational aids is greater for models than for other individuals in the encyclopedia. Models are generally not credited in their work, and are known for their faces rather than their names. For this reason, it will be more difficult for readers to find the information they seek about models than about other people. This ranking is no more subjective than, say, the Academy Awards, for which a panel votes with no specific criteria. And yet the Academy Awards infobox is somehow not controversial. There are no prominent awards for models. (The Vogue infobox is useful in this respect but is somewhat overinclusive (tons of names, celebrities as well as models) and difficult to navigate.) Models.com is "the industry's favorite reference site"[1] according to the New York Times and an "online modelling authority"[2] according to the Sydney Morning Herald. The rankings have been cited by many reliable sources as a measure of models' importance:
  • the Courier Mail[3]
  • the South China Morning Post (Suzanne Harrison, "Top tips: role model", December 30, 2008)
  • St. Louis's Riverfront Times[4]
  • The Age (Janice Breen Burns, "Beautiful people", August 30, 2008; also[5])
  • the Boston Herald (GAYLE FEE AND LAURA RAPOSA WITH ERIN HAYES, "Care for some sine with that sleaze?", March 6, 2008)
  • the Toronto Sun ("All hail Heidi Klum, Named sexiest model", February 17, 2008)
  • Women's Wear Daily ("SNIPPETS: DIVA NAILS . . . MAMA BEAUTY . . . GO VO", October 5, 2007)
    • WWD's Beauty Biz ("THE CHAMELEONS", October 20, 2006; "A MODEL MOMENT AS CELEBRITY FATIGUE SETS IN, A NEW CROP OF GIRLS LOOKS TO PUT THE SUPER BACK IN MODELING", September 8, 2006), the Sydney Morning Herald ("Fashion police", September 20, 2005)
  • Sydney Morning Herald[6]
  • Dallas Morning News (Jackie Bolin, "Milan Scoop: Color radiated from the runways", November 17, 2004)
  • Edmonton Journal (Eva Friede, "Retailers look to metrosexuals for salvation", November 12, 2004) - also appeared in the Calgary Herald and The Gazette (Montreal)
  • several times in Jamaica's The Gleaner, though we don't appear to have an article yet about this newspaper
  • The Christchurch Press ("FROM BACKPACKING TO MODELLING", December 27, 2002)

In sum, there is a particular need for navboxes to be used with models - say you keep seeing a face everywhere but have no idea who it is. (A common occurrence considering most of models' work is not credited.) If that model has never been Vogue cover (and some important models have not), there will be essentially no way to find them. This list lets readers browse easily through important models at the moment. Being highly ranked in this list is essentially like the Academy Awards of modeling. It is held by many reliable sources to be an important measure of models' success. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rankings on Models.com to the Oscars is a downright horrible comparison. Winning an Oscar is the very height of film-industry success and garners huge amounts of press and public interest, whereas Models.com rankings are worth, at best, only trivial mentions-in-passing, as your links demonstrate, Calliopejen1, and there is nothing to suggest the ranked models value their positions on it in the slightest, or are even aware of it. So I still see no reason to think these variable rankings are of merit or defining enough for a navbox, and the rationale that they're needed for people to discover certain models is very very thin.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mbinebri's arguments seem very reasonable. A point of particular difficulty is the question of when to update the rankings. The order has to sampled at some arbitrary date, and this is alone would disqualify the template on the basis of using un-encyclopaedic criteria. The other existing templates are ample (given the dubious notability of models in general...)—Kan8eDie (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That models are of "dubious notability" is a ridiculous argument. The ones that have articles are notable, or else they should be deleted. Further, this template doesn't pollute articles considered more "serious" or "important" anyways, because it's only linking models with models... Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMO this template isn't encyclopedically relevant. And Mbinebri's arguments make perfect sense. Antique Rose (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've got to agree with Mbinebri here. Model rankings/ratings change all the time, so the top 10 models of January won't necessarily be the same top 10 models of August. If CalliopeJen wants to list the top 10 models as rated per week, that's fine as long as it's in an appropriate page or page section, but I don't actually see why something so prone to perpetual flux and change needs a template, no matter how nicely done said template is?Mabalu (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete emphasizing the ranking of a particular external site is not appropriate. DGG (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete - we don't even have an article on Models.com; I have no idea why we would want a template listing how they categorise models, when they are an apparently non-notable website. This template adds no value to the articles that use it. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2009 (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:World Champions in TNA 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. Happy‑melon 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Champions in TNA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The same as the X Division one. No Good or Featured Topic is in the works and the template is incorrect. No article has been made regrading all the world champions in TNA. Should be TNA World Heavyweight champions if any is made.WillC 02:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- not needed, very broad, and is a mere subtemplate for any template that lists the NWA/TNA Champions.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:16, 14 March 2009 (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:X Division 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. Just about. Happy‑melon 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unneeded. The only reason it would be useful if the List of TNA X Division Champions article was being made into a Good or Featured Topic. None is under work to my knowledge and I don't plan to do one until far into the future.WillC 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Short and simple - the template makes for easy navigation. The Jay Experience 11:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- There are other templates as such for other titles, this can be useful if a FL or FT would be made.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful any will be made anytime soon. There is only one good article out of all the former champions (Angle). While none are FA. Most are start and a very few are B. The only articles that will be changed anytime soon are AJ, Joe, Daniels, Young, Williams, Lethal, and maybe Kaz, which I plan to work on after I come back full time. They are all B or less. It will take a while for them to get anywhere near GA since I've never worked on bios. I think the template is useless at the moment.--WillC 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At the moment", but you don't own these articles so anybody tomorrow could begin expanding them. These are useful for that purpose, in addition, it is much easier to navigate the champions since its short unlike other lists.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is I doubt anyone will expand them anytime soon before me. I'm just looking at the number of people who expand TNA type articles and I only see about three with myself included. I believe it is just taking up space and can be re-created later when it is needed or useful.--WillC 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if someone wants to check out the X-DIvison champions they can check the link, this adds nothing to the article. The argument for "Feature topic" is a bit far fetched. It's useless to have various "Holders of the championship" templates (there are like 10 or so?) get rid of it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2009 (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:RenegadesQB 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 - Nabla (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The team is defunct and there is no need to still have this here as it is only used on one page. Giants27 T/C 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- If the template had more entries, then I would have voted to keep, but 2 QBs can be covered in respective team pages.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a template to link only two articles. Robofish (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2009 (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_deletion/Log/2009_March_12&oldid=1192091250"