Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 March 19)
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19 edit


Template:Southern Nazarene University 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southern Nazarene University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Goes against WP:NAV#Properties ("Navigation templates provide navigation" No. 1 & No. 3; "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles" No. 1; "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" No. 1; "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative" No. 1): Largely non-extant links for non-notable topics, links to unrelated pieces of OKC; again, non-extant links for non-notable topics; again, links to unrelated pieces of OKC, not supported by WP:RSWP:VERIFY; does not match http://home.snu.edu/dept/VSG/VSG.pdf VSG. Additionally, goes against WP:CLN#Navigation templates ("As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is 'no', a category or list is probably more appropriate." & "Disadvantages of templates" No. 3). Attempted colour correction and utility alteration reverted by creator: potential WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. Regardless, template is unnecessary, function better served by a "Category:Southern Nazarene University" for the small number of existing and notable articles. Aepoutre (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. It only contains four links that pertain directly to the university. Compare that with dozens of items with no link at all. This temp provides no useful navigation. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. I've spent some online time with the editors who created it and they were very enthusiastic about their work. I had hoped that they would continue it. In light of these reasons, I'm coming down on "delete" for the template myself. I think it's busy, distracting, and does more harm than good. Cool colors, though! If the editors who created it jump in and want to take some time to re-do it, that would be fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete. (It's all meaningless under the sun.) I created it, so of course I want to keep it, and of course there is a WP:COI. I thought the work would speak for itself. The colors were from page six of the Visual standards guide (Web colors). But if we want to be picky SNU actually just uses plain olde red, black and white for all the sports uniforms and other stuff. Red, black and white are just easier to use than Pantone 139 and 201. The fact is, that other universities and colleges, small and large, have similar templates. I was just trying to make SNU fit in. I don't know how else to defend it. (I didn't think it needed to be defended. It is not costing any money to be there, does that sway anyone?) But seriously, it provides information that is not included in the article such as degrees SNU offers. (At one point it was, but it made for a long ugly looking article, now it is clear, concise, and compact.) It easily list things that probably don't merit a full page. I started to create pages for the different schools and things within SNU, I started with athletics (creating the Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm page) and my pages got marked with a speedy deletion tag or a merge back into the main page tag, so I stopped. The nav-temp was designed to be launching pad so that at a later date SNU's article quality would match that of bigger A quality articles of the bigger schools. But you are right, SNU is small, and probably not notable to anyone outside of the Bethany-Warr Acres area. The template also provides information of the life and culture of being at SNU which I think is important in case you wanted to research SNU or perhaps want to go there. (Although I would never want the SNU article to be commercial for increasing enrollment.) I've looked at almost EVERY NAIA/NCAA school page and I made the decision that creating this nav-box thing was the best way to up the quality of the article. And I would like to point out that not every page in Wikipedia follows the strict notable guidelines, I ask for grace here, it's not hurting anyone. I'm not what else to say here, and I'm not sure if my vote even counts since I created it, but it was worth a shot. Any other questions see my talk page. PEACE and LOVE Moonraker0022 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Moonraker, you're more than welcome to defend the template you created! While the OWN issues I've seen may be linked to that fact that you did create this template, the COI issues were more linked to its unnecessary coverage of your alma mater. The other matters are fairly irrelevant, as I've easily done the research on SNU colours and converted Pantone to Hex, and a majors listing is unencyclopedic anyway, as I've already informed you. I've encouraged you to review WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:CLN, WP:NAV, and WP:RS in times past, to help with general editing and to help avoid the creation of non-notable university-related articles and templates that similarly don't meet guidelines and standards. While I am a huge fan of interpreting such guidelines "in the spirit of the law" rather than "hard and fast", I think the aforementioned guidelines exist with good reason in a case like this, and my nomination rather patently speaks to that. I do, however, look forward to collaborating with you on future projects, my friend! --Aepoutre (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not so much "defend it" to me as it is "improve it" -- which will come with the improvement and addition of articles in Wikipedia. For example, the "academic" section of the template has no links in it. Since there's no link, it's not really a "navigation" box... but a "non-navigation" box or maybe a "planning box" (meaining a place to hold future article ideas). Hey, there's a great way to manage that--but not in a navbox on the article page. Personally, I'd rather see all the articles get cranked out and keep the navbox as is (embedding links, of course). Would really be a robust collection of topics.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, it would be nice to see more related, notable articles exist, but you're right that this navbox provides little real navigation, which is one reason why it doesn't meet the guidelines. Recall, too, that many of the existing links are unrelated, which also violates guidelines. I would also like to reiterate my notability concerns: not all the nonlinks here would produce notable articles, which poses the question of whether or not this could ever be the navbox its creator intended it to be. It's not just one issue with this template, and the creator has reverted attempts to make it useful,[1] citing his or her original intent (maybe those POV problems alone may have been a good enough reason for its nomination)[2]. My beef with said editor yesterday was eventually resolved because he/she was vandalising his/her alma mater's page with material that didn't meet WP:VERIFY,[3] but this is a trickier situation with multiple issues that can't be resolved with a single core content guideline like VERIFY. I'd be fine with it's removal from articles without deletion if there was a chance that other editors could contribute without edit wars with the original author and that it be limited to notable, existing, related articles per the guidelines above. As it stands now, however, regarding the state of the template's coverage of un-related and non-extant non-notable articles, and reverted efforts at altering its use, I stand by my nomination for deletion. --Aepoutre (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment generally, notability is a matter of opinion or at least interpretation (which is an opinion in my opinion, but I digress...). While you may be correct on the notability issue, I'd prefer not to "take that tool out of the box" just yet because... well... the navbox doesn't... navigate (much). With that, notability becomes a non-issue. If you want to have a notability argument about an article, we really need the article to exist first.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability is per WP:UNIGUIDE. Excellent point, though, Paul! I appreciate that. Now you're definitely right that the notability of the articles isn't an issue until we've crossed that bridge; however, if we refer to WP:NAV, which states that articles should exist before their addition to a navbox, and we know ahead of time that such articles are non-notable per WP:UNIGUIDE#Sub-articles, then we have no need to get to that bridge in the first place, let alone decide to cross it. If it's a matter of waiting until several articles are created along with a navbox for each one, then finding out that all but two are non-notable and must be deleted, then we end up in the same boat: a navigation template that does not provide navigation between existing, related articles. So I understand the subjectivity of notability, but I've relied on guidelines and previous consensus to establish some objectivity in this case. I take to heart WikiProject University's assertion that all colleges and universities are notable, but neither I nor the project community, it seems, would go so far as to say that multiple articles about each and every college are equally so. --Aepoutre (talk) 16:37, 24 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:Bosnian War Camps 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 G7. JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bosnian War Camps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template, I went ahead and added its contents to Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War, so its no longer needed. PRODUCER (talk) 14:32, 19 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:Unreferenced-inline 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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template duplicates function of {{unreferenced}} and was only created to be placed at the bottom of articles (e.g. on Mary Maytham Kidd), which goes against the standardization for clean up templates at WP:TMC. Rkitko (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This template, in common with many other in-line templates, was designed to be less in-your-face than the boxed version. As for placement, it can be put anywhere in the article, even though WP:TMC states quite clearly If too many tags are piled at the top of an article, the article starts being eclipsed by the tags, especially with short or stub articles. Please try to consolidate them into the ((articleissues)) template as much as possible Rotational (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[incivility above removed] cygnis insignis 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please be civil. This has nothing to do with you. I just don't see the point of this template and I don't believe there are any other clean up templates that are "in-line" like this. The clean up templates were recently standardized, and the quote from WP:TMC has more to do with a suggestion to use {{articleissues}} than suggesting to place the tags elsewhere. I see no need for an in-line version of this template. --Rkitko (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see nothing in my comments above which can be construed as uncivil. You have already made perfectly clear your abhorrence of anything which is not boxed or lined, so there is no need to belabour it. Rotational (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was the tag in question used in Abroteia correctly? If so, it seems pretty messy and doesn't seem to add anything to the boxed version. FingersOnRoids♫ 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The template is used as a way to "hide" maintenance issues at the bottom of the page, and so thus is inappropriate Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply not true - the tag may be put anywhere as stated quite clearly above Rotational (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the same page you linked to "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article—before other templates, disambiguation links, images, or infoboxes". Hiding maintinence templates at the bottom of the page is like pushing them under the carpet, pretending they aren't there. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be nice if they weren't there - they are such unsightly things. Wikipedia needs to do a survey of just how effective those maintenance templates are - personally, I don't think many editors, casual or regular, respond by fixing the problem, but rather move on and leave it to someone else. So those templates sit there for month after month, and year after year, being a blot on the face of the article, shouting their unheeded messages. Of course, they do satisfy a deep psychological need for those editors who feel that a page is aesthetically incomplete without them. Plant stub templates belong to the maintenance tag group and are not boxed and appear routinely at the bottom of the page. It would seem that WP is not completely consistent and beholden to the pharisees, thank heavens!! Rotational (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant, and inferior, to {{unreferenced}}. If an article is tagged for being completely unreferenced, that applies to the entire article, so the tag should be prominent at the top. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-standard and redundant to {{unreferenced}}. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template is also hard to spot at first glance, which goes against the whole point of maintenance templates. They should be easy to spot so that people are more likely to fix whatever the problem is so that they can remove the template. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Enough templates to mess articles up to indicate there are not enough references, we can do with less. --Pudeo⺮ 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inferior to {{unreferenced}}. — neuro(talk)(review) 11:51, 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:RIAA Diamond 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RIAA Diamond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes (according to WP:NAVBOX) are "to facilitate navigation between those articles". I think it is unlikely that someone is going to want to navigate between the different albums that the RIAA has certified as Diamond. This would be better served by a category or maybe a list article. JD554 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: I think this would be better off as a category. Also if editors want to they can always add the ♦ symbol and date to the certifications box on the album article. The template at the moment already looks big and will continue to grow over the months. No vote from me. MegX (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of all the diamond albums already exists at List of best-selling albums in the United States. This template just repeats the same information, for as the nom says an unlikely and unnecessary navigational ability. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Wasted Time R. This template appears cluttered due to the amount of information packed in such a small space, and that diminishes its value as a navigational tool. The list at RIAA certification#Diamond sales has much more potential for purposes of navigation. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. indopug (talk) 13:31, 26 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_19&oldid=1138693714"