Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 12

< October 11	October 13 >

October 12 edit

Template:Infobox Romania Communes 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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Romania Communes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Infobox settlement. Even the creator of the templates who is no longer active chose to use infobox settlement in thee end... Himalayan 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with the widely used {{Infobox settlement}}. Communes clearly are settlements, and there are no special fields or local terminology in this template to justify a specific variant just for Romanian commmunes. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I converted the backend to use {{infobox settlement}}. If this discussion ends with deletion, I am happy to perform the necessary substitution/logic cleanup, to replace this template with the more generic settlement box. If this discussion does not end with deletion, this is at least a step forward in providing a more uniform appearance. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete as there is nothing here which can't be handled by the more generic settlement infobox. Just ping me and I can do and necessary cleanup work after this closes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 20 October 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:2008 MLB All Star Game, AL Team 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) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 MLB All Star Game, AL Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009 MLB All Star Game, AL Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates do not serve a useful navigational purpose, and they only create clutter which can be reduced by going to the page about the specific All-Star Game referenced. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really don't see a problem, they're relevant and they really don't cause any clutter Duffy2032 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CLN's discussion of disadvantages of navigation templates: "Take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related." It's doubtful that many readers will want to navigate between members of all-star teams, and as the nominator noted, they can always do so by going to the all-star game page.BRMo (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As applied to this instance since categories and lists already exist for this information and is not needed per WP:CLN. To address Duffy's point, I think you would have to look at each of those situations through the lens of CLN and not make the assumption that since they are all navboxes they shouldbe treated equally. - Masonpatriot (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How are these any different than championship team templates, award templates, WBC or pro bowl templates? --Duffy2032 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of degree; we have to draw the line somewhere, or articles just get too cluttered. Just to take one example, Hank Aaron was a member of 25 all-star teams, and I really don't want to see 25 navboxes added to his page. Similarly, while we've accepted navboxes for championship teams, we've deleted navboxes for division champions, etc. Navboxes should only be used where there's a legitimate navigational purpose that outweighs the potential clutter it adds to articles. BRMo (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise solution: All star game infoboxes should be collapsed into one section, like this,

{{Navboxes|list1=<span/>
{{s-start-collapsible|header={{s-ach}}}}
{{2009 MLB All Star Game, AL Team}}
{{2008 MLB All Star Game, AL Team}}
}}

--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are already supposed to be, even with the amount that we do have. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case, then whats the problem? as long as they are organized and aren't obscure (see: Template:Ivy League MLB All-Stars) templates shouldn't be removed. --[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that hiding them still doesn't make the navboxes and links useful to readers. Articles should only have navboxes if they are an aid to navigation by readers of the article; they should not be mere decoration. Also, adding a bunch of navboxes can slow down page loading for users with slow Internet connections (something I've experienced). BRMo (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete teammates in any given season are not a notable or defining aspect of a player's career. Teammates for a single game even less so. These templates are nothing but clutter. Reso lute 00:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EMBED naboxes should only include links that would only already be included on a perfect version of the article the navbox is beign used on. All these players would not normally be found linked from each others page. And WP:NAVBOX says navboxes should not be used for award recipients/championships. One might say an all-star team is an award. -DJSasso (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion about this particular one, but it is a navbox that is similar to other templates that have been debated frequently here on TFD that list the rosters of championship teams. Among those that have been deleted are the ice hockey ones and the Association football ones. The ones for baseball, basketball, and American football currently remain. As indicated on the latter discussion, and this other recent one, their use seems to be based on consensus of the members of the respective WikiProject. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the general belief at the WikiProject Baseball talk page is that these should be deleted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provided that multi-year honorees are in practice nested as described above. The way I see it, this is less about being a member of a particular team, and more about receiving an honor (i.e. status as an All-Star), and there's plenty of precedent for templates listing award recipients. Actually, the best solution might be one template for membership in any All-Star team, with each individual year's rosters accessible via incorporated links at the bottom, like on Template:Nobel Peace Prize Laureates 2001-2025. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That a player made an All-Star team is noted in prose, or under an awards and honours section. There is no question that making such a team is notable. The question is whether the person who played first base for two innings on the same team is notable to the subject of the article? I think not, myself. Reso lute 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Knowing the other players honored as All-Stars in the same year as the player whose article carries the template is what gives you the context necessary to understand the importance of the honor of the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, if anything its the opposite that is true. Its those players not on the team that gives some context, that being said none of that is defining of the player themself on thier bio page. This sort of information belongs on the all star page itself because its defining of the team and not the player. Are you who you are because you work in the same company as Joe Smith in accounting when you work in the mail room. Not at all. Your co-workers do not define you but the combination of all the employees define the company. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to "Joe Smith in accounting" is nonsensical within the context of this discussion, unless Joe and I have both received the same prestigious award. I don't know how many times I can say this: It's not about the players playing one game on the same team. It's about players being given one of the sport's signal honors: status as an All-Star. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the same argument holds true, you aren't who you are because you won the same award as someone else. You already were that person. These links to teamates do not define the player and violate WP:EMBED in that only links that would already be found on the article of the subject the navbox is used on should be found in navboxes. All these random players would not be found on each others page. If you want context on being an allstar you click the wiki link in the section that talks about how he was named an allstar and you go to the allstar page where you get that context. That is how a wiki works. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im just not a fan of these.--Yankees10 00:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary navigational clutter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 20 October 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.