Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14

NRC region sidebar templates

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 all. Ruslik_Zero 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:NRC region 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NRC region 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NRC region 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NRC region 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are basically redundant to {{U.S. nuclear plants}}. The only difference is that these are sidebars and the combined template is a navbox. The problem with the sidebar is that it clashes with the infobox in articles about nuclear power stations. In the parent NRC region articles, there isn't an infobox, so these do not have the same clashing problem. However, in the parent NRC region articles the same material is repeated 3 times, once in the text, once in the side bar, and once in the footer. Hence, I propose deleting these sidebar templates as being redundant to the other forms of navigation and/or presentation of information. Plastikspork (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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:Usagi Yojimbo Characters

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. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Usagi Yojimbo Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost all links redirect to the character sheet. The few that don't could probably stand to be merged there too, but either way, I still don't think there's enough linkage here for a navbox per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I think there are just about enough valid links to make this navbox viable, but it should also be possible to convert it into a navbox for the series rather than one specific to the characters. PC78 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete most of the characters lack third person sources to justify an articles. Though I believe the template should go although I believe Miyamoto Usagi should be split as enough information has been provided to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• All articles have been redirected now, leaving this template even more redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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:Standard-Rationale

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Standard-Rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to misrepresent policy by insinuation. If there is no requirement that fair use rationales fit any given standardized format, then it is pointless busywork to tag file description pages, and a misrepresentation of policy to insinuate that rationales should be in a certain format when there is no requirement to do so. If there is ever a change to a policy for how fair use rationales should be arranged or formatted, then this type of template may have a place. Until then, however, it's just causing unnecessary alarm and confusion, and should go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then reword it, The template is needed to flag-up false positives in the report that finds images lacking FUR at all. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the reason Sfan00 has given for the necessity of this template is that automated tools and reports may mis-identify an image with a non-standard Fair Use Rationale for deletion. Therefore, I have reworded the template's "usage" information so that the template should only be added to those images that are actually mis-identified. If that works for everyone, then I would not object to the template being added to only those images where such a tool or bot or report has so mis-identified an image. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's still not the whole issue, I'd also been using the template to mark stuff pre-emptively. This was so that media with good rationales, wasn't ending up on the relevant report in the first place. If that usage were also included then I have no objections to the changes at all.  :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then let's make this an invisible template that simply provides a manual check where fair use rationales are determined to be valid but will otherwise show up in reports (in other words, a bot-blocker). I looked at the revised version of the template and even tried my hand at further revisions, and the new wording, even before I further tinkered with it, seems to cause more trouble than it's worth. I do a lot of work in FFD, and I can just see the presence of this template mucking up a discussion with someone thinking that this is a stamp of approval, and that it means we have carte blanche to use the image on Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone is unclear: I do not know how to make a "bot blocker" script of this nature for this template, and this is about the only alternative I would support. Anything else would result in a delete !vote from me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing mind on this - make my !vote a solid delete (now close this discussion already!). SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and noinclude everything. That way, it would be like {{bots}}—bots see the template and skip the file, but there is no displayed text. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In which case we place strict limits on how it's used - only place it if a file actually shows up in a report in error. In other words, no preemptive use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Keep the category, though.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree there, because that misrepresents policy - the heart of this TFD matter in the first place. There is no requirement that fair use rationales fit a standard format, and having a category such as that would indicate that there is a defined standard, which there isn't. All we need is a bot-blocker that will manually remove those files with correct rationales that were identified through automated means as being insufficient when they actually are up to snuff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If we remove the cat, we have to make sure we can still track where this template is—we don't want users making insufficient rationales and slapping this template on it, likely evading other's scrutiny until it is orphaned or another problem crops up. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
          • What links here will always be able to show transclusions, which is sufficient for spot-checking. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Salt, kill it with fire. This notion that correctly-described images aren't "acceptable" unless they've been reviewed and tagged by an editor runs contrary to all of our collegiate basis of editing cooperatively. We define objective conditions that images must meet, we do not tag them as "acceptable" by individuals. I'm also concerned that the prime mover for this template is an editor whose contributions seem to consist entirely of simplistic image-tagging for deletion, a stream of edits historically so problematic in their naive over-simplifications that several other editors have assumed they were a 'bot! We should not have "manual authorisations" like this on image uploads, we should not leave the ability to falsely tag deliberately inappropriate images lying around so carelessly (do you not see the abuse potential here?) and we should not encourage this tool in the hands of an editor with such a track record. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  Your argument was convincing enough that it actually was enough to push me to nominate this template for speedy deletion as T2. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My argument was seemingly convincing enough that it's also triggered the author of this template to review all of my image uploads and see what he can find to delete. Maybe if they had this "Approved by the Cabal" mark of the beast, they'd be OK. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was looking for images to 'include' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Having had a chance to read the debate this templates causing more problems than it's absence.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

Infobox Córdoba

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 per author approval.Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Córdoba (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to infobox department/settlement. No need for a seperate template for a province of Argentina. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Rehman 02:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

NHL Trophies

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Maurice Richard Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Art Ross Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template clutter and lacks relevance. As evidenced here, there is an overwhelming consensus within the hockey project that these templates are not beneficial. Ultimately, it is not relevant to note on one player's article that some other player won the same award at a different time. As such, per existing consensus and ample precedent, I am listing both the Richard template and {{Art Ross Trophy}} for deletion.Resolute 06:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I sincerely enjoy seeing the progression of hockey history through this template. I am perplexed to hear "there is an overwhelming consensus" and is "not relevant". I seem to be one of the few on wikipedia across a few pages but yet I am in no way alone and without massive counter consensus. The Art Ross Trophy itself has several of it's winners in the past actually on the trophy, so there goes it's irrelevance (unless your suggesting we delete the wiki article all together). So for the player who wins the Ross this season he will have to look at "some other player [who] won the same award at a different time." I think that's "ample precedent" contradiction. You suggest deleting from the encyclopedic articles of award winners an element of the very award they worked so hard to earn and justify it with so-called "consensus" and "precedence", these players gladly accept looking at the very thing we shouldn't as we look at them (in wiki form)? There is a consensus on this issue held by the NHL the NHLPA and the Hockey Hall of Fame and thirty organizations in North America, you must wonder what is it that has all of them keep a template like this on the very trophy described in these players wiki articles? They may know something we have yet to learn, that hockey is a way of life not because of the sum of its (ice, pads, stick, puck) parts but because of that intangible in the heart of its fans. I wonder how they would respond to the suggestion of vandalizing the Art Ross trophy winners template of their own. I am committed to remaining civil about this but I keep having flashbacks of cited and referenced books burning, even if those books covered some stuff in other books. It is my sincere hope that we can work together to make wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world. Thank you for your consideration. Hholt01 (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  I find your emotional argument quaint, but irrelevant. There is no "consensus" amongst the NHL, NHLPA and HHOF that you speak of. Rather, on the individual player pages at each, they simply denote that the player has won the award, exactly as we do here. They offer no list of other winners on those individual pages. As such, your argument actually supports my position, not yours. But what it comes down to is clutter and relevance. Take Jarome Iginla, for instance. He has won eight major trophies in his career. That would be eight templates, and well over 300 random player names cluttering up the bottom of his article. It is important to know Iginla won the Art Ross Trophy, yes. But it is not important to know on Jarome Iginla's biography that Dickie Moore also won the trophy. That is where the irrelevance comes into play. If you allow these templates, then you bury eight useful links around 300+ trivial ones. That is why these are not useful as navigational templates. They are just bare lists, and templates are not for replacing article content. Instead, we place all of the high value links into their own section: Jarome Iginla#Awards, and from there, you can browse to an in-context list for each award. Resolute 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 14:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as such templates for awards, isn't necessary. PS: Just incase they're kept, I've hidden the diacritics, as the topic is based on North American ice hockey. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as failing both WP:EMBED and WP:NAVBOX. Have been deleted multiple times in the past. I think you miss the point Hholt01. Its not that the various winners aren't relevant to the award itself, its that the person who won an award in 1932 isn't relevant to the person who won it in 2010. The Art Ross article for example covers the list of who won it and is already linked from all the winners pages. Adding links to every winner on every winners page is overkill and the pure example of trivial linking. Also you imply we are trying to delete the articles of the award winners themselves, which isn't the case at all. We are merely deleting the template. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Intent was not to imply, intent was to understand the logic of deleting the navbox of something that itself reminds all winners of what the navbox reflects. Wikipedia is not the NHL though. Hholt01 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I can see the argument that these templates aid in the navigation for anyone looking through award winners, but is it really more useful (or even more convenient) than just using the main list? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Sure, these take up space, but so do those start and end boxes. And the navboxes are far superior because they show all the winners, not just three. And sure, you can just go to the actual list of winners on another page if you wanted to; but it's more convenient if you're on a player page to just open the box at the bottom. The link to the list is in the box title, as well. - PM800 (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Take a look at File:Jeter_templates.PNG and then tell me how convienient it is? There are maybe 10 or 20 high value links in amoungst this mess of a few hundred. You quickly degrade the usefulness of navboxes when you have ones that are little more than trivial lists of people who have nothing to do with that particular article. Succession boxes are far more useful because it shows only the contemporaries and also has a link to the full list. This way the read is not overwhelmed by links which have little value and hide the truely valuable links. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Links to the main article of the awards, which includes the list of winners, is already in the prose, succession boxes, and most have an awards section, all of which handle the links better. 1948: Lach - does not do much to inform the reader of anything, especially if you don't first know who Elmer Lach is. These templates are more a curiosity than an aid, readers see a list of names an click indiscriminately, making these a collection of low value links that just take up space.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know who Elmer Lach is, then the succession boxes won't help you much either. Both types have years and links, but ultimately the navboxes are better because they have the entire list. If you DO have even a decent amount of knowledge about hockey, then you should find the navboxes more convenient when on a particular player page because you have access to all of the other winners. For instance, if you are on the Lach page, you can only click on Max Bentley and Roy Conacher - not much of a choice. What if you aren't interested in either of those guys? But with the navbox, you might glance at all the names and say "oh never knew Stan Mikita won four times" or something like that, and click on his name. I just think more options are a good thing because that only encourages people to read more pages. The navboxes aren't much taller than the succession boxes, and furthermore they are collapsible. These templates probably won't be kept, but if they are, I'd be willing go back to all the players and delete the applicable succession boxes if you guys don't want duplicate information. - PM800 (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a list regardless: Art Ross Trophy. Creating a duplicate article and calling it a navbox does not make it a useful navigational aid. Seriously, answer me this question: Why is it important to know on Jarome Iginla's article that Elmer Lach won the Art Ross Trophy once upon a time? Resolute 05:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there isn't much of a connection between Iginla and Lach. On the other hand, maybe there is one between Iginla and Mario Lemieux, or Iginla and Martin St. Louis. - PM800 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: These templates recognize the winners of what is arguably the most prestigious individual award to be won in the NHL. It doesn't create clutter for those articles, and it highlights the prestige of the award. The progression of the award adds information to the article as it places players with their peers and within their place in NHL history. They also create useful links for anyone who wants to read more about the best goal scorers in the NHL. These templates make each article better, more complete, and relevantly links the articles with others of a similar topic. Dolovis (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Worth noting that these templates are routinely brought up at WT:HOCKEY and are routinely rejected with near-unanimous opposition. We had a large discussion in April, here, where they were widely agreed to not be useful. Resolute 16:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Simply because I refuse to have something like File:Jeter_templates.PNG happen. Someone like Wayne Gretzky or Henri Richard would have scores of these stupid templates, and it has the complete opposite of their intention by making it harder to navigate the article. No argument has ever come forth to defend that image and why it is useful; were that to happen, I'd gladly listen. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of Jeter's navboxes are for teams or for championship seasons, which is not what we're discussing. I actually wouldn't support making boxes for Stanley Cup rosters at all, for the simple reason that there is one every single year. However, there would only be one navbox for each award. And for what it's worth, the boxes on Jeter's page are collapsed, so you don't even see them unless you choose to. - PM800 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. It isn't the amount of space they take up. Its the number of non useful links they throw at a person. Collapsed or not, someone not super knowledgeable will get lost in a jungle of opening and closing collapsible boxes looking for the truly relevant links. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree with the hockey project on its aversion to templates. These are examples of templates that should exist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to point out this !vote was canvassed by PM800 who choose only TonyTheTiger from a previous discussion to invite here knowing Tony had the same opinion as he. And choose not to also notify those in that conversation who opposed. The very definition of canvassing. Hopefully PM800 will now notify the others in that discussion as hopefully he wasn't willfully violating WP:CANVASS. Tony having been here so long should also know that if he is canvassed he shouldn't then go and !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side comment, even if editors are canvassed (and with a neutrally worded notification, unless they deliberately investigate the canvasser's edits, they wouldn't know), that doesn't mean they shouldn't participate. It's not their fault that the issue came to their attention via canvassing. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, its considered proper to abstain when you have been canvassed. -DJSasso (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then all you would have to do to silence your opponents is to canvass them. It doesn't seem right to penalize someone for an act committed by someone else. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't exactly be canvassing if the people you canvassed !voted opposite you. It's not penalizing them, its called ethics. If you know that because someone canvassed the final outcome of the discussion will shift, and your !vote will be the deciding factor, you are penalizing the people who followed the rules and rewarding those who did not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is how is the canvassed one supposed to tell? I received a neutrally worded notification of a discussion (incidentally with the same wording sent to TonyTheTiger). Am I supposed to check all of the person's edits, sift through all of them to identify which ones are relevant notifications, then search in likely places for similar discussions, and cross-check all of the participants? Assuming I've done that, if I find some missing names, should I say, too bad, I'd better not comment, but only if I happen to have the same views as the canvasser (and if I can infer that the canvasser knew my views)? (And how would I be able to tell the difference between fraudulent canvassing by some random stranger trying to silence my views or true canvassing?) Or should I work towards getting a broader net cast so that everyone can add to the discussion? In the end, a constructive discussion should be the key factor, and since this is not a vote, I don't believe it is appropriate to dictate that notified parties should abstain under specific circumstances, particularly if they have no reason to believe they have been canvassed. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you received it after he was asked to also invite the others in that conversation. Basically any time I receive an individual invitation to a conversation yes I check because individual invitations are usually suspect and more often than not are canvassing which is why its recommended you just post invitations to general forums like say a project page or the like. It doesn't take alot to tell if someone is canvassing. Took me two seconds to see that he only invited one person, and that one person was a very vocal person against deleting them. I am not saying we dictate to them that they shouldn't vote. But that ethically they should know if its appropriate or not. Because if said person goes and notifies all the people that support their position and none of the people that don't then you won't get that good discussion, you will get a one sided discussion because the people that support the other position might not know about the discussion. Most of your situations are straw men. A person usually knows they've been purposefully canvassed immediately, if I was a very vocal and well known advocate for calling apples red and then one day I get an invitation by someone who has just placed the word red into the apple article. It becomes clear I was invited because I supported what they did. And to confirm quickly glance to see if they invited anyone else. If they invited a wide cross section of people then I wouldn't feel ethically bound...but if I see that its pretty much clear they were trying to sway the discussion, then no I wouldn't. It's not hard and takes all of a few seconds. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately as long as a commenter adds to the discussion by bringing a new argument, clarification, counterpoint, and so forth, I don't believe there is any issue with how the commenter came upon the thread. The problem is when a swarm of "me too" responses swamp true discussion—not because of the sheer numbers, since they don't mean anything if the supporting arguments don't hold up, but because they make it harder to follow the thread. Though this can often be characteristic of editors who were canvassed, I don't believe that it should be assumed this will be the case. In short, either editors can add something new or not to a discussion, and I think that should be their standard, without having to guess about the motivations of those who invited them to comment. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a recurring theme that their are a some editors who try to exert control over the efforts of others efforts who are trying to improve hockey related articles. The comments of all must be given the same weight when deciding upon a consensus; and please do not attack me for expressing my opinion, I am not in the mood for more drama. Dolovis (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the comments of all must be given the same weight. That was never the point. Instead your comment was an ad hominem attack, if you don't want drama your might want to stop trying to attack others at every chance. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I do not find this to be true (even the above discussion I think is more about wording than intent). Arguments should be weighed in terms of their relative strengths. Where personal opinions come into play, those can be weighed more evenly, but as canvassing distorts the sample, an effort should be made to restore appropriate balance to the discussion, and possibly adjustments made to accommodate the effect of any canvassing. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would have no problem if the canvassed person then went and invited a wide cross section of people to the conversation. My only point has been that canvassing skews the discussion and that efforts should be made to avoid the skewing, be it by abstaining or by inviting a wider cross section. However its done, its the skewing of the discussion that needs to be avoided. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree that they detract rather than add to the page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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.