Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

Template:Santos FC honours

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) 02:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Santos FC honours (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is no longer in use in any article. Digirami (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as unused and redundant to article text. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (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:Highest-grossing films franchise

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 userfied by author, so WP:CSD#G7. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Highest-grossing films franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User experiment which violates MOS:COLLAPSE. The creator thinks he/she WP:OWN's the template and will not let anyone else work on it. Suggest moving to userspace or just delete it. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Editor misbehaviour is not in itself a deletion rationale, and so long as it isn't axctually being deployed while half-finished there's nothing wrong with keeping it in templatespace for now. Storm in a teacup IMO. If it ends up not getting used then it can be deleted in due course, but there's no rush. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment by template developer The creation of this template is the result of this discussion to add collapsible elements to a table (MOS:COLLAPSE explicitly permits collapsible elements in a table so I do not consider the nomination to be valid). This was the result of a long discussion and the collapsible table was the result of a consensus. However, the code is complex, and requires data to be input several times, hence the creation of the template to facillitate data entry. This is clearly not a "user experiment", I have developed a template that will be in the table on the main article. As you can see it is not quite ready yet, there are one or two things left to be sorted out. However, Frietjes made some alterations to the template that covered up the wiki rendering, which I subsequently reverted because I need to see the wiki rendering for the templates it uses. Accusations of WP:OWN are absurd, since he doesn't know what the template is supposed to do, has not taken part in any of the discussion on the design of the collapsible table, and how can I develop it if he keeps changing stuff that I need to see in order to finish off the development? There is always going to be some ownership control in developing a template, because they are designed for a specific purpose. This is compeletly avoidable, it will be finished in a couple of days and will then be used in the article (to see the stage of development, you can see my test cases in my sandbox, but obviously they are subject to change). Any design changes will be discussed on the article talk page and accommodated if that is the will of the editors. It is not currently used anywhere else, it harms no-one where it is, why aren't I being left to finish its development so it can then be used? Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per this discussion [1]. Seems perfectly allowable per MOS:COLLAPSE, "'Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles". Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, invalid reason for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have no issue with the template one way or the other but I would recommend moving it to user space to avoid this sort of issue if the developer wants to develop it without interruption. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep but userify No valid reason to delete. Userification will allow Betty to complete her development relatively uninterrupted. — Scientizzle 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It's all been said before me. I don't understand why you want to delete this. The collapsible solution was the result of a couple of months of discussion to find the best way to approach the inconsistencies that were in the table. It was supported by a number of people, so if you have problems with its design, then feel free to contribute to the discussion here. I don't know a lot about templates, but I can't see this one doing any harm. I do know at least I am excited for the arrival of this table, but for that, the template must finish development. So yeah, there's no valid reasoon to delete. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Userfy to allow for development by the original author, until the author changes her mind about having other editors work on it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Sarek. But the author should allow other editors to work on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, it looks like it could be an improvement with some minor changes to the code. I am currently working on it. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Move to user space, it looks like this user does not actually want to collaborate on the template, so it should not be in main template space. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  IP, I do appreciate your attempts to help, and I am a collaborative editor, but I have shifted this to my own userspace now. You highlighted a problem which I wasn't aware of, but your solution wasn't entirely appropropriate i.e limiting the series template to 30 films is no good when you consider the Bond films are up to 22 already, and has another 20 years left in its copyright. You also cleaned up code which I'm going to make some major changes to, in order to automate the summation of the gross totals. I have absolutely no problem with people cleaning up/fixing code once I've got the functionality and styling developed to the point where I'm happy to hand it over to other people. I've developed templates in template space before and never had an interference until they were added to articles, where you expect other editors to customise them. However, when I'm still working on the functionality it's a real headache when there are changes to the code, so I'll complete the templates in my userspace and then other people can pitch in once I've got them doing everything they're supposed to do. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• CLOSE Moved to user space. The constant interfernce while I develop the template is too much. I moved it to user space so I complete it without interruption. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2011 (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:Use mdy dates

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 no consensus to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Use mdy dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Use dmy dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Use ymd dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

MOSNUM warrior spam that has been applied to 12,117 pages. Editors involved are subject to arbcom restrictions regarding automated date formatting, and should not be working in this area in the first place. Template serves no purpose other than to assist bots in making edits that are currently banned from automation by ArbCom order. Gigs (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you nominating this one and the Use dmy dates one as well, or only the mdy one? If only this one, what is the difference with the dmy one? As far as I am concerned, they can both go, since they are added to thousands of pages for little to no benefit, but the nomination here is a bit unclear to me. Fram (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should both go. I will make that clearer. Gigs (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Both these templates are fully protected, so could an admin please add the TfD template to both of these templates? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  I have added {{editprotected}} to the 3 talk pages... Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  ...and realized {{use ymd dates}} was never protected after all. So, anyway, {{use ymd dates}} has a TfD template on it, and my edit requests with {{editprotected}} are still on template talk:use dmy dates and template talk:dmy (template talk:use mdy dates redirects there). Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 19:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that, Cimany. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Question Is there any harm in leaving them? They do convey some useful information, and I find that in rare cases where I am not sure what date format to use, if one of these templates is present it can help me decide. Also, there might be some future uses. --Muhandes (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• So you are not proposing {{Use ymd dates}}? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, all of them. If you have a list of all the useless templates, just add them above. Gigs (talk)
• are bots genuinely banned from respecting these? Reflinks, for instance, adds dates (current and historic) to references, and I'd assumed it respected these templates if they were in place. I understand that bots which change one to the other are banned, but I'd assumed these templates were still handy for new dates added by bots. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I concede that is one legitimate use for them. The description given in the template documentation shows that the original intention was different, to provide an automated way for bots to automatically change date formats. My nomination rationale is based on that intention. Gigs (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • And indeed that's no longer encouraged, nor even permitted. However, I feel that the use case I've provided is sufficient justification for continuing to use these. obviously the documentation should be updated to remove the references to these being added to articles as some sort of territorial race, ideally being replaced with a comment that they should only be placed on articles where a clear consensus has been established as to which format to use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Please note the final paragraph of the original documentation about bots and the correct format. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. They would be even better if they had a parameter linking to the talk page archive which shows where consensus was reached about what date format to use. If dates in the article have become inconsistent, it is a pain in the neck to figure out what the format used to be before inconsistencies were introduced. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Essential for periodic maintenance. I'm not aware of any bots changing date formats wholescale from an established format – that was certainly not the intention (nor do I actually read that in the template documentation, although I admit it could be better worded). The templates are certainly useful to align date formats that have drifted out of line through article evolution/growth: use of bots relying on these templates is potentially possible, although none are currently authorised to do this. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete These templates would make it very easy for a bot to detect dates. However, even a mildly sophisticated bot should be able to read other references on the page to determine the style the page uses. The only problem I could see where this template would be necessary is if the page had no references. Reading through the page to determine dates in the text would be difficult for a bot to accomplish, so this template would fix that. However, if the page has no references with dates, any work the bot does would probably not break style anyways since the page would have no real style at that point. And the author of a page without any dates in references probably wouldn't know to use these templates anyways. I don't see much practical use for these. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot ought to be capable of parsing date formats, but in the absence of indications or tags inserted by human hand, it's not a method the BAG are ever likely to allow a bot to rely on for aligning date formats, for fear of the false positives. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a few bots that need to insert dates, already parse for existing formats, since most articles don't have these templates. There are hardly any false positives, especially if the article uses cite templates properly. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Jc. Plus, this is a very helpful approach to bringing some level of consistency to the format within an article. Might not be a bad idea to have the same format in the text and in the notes -- a thought for future improvements. But this is a step forward in and of itself. And yes, in time I could see a bot handling some of this work, if it is smart enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep ~ Per above comments, plus, this is a very useful set of templates used in countless of articles and categories. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• To all the above keepers, can anyone give an example of bots use these templates? Or what bots are planned to use these templates? --Odie5533 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the many tasks included in this request could be envisaged. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep—Unlike Ohconfucius, I wouldn't say they're essential for routine maintenance; but they are helpful sometimes. Can't see the harm. Tony (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Tony. They are useful for maintenance and don't cause any harm. I would suggest to the nom, that if he/she is worried that editors are in violation of ArbCom restrictions, then it would be best to take that concern up at WP:AE, rather than TfD. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate under a different name manually. The fact that bots and scripts are incorrectly adding the templates to articles makes them worse than useless. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  Per the comment about a talk page archive above, I might accept allowing the templates only if they link to a talk page archive, and that section not be created by a bot [a manually run script might be OK]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware, no bot has ever added this template. It has only been added by a manually run script. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  In the past, Ohconfucius hasn't been much more insightful or responsive than a bot. Perhaps he's changed now, but that doesn't mean that he didn't make hundreds of errors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting mode of thought. By that token, let's take away all editors keyboards. I suspect that keyboards have been used by vandals, countless times, to vandalize pages. Really, Arthur ... --Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  It only applies to editors with a history of misuse, who had been restricted from working in that area, and are now working in the area. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  We are discussing a tool, not an editor. Suggesting that a helpful tool should be wrested from the community on the basis of your assertion that an individual editor has used it in what you feel is an inappropriate way is -- to my mind -- contrary to the interest of the community. This is the "Templates for discussion" page; lets keep it that way.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  At least Helpful Pixie Bot added these templates to thousands of articles. I have no idea if other bots did this as well. Fram (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Reform. The keep !voters are all correct that the template is useful to bots, when it is impossible for bots to parse the existing date format. These may even be potentially used to maintain existing format. However, the problem is that these are being added to articles indiscriminately based on date format criteria, such as strong national ties or similar. Articles, where bots should have no problems parsing dates. We should at least rename these to "Bots use xxx dates". There has never been, as far as I know, any discussion to use these for other purposes or to add them to pages en masse without rationale. Currently, rationale seems to be "this is the article's date format, so the template matches". Humans don't need these in majority of cases, unless I am underestimating editor ability to tell what the established date format is. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep These templates fulfill a function. They tell users to make an effort to use a certain dateformat, for consistency's sake. That is a good thing. I do think that bots should not add these templates, since I don't think bots can assess whether the use of a certain dateformat in an article is coincidence or on purpose, and even if it is on purpose, it can be correct or incorrect. But that is another matter, and does not reflect on my opinion to keep this template. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 99% of the editors never see this template though (or the similar ones like "Use British English"), so whether they really fulfill that function is debatable... Fram (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Robots recognize format of dates even if articles are not tagged by another bot. If these dates are useful anyhow for robots, they can recognize the format of dates and do their action. There is no need to tag articles. These templates are not useful and they make confusion. --Snek01 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, I surely wouldn't mind to delete everything that is somehow related to dates on Wikipedia. How many years of useful editing to this encyclopedia have already been wasted because of this nonsense? --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment To all the !keeps saying this is useful for bots, what happens if someone doesn't update the template? Then you are in a bad situation because the bot was complying with the template but also changing date styles. In addition, the amount of work require for a bot to check which style the page uses is trivial. I threw this together in python [2]. It's 7 lines of code and tells you which style the page is currently using as opposed to which style the page used when someone last remembered to update these templates. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep There are several tools, such as AWB that respect these templates. Tools can be used by human editors as well as bots. If human editors or bots are adding/changing these templates or dates incorrectly, we should be contacting them directly. Does anyone have examples of ongoing incorrect edits as a result of these templates where direct communication has not succeeded? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  Two additional reasons for deletion, which have been brought up in this review.

  1. If "Helpful Pixie Bot" really did add it to thousands of articles, it should be removed from those articles, and not readded until an editor manually determines that it should have been added at the time. I can see that the template may have uses, if not added by bots, and not added by editors where it had been added by bots, without investigation.

     So you are saying that the template(s) must be removed from some articles only, and this implies that it(they) should be NOT deleted. Is this correct? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  2. Per MOSDATE, there may be different styles for the body and most dates in references, and for accessdates in the references; so that the template needs to be removed add readded with separate templates for {{use dmy in accessdate}} and {{use dmy in body}}. If {{use dmy}} is interpreted (by bots and/or AWD) as both of those, it's incorrect.

     (IMHO) There should be NOT different styles for dates in body and references of the same article or it will cause confusion. Quickly update MOSDATE to meet this point! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  Even if template may have uses, almost all existing uses need to be removed. Hence that would be my vote delete, remove from articles, and recreate templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

  Bots keep track of their edits, so I think it is easy to undo these kind of edits and remove the template(s) from the pages where they placed them. It is not necessary to delete the template(s) to do this job. A bot can do it easily. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Don't care about bots; these templates provide useful guidance to human editors. It is very annoying when mdy dates are added to Australian or British topics. These templates help to discourage this. HairyWombat 15:41, 24 September 2011 (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:Biju Patnaik University of Technology

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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Biju Patnaik University of Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this navbox is unclear (other than, maybe, to promote Biju Patnaik University of Technology). The listed institutes are not affiliated with Biju Patnaik University of Technology in any way. It is unclear to me what the criteria for listing is, but I suspect it would be redundant to Template:Universities in Orissa and/or Template:Education in Rourkela. Muhandes (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. It was malformed, but now that the situation was explained to me, I fixed it. --Muhandes (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2011 (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:Bowl Challenge Cup winners

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) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bowl Challenge Cup winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox templates seems pretty unnecessary. It provides links to bowl seasons since 2002, which we already have covered by Template:NCAA football bowl season navbox, and the conference that won the Bowl Challenge Cup each given season, which pretty much reduces down to a who's who of the FBS conferences, which is covered by Template:NCAA Division I FBS conference navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete The combination of the {{NCAA football bowl season navbox}} and Bowl Challenge Cup article make the nominated navbox unnecessary. It's not even really a navbox, it's just a list of conferences and bowl game seasons. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2011 (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:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

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 No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to violate our guidelines at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. That page lists four properties of a "good" navigation template:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
   • This one is met.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
   • Not met; in fact, most of the articles don't mention membership in this hall of fame.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
   • Very few of these articles refer to each other, for obvious reasons.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
   • There is no article on the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame, nor does the Florida Gators article include significant coverage of the hall of fame.

Furthermore, there are a ridiculous number of non-articles listed in this template, which rather contradicts the whole point of a navigation http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/WikEd_fullscreen.pngbox. A navbox is used to navigate among related articles, so why is half the list made up of non-articles?

This sort of thing would work much better as a list, rather than as a gigantic template at the bottom of scores of tenuously-related articles.

-- Powers ^T 02:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Adamantly Opposed. Where to start?

1. Single coherent subject. Check. Every listed person is a former University of Florida athlete or coach of one of the Florida Gators sports teams who earned significant recognition at the Division I level. The athlete members of the UFHOF include individual NCAA national champions, NCAA team champions, first-team All-Americans, Heisman Trophy winners, Pro Bowl selections, Olympic medalists in multiple sports, FINA world champions, U.S. Amateur golf champions, British Open champions, U.S Open champions, PGA champions, Wimbledon champions, World Cup soccer champions, and the like. The honorary lettermen members include NCAA national championship coaches, major university athletic directors, and notable professional sports coaches. The distinguished lettermen members include U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Florida governors, mayors, CEOs of public corporations and philanthropists. In order to have a linked article, all UFHOF members satisfy the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

2. Factually Incorrect. Not just "most" of the linked articles, but virtually every linked article explicitly mentions UFHOF membership and includes a footnote to news coverage from the time of the member's induction into the UFHOF. The nominating editor clearly did not examine many of these articles to make this demonstrably incorrect determination. If he had, he would have discovered that the only five of 177 linked articles that do not expressly mention membership in the UFHOF are the five that were added to the template today (September 7, 2011). These five are the members the UFHOF Class of 2012 that were announced today and which I did not have time to add to the text of the five individual articles before meeting a client for dinner. I suggest that you randomly select 20 of the linked articles and see how many explicitly mention UFHOF membership. Any such sample will easily support the truth of my assertion and the lack of due diligence on the part of the nominating editor.

3. Ridiculous and Irrelevant Assertion. There are multiple HOF templates and articles/lists on Wikipedia which are linked to the individual biographies of the listed HOF members. Why would the biography of a member of the HOF Class of 1959 make express reference to a member of the Class of 2012? Do the listed winners of the Heisman Trophy listed on the Heisman template make reference to the articles of other Heisman winners? (A: damn few.) Over 170 of these 177 linked articles do explicitly refer to the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame, which is the common honor that all members have received.

4. List or article could be created. No, there is no stand-alone article or list that currently supports the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame template, nor is there extensive coverage of the UFHOF within the Florida Gators article. It has always been the plan to create a stand-alone list of these UFHOF honorees, but the creation of such an article or list is not something that one creates in 20 minutes to satisfy the nominating editor's criteria. Between now and tomorrow morning, however, I will add a section to the Florida Gators article regarding the UFHOF. Next?

5. List of Members is Complete. No, not every listed member of the UFHOF currently has a linked Wikipedia article. So what? Over 60% of the listed members do have linked articles. All UFHOF members are listed for completeness. There are 177 linked articles listed on this template, and many of the currently unlinked names could easily satisfy the notability standards for stand-alone articles if you or I had the time to create them all. Do you want us to delete the unlinked names, thereby creating an incomplete list of UFHOF members? Or would you prefer that we simply create 100+ red links within the template until such time as every listed UFHOF member has a stand-alone linked article? Navboxes can and do impart information other than linked articles; the fact that there are 177 linked articles within this navbox suggests that there are plenty of articles from which to navigate if one is interested in the history of the University of Florida sports program----and many Wikipedia readers are. Why would we make this information harder to find by deleting this template?

6. Tenuously Related? Furthermore, the listed articles are no more "tenuously related" than those members of any other sports hall of fame. If you are a fan of the Florida Gators sports program, the listed members are logically connected one to another as the Hall of Fame "Greats" that have been produced by University of Florida sports teams over the past 105 years. This is no different than the Florida Sports Hall of Fame, and the many other halls of fame for which HOF member navboxes exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• navboxes are for navigating existing content. They should not be created in the first instance to enumerate subjects which do not have articles. It would be far better to take the current navbox, work on it as an article, and if the time comes where it would seem logical to add it to the footer of all the biographies therein it can be recreated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thumperward, your comment ignores the existing navbox guidelines restated by the nominating editor above: (1) By the nominator's own admission, the navbox deals with a single coherent subject; (2) the nominator falsely states that the navbox's linked articles do not mention the UFHOF when, in fact, 172 of 177 linked articles mention it explicitly; (3) the nominator mentions a third guideline, that "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent," that has no bearing in this context; and (4) as of today, the navbox is now supported by an explanatory section within the Florida Gators article here. This navbox clearly satisfies three of the four "good navbox" guidelines, and the fourth guideline is arguably inapplicable to any HOF navbox. This question is rapidly becoming whether TfD regulars can apply their own guidelines, or will they engage in an "I don't like it" exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• IMO the question is whether the "TfD regulars", who deal with navbox deletion requests on a daily basis, are capable of applying common sense over and above the specific navbox guidelines. In my opinion, the original nominator's rationale was valid: these people are not known primarily for their inclusion in the UFHOF, the UFHOF itself doesn't even have a standalone article at this time, and 60% is nowhere near the level of completed articles I'd consider before creating a navbox for any subject. Writing the navbox first is putting the cart before the horse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Does 100% satisfy your personal standard standard for "the level of complete articles [you would] consider before completing a navbox" for a particular subject? The previously listed names of members who did not have Wikipedia articles have now been removed. There will be a stand-alone UFHOF article before the weekend is over; I will create it personally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• The amount of unlinked subjects is a symptom of a greater problem with this template, which is that it is an attempt to map out an area which Wikipedia does not currently cover in sufficient detail to warrant a navbox. Removing those links simply makes it incomplete. I understand that this seems like "damned if you do, damned if you don't", but when the original premise of the template is flawed it's not going to be possible to simply tick boxes during the discussion to rectify that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Thumperward, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. But that does not indicate a problem with the template, or the factually flawed premise of this TfD nomination. The DIYDDIYD mentality is indicative of your flawed logic and your need to create ex post facto justifications for a factually flawed nomination.
• Furthermore, your assertion "that it is an attempt to map out an area which Wikipedia does not currently cover in sufficient detail to warrant a navbox" is patently ridiculous. No navbox has ever been held to that standard; good luck finding a guideline to support it. We do not delete a Battleship navbox simply because it does not list every battleship ever launched. We do not delete a Philosophy navbox because it does not include a link to every philosopher who ever lived. By any "common sense" standard, 177 completed articles is enough.
• One further point, TW. You say that "TfD regulars" can apply common sense regardless of what the TfD and navbox guidelines actually say? Exactly what then is the standard? Clearly, there is none that can be clearly stated. It simply becomes a matter of Chris' personal opinion, which is another way of saying "I don't like it." I don't doubt your sincerity, Chris; I question your logic, methods, and your sense of due process. Either let it go, or reformulate a set of standards which you can actually follow. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• I find it odd that you would accuse others of tying to find ex post facto arguments for deletion when your own arguments appear to be multiplying. As I don't believe that responding to comments which are getting increasingly wikilawyerish is productive, I will simply summarise my position, which hasn't changed since my initial comment: this navbox was prematurely created. At this time, there is little evidence to suggest that having appeared in the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame (for achievement in college sports) is such a notable achievement that the various alumni in question should be linked through a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris, let's be very specific and not hide behind generalities. Let's not create strawmen. The original nomination above was premised on the four referenced navbox guidelines and one additional objection:

1. By the nominator's admission, the first guideline was satisfied.

2. The nominating editor erroneously asserted that the second guideline was violated; he clearly failed to perform any due diligence on point, and has since acknowledged that this objection under the second guideline was based on a factually false statement. The second guideline was satisfied.

3. The third guideline, by its own words, is qualified by "to the extent reasonable." Given that we are dealing with a multi-sport HOF, it is difficult to understand why anyone would systematically attempt to cross-reference the linked articles within their respective body texts. We have numerous succession navboxes that list coaches, officeholders, etc.; it is neither common, nor reasonable under most circumstances, to systematically link those articles in the text of other articles linked i the common navbox. We do not link the text of the 1950 Heisman Trophy winner's article to that of the 2010 Heisman Trophy winner unless there is a logical, reasonable relationship or other basis for doing so. Was the 1950 winner the grandfather of the 2011 winner? A text-to-text link would be reasonable. The fact that they were both quarterbacks is probably a gratuitous pro forma link that adds no value or understanding. We do not randomly link a 1914 German battleship to a 1945 American battleship, even though both appear in the same Battleship navbox; the guideline only suggests the article-to-article linkage to the extent reasonable. Arguably, the third guideline does not apply in the present circumstances, but you're free to argue the point.

4. The nominator's fourth objection was that the navbox was not supported by either a stand-alone UFHOF article or significant coverage within the closely-related Florida Gators main article. At the time of the nomination, he was factually correct. A UFHOF section has since been added to the Florida Gators article, and a stand-alone article will be created before the weekend is over and long before the deadline for closing this TfD elapses. The fourth guideline has been partially satisfied, and will be fully satisfied forthwith.

5. In addition to the four navbox guidelines, the nominating editor also raised a fifth objection: that the navbox included the unlinked names of all members of the UFHOF. Those unlinked names have now been removed. QED: the fifth objection has been satisfied.

Those were the nominating editor's original five objections and indisputably formed the original premise of this TfD. As each of those objections has been refuted or satisfied in turn, you and the nominating editor have raised new objections after the fact. For instance, immediately above you raised for the first time a thinly veiled attack based on notability. It seems more than a bit obnoxious to raise new objections, and then complain that my own "arguments appear to be multiplying." That's more than a little disingenuous on your part. If you raise a new objection, you rationally should expect that a new argument will be raised in answer to your new objection. If you find it "wikilawyerish," then perhaps you should review your own wikilawyerish exchanges on point, and more articulately state your real objections at the outset. For my part, I am merely answering your newly raised attempts at justifying the original factually flawed TfD nomination. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem now is that the template is incomplete. And I'm still not convinced that this sort of thing is actually more useful to readers than a proper List would be. A List could provide more information and be easier to navigate than this unwieldy, purely alphabetical template assembling people from entirely different eras and sports. Powers ^T 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just for fun, please cite the navbox guideline or any other Wikipedia authority that states that a navbox must include 100% of the potential links that could be included within a particular navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Show me where this is specifically banned" is wikilawyering. Please remember that this is not a game to be played, but a debate in which both sides are supposed to argue in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Chris, that really is rich. Your idea of "wikilawyering" seems to include any argument that does not support your own position. Given all of the various references to guidelines, essays, and policy that have been raised by you and the nominating editor, it is just plain goofy for you to object on that basis. Asking on what policy basis, if any, LtPowers is arguing that a navbox must be "complete" in the sense that includes all or virtually all of the potentially includable links is not wikilawyering. It is a good faith request for you to support your argument with something other than your naked opinion. By all means, let's discuss the underlying logic and policy of the guidelines and how it may be inferred that a navbox must include all or virtually all related links or risk being deleted. So far, all I can hear is your rhetorical demand for good faith debate. When it comes to substantive argument based on either the letter of the guidelines or their underlying policy, all I hear is crickets. You might do well to go back and read WP:Wikilawyer. Your naked opinion is not reasoned argument. My asking for LtPowers to support his argument with something other than opinion or unsupported assertions of TRVTH is not wikilawyering, but a request for you to engage in good faith debate supported by something of substance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• • My bad on the mentions within the articles. I'm not sure how I missed that. But I think my point stands. Let me show you another page that has more details on what kinds of navboxes are suitable for Wikipedia; I'd avoided linking it earlier because it's marked as an essay, not a guideline, but I think its provisions have very wide support: Wikipedia:Navigation templates.
    • "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" Would a reader really want to go from Abby Wambach to William A. Shands? Why? They have nothing in common except being alumni of the same university. They didn't play together; they didn't go to school at the same time; in fact, Shands died before Wambach was born. They didn't even play the same sport.
    • "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value." This is, by far, the largest navigation template I've ever seen in five years on Wikipedia.
    • "Unlinked text should be avoided." I think that speaks for itself.
  • This information is valuable but it should be in a list, which is then linked from members' "See Also" sections. Powers ^T 12:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Unlinked text (i.e. the previously listed names of members for whom there is no current Wikipedia article) has been removed. The navbox now consists of 177 linked articles.
• You ask the rhetorical question "Would a reader really want to go from Abby Wambach to William A. Shands? Why? They have nothing in common except being alumni of the same university." My rhetorical answer is: Well, no, if the reader is not aware of the relationship between them. In this regard, it is no different than any other multiple-sport HOF. This navbox provides a convenient way to find 177 of the greatest Florida Gators athletes, and allows the reader to easily move from one athlete article to another. The most likely readers of the individual articles are fans of the Florida Gators, and for them, this navbox provides new information and a convenient means to navigate. That is the purpose of a navbox. The fact that the linked athletes did not play the same sport is irrelevant.
• You also state that a navbox should not be too big; the same essay (not a guideline, not policy) you cited also states a navbox should not be too small. Gee, what does Baby Bear think? Let's look at the examples provided by the exact same essay cited: it links approvingly to "Template:Johnny Cash," which includes 153 separate links. Clearly, 153 links is not too many according to the cited essay, and I am sure we can find other navboxes with that many or more.
• This was a flawed TfD nomination, premised on bad information at the outset. This is now devolving into an ex post facto exercise in justifying the original flawed nomination, even when objections have been answered or otherwise satisfied.
• The same essay cited by you also approvingly notes segmented navboxes, where only a portion of the links are displayed at any one time. Given the opportunity, instead of the bum's rush to deletion, this navbox could easily be segmented by alphabetical name listing, by decade or other era, or by sport. There are multiple solutions provided by the very guidelines and essay you seek to use as a justification for deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• LtPowers, thank you for your acknowledgment, above, of your erroneous statement of the actual facts regarding this navbox. I would be grateful if you would strike through the false assertion in the nomination above. As it currently stands, the false assertion continues to bias this discussion for new participants who join it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What Dirtlawyer said...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  Which part of it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. This template strikes me a bit unwieldy, but Dirtlawyer has made enough solid counterarguments and edits to the template since this nomination to stave off deletion for now. It seems we don't have very good standards in place for sports hall of fame templates like this one. The organization of these sort of templates hasn't been very good. I just did some cleanup to Category:Hall of Fame templates (which I also speedy CfD'd for renaming). For anyone interested, it may be worth taking a look at some of the other templates in that category with the development of standards in mind. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Seems strange that not all members of this HOF are listed in the navbox. Looks like they were removed because they would be redlinks. To me, a navbox should list a complete set, as opposed to a subset (with no way of knowing what members are missing). I agree with Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward); this navbox is better served as a list article. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• X96, sorry to see you you on the other side of this argument, but that's okay. Two smart people cannot be expected to agree all the time. As for your suggestion that a list article would better serve as useful description of the UFHOF than a navbox does, I actually agree. However, the existence of a list article does not preclude the co-existence of a navbox on the same subject. In fact, the navbox guidelines above specifically contemplate the existence of a supporting article for every navbox. The article and the navbox, while related, serve two different purposes. The article provides substantive content about the subject, while the navbox permits easy movement from one related article to another by its inclusion at the footer of each of the related articles. One is not a substitute for the other. FYI, a UFHOF list is already in the works, and so is a revamped UFHOF navbox that will dispose of most the objections raised by LtPowers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Undeletion is trivial if the issues surrounding the basic suitability of a navbox for this content are later addressed. For that reason the promise of future work is a rather weak argument to keep, insomuch as that while said work would obviate the need to have this discussion it is the element of doubt in the possibility of such work being carried out which is at the core of the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Chris, my comment was addressed to X96, not you. This TfD has six days to run before it expires. All you have to do is sit back, focus your attention on the reasoned argument that you so eloquently advocated above, and let the adults generate the content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ouch. DL, you may want to take your own advice, too, and lay off responding to everyone who opposes your view. My view is that this would be better as a standalone list in lieu of the navbox, but I'm not sure if this navbox meets Wikipedia's criteria for navboxes. Since I don't know much about the navbox guidelines and policies, I will stay out of arguing, but I don't like the rush by WP:CFB to side with their own without actually considering the other side. At least, that's what it looks like when a user !votes without any explanation (WP:NOTAVOTE). Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps so, Eagles. Perhaps so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete after converting to a list article or an article. In my opinion, this is big for a single navbox. It would make a useful category. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I'm generally an advocate of letting editors develop navigational tools that seem helpful for their own needs. Allowing such non-conformity encourages innovation. That said, I offer the example of University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor. The list format allows for a collection of more detailed information about each inductee. In many cases, I've added a "See also" link to the biographical articles of the inductees (e.g., Wally Gacek) directing to the list if the reader wishes to view a complete list of inductees. Again, I don't believe in a "one-size-fits-all" approach, but this is another way of handling similar information. Unless and until a list can be compiled (and Dirtlawyer has noted that a list is the long-term goal), I'd say keep the template. Once the list is there, the need for the template probably fades away. Cbl62 (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. And add the redlinks. HOF templates are helpful, and we have other examples. But I agree that all members (including redlinks) should be added.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm on the fence as to whether it should be kept, but I strongly believe that if it's kept, it should list all the members, not just those who have articles. cmadler (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Navigation templates are not supposed to have redlinks, especially if those redlinks are unlikely to be created. Powers ^T 12:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• strong keep Reading through this entire discussion, I don't see any good reasons to delete this template but plenty of reasons to keep it. Why do users waste everybody's time and energy by initiating deletion discussions on useful stuff like this? Dirtlawyer has spent many months creating, expanding, and organizing dozens and dozens of UF-related articles, and now somebody comes along trying to delete a perfectly logical template he put together. It's this kind of bureaucratic nonsense that drives once-eager wikipedians into early wiki-retirement. Zeng8r (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The primary reason we delete such templates is because without some sort of inclusion standards, we'd end up with dozens of navigation templates at the bottom of every article on the wiki, rendering them useless. A template such as this, which includes hundreds of people who have very little connection to each other, is exactly the sort of template we have to be very careful about. Powers ^T 22:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • • Opinion: "very little connection to each other." For the actual Wikipedia navbox standards, please see the navbox policy guidelines here. For an essay which expresses additional non-policy opinions on navboxes, please see here. Now, I believe we have adequately distinguished between one editor's opinion, the Wikipedia policy standards on point, and yet more opinions expressed in a non-policy essay. As I have stated several times above in answer to the various repetitions of this particular opinion, the connection among the UFHOF members is no less strong than that of any of the dozens of other multi-sport HOF navboxes that are not being challenged. That is a fact, not an opinion. If I were to further express an opinion proceeding from that fact, I would argue that the connection among these UFHOF members is in fact far stronger than those other multi-sport HOF because these HOF inductees share (1) a common sports program, (2) a common university of which they are all alumni, and (3) a common fanbase. Unlike, say the Florida Sports Hall of Fame, the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame or the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame, where the only thing the inductees share is an often very slender connection to the particular state. None of these geographically-based multi-sport HOFs have anywhere near the level of "connectivity" as the members of the UFHOF. Now, there's a little of the reasoned argument that Thumperward requested above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a very good rationale to keep a template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, Eagles, when someone expresses an opinion that it is not useful, the logical counterfactual argument is that is useful. If we parse LtPowers's (arguably untrue) argument that there is very little connection among these HOF members, what is at the core of his argument is that the navbox is not useful because no reader would ever follow the linkage from one HOF member to another. You can't have it both ways. Either there is connectivity among the HOF members, and therefore usefulness to, say, a Gator sports fan who wants to know more about the history of the Florida Gators sports program, or alternatively there is very little connectivity and therefore little usefulness to the most likely reader of these articles. Unlike WP:CFB or WP:NFL, followers of the Florida Gators athletic program are not all single-sport fans. You did get that the "connectivity" argument is an attack on the template's usefulness, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • From the WP:ITSUSEFUL link cited by Eagles above: "If reasons are given, 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." Res ipsa loquitur. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Reasons are not given by Zeng8r, however. Just an "I don't understand the effort to delete such a useful template" argument. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Just because I have not nominated other "multi-sport HOF templates" for deletion doesn't mean I think they're okay and only this one is unacceptable. This is just the first one I've noticed. Powers ^T 12:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? What is this, a wikilawyer convention? The template in question doesn't violate any relevant guidelines, and yes, it is useful. This isn't a biography problem or a copyright discussion, so it's up to those arguing in favor of deletion to prove why it should be axed. I still haven't seen any good reason why it should go, so my opinion to keep remains the same, per the original arguments against deletion expressed by Dirtlawyer. Now don't y'all have something more useful to do? Zeng8r (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how it is useful, compared to a proper list article. As I said before, we try to limit the use of navbox templates to the most essential, lest we end up with dozens on each page. This particular one ties together articles that readers are unlikely to want to navigate between -- for example, a football player from the 1920s and a soccer player from the 1990s. A good rule of thumb is: would a significant number of the links in the navbox be relevant if placed under the article's "See also" section? Clearly, in this case, the answer is 'no'. Powers ^T 12:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

LtPowers, I will let Zeng8r explain why he thinks the navbox is useful. But I want to again note, for the record, that your "connectivity" argument is weak. The Florida Gators have a strong multi-sport fanbase, and I believe it is very likely that Florida Gators fan/reader would find he ability to navigate from one member of the UFHOF to another member very useful in satisfying his curiosity. I also note, for the record and the benefit of the administrator who will close this TfD, that your "rule of thumb" and "see also" comment have zero basis in the relevant guidelines and Wikipedia policy. You continue to advance your opinions cloaked in an ex cathedra voice of authority they do not possess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your proposed "rule of thumb" regarding "see also" links would also lead to the deletion of the Heisman Trophy winners template. Why would anyone list direct links to the 1950, 1965 and 1978 Heisman winners under a "see also" section on the 2010 winner's article page? Do you question the perfectly valid basis for the Heisman navbox? Do you actually consider concrete examples before you advance these arguments? Because your arguments seem to have an awful lot of holes in their logic and practical application. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Turning a discussion into a tiresome exercise in debating tactics isn't usually a good strategy. Anyway, I'm sure I read that rule of thumb somewhere, but I'm having trouble finding where that was. For some other useful reading, check out Wikipedia:Overlink crisis and Wikipedia:EMBED#Related topics (navigational lists). Powers ^T 00:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been an active wikieditor for over 4 years, and I'm not sure that I've ever had so much difficulty getting my vote "counted" in a discussion like this. Let me repeat myself, again: 1) The navbox doesn't violate any wikiguidelines. Yeah, it's a bit large, but there are a bunch of qualifying articles, and it can be hidden to save space. In any case, WP:NAVBOX is an essay, NOT official policy, so its suggestions should be tempered with WP:IGNORE, which actually IS official policy. 2) The navbox is helpful for users who'd like to browse or find articles about other UF HoFers. While that might be a limited number of users, Gator fans and anyone researching Florida athletics can certainly appreciate having all these links in one place. This is exactly why navigation boxes were invented, is it not?

And again, why all the drama over a non-offensive navbox? It's a helpful and logical tool, it doesn't break any rules, and it isn't harming anything. Why on earth would you people waste so much time and energy trying to kill it? Zeng8r (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained several times why having these discussions is useful; we can't just allow any old navbox that anyone wants to create. We have to have some sort of threshold, some sort of criteria where we say "no, this is too much" or "this data would be better in a different format". Powers ^T 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Convert to an article if the UFHOF is deemed sufficiently notable to be worthy of an article; otherwise delete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems the conversion to an article has already occurred. In this case, I strike my vote and remain neutral. I cannot determine whether the navbox satisfies the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• delete It is far too large to be a good navigation template. Many of the links on it are misleading - just connecting to a list article. (Navigaton templates are supposed to navigate between articles, not just be endless links to a list.) Also, since many of these people are still presumably living, including them without having citations (e.g. as redlinks) would clear violation WP:BLP. The list article is a better way to cover the area.

If there are sub-sections for which all of the items listed actually have articles, then each such subsection might reasonably be made into a navigation template. (One covering just track and field, e.g.) Zodon (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• delete. The newly created List of University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members serves its purpose much better. --Snek01 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This is an important template, and is should not be deleted. It is a slippery-slope when editors start deleting important sports related pages/templates. Jccort (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The following is intended as a closing argument to be considered by the closing administrator, as a summary of the pro-KEEP position. The undersigned editor asks other editors not to refactor, interrupt or interject comments within this closing argument, so that it might fairly and coherently state the pro-KEEP arguments. Other editors who are pro-delete may add their own closing arguments hereafter, if they choose to likewise organize their arguments.

The original nomination for deletion was based on the navbox guidelines. For clarity, the navbox guidelines concisely state the following:

"Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:

1. "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

"If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely-related, and a list or category may be more appropriate."

The UFHOF navbox in question satisfies each and everyone of these guidelines, specifically:

1. All linked articles related to a single, coherent subject: they are all athlete biographies of members of the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame ("UFHOF"). The first guideline is fully satisfied.
2. Membership in the UFHOF is mentioned in every linked article. The second guideline is fully satisfied.
3. The linked articles do refer to each other to a reasonable extent. For example, the Buford Long article logically and reasonably links to the Rick Casares article (teammate), the Doug Dickey article (teammate), and the Bob Woodruff article (coach). The Casares, Dickey, and Woodruff articles are also articles linked to the navbox as other UFHOF members. Many other examples can be provided, if requested. The third guideline is fully satisfied—to a reasonable extent.
4. The UFHOF navbox is supported by an article on the subject of the navbox, "List of University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members," as well as the "University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame" section within the standalone "Florida Gators" article. Thus, the fourth guideline is fully satisfied.

The nominating editor and others have raised other objections, not based on the navbox guidelines, but based on an essay and their own opinions. The actual Wikipedia policies stated in the navbox guidelines having been fully satisfied by their own terms, I will address each of these other non-policy objections in turn:

• "there are a ridiculous number of non-articles listed in this template." There are 180 linked, standalone articles in this navbox; for those navbox subjects for which there is no standalone article, there are section specific links that connect to sport-specific sections of the "list of" article where a reader may find a 100-word career summary of the subject athlete.

• "This sort of thing would work much better as a list." Well, of course it works better as a list article; but that's true of virtually every navbox in existence. Navboxes provide lists of related articles; articles provide substantive content. This is not an "either-or" situation; that is, either a navbox on the subject, or a "list of" article on point. The navbox and the "list of" article are complementary, as specifically contemplated by the fourth navbox guideline. This is also in keeping with the generalized Wikipedia policy of redundant inter-linking by means of navboxes, categories, lists, etc. The existence of one interlinkage system does not preclude the existence of another, as the navbox and "list of" article serve different, but related purposes.

• "scores of tenuously-related articles." This is patent nonsense. Every one of the biographical articles is linked by virtue of their common UFHOF membership, their common sports program and history, their common university, and their large, enthusiastic and very supportive fanbase that is common to the Florida Gators multi-sport athletic program.

• "navboxes are for navigating existing content." Well, of course they are. And in this case, 180 standalone articles and one sub-sectioned and searchable "list of" article provide an amazing amount of existing content on point. The navbox and the supporting "list of" article serve to organize that content and permit easy navigation from one article to another, either within a given sport, or by jumping between collapsible single-sport group-lists within the reorganized and reformatted navbox. The system is logical, well-organized and user friendly.

• "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value." This statement is misleading as it misquotes the actual guidelines to support the argument for deletion of this navbox. The guideline actually states: "[T]emplates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." Thus navboxes with large numbers of links must be well organized and thoughtfully structured to avoid appearing "overly busy" or "hard to read and use." The reformatted UFHOF navbox is neither "overly busy" nor "hard to read or use." Arguably, the reformatted navbox with collapsible groups is elegantly simple and very user friendly.

• "this is big for a single navbox." Yes, this is a relatively large navbox. In mitigation of its relatively large size, it has been completely reorganized and reformatted using the "Navbox with collapsible groups" template. It is now segmented into collapsible groups by sport (e.g. baseball, baseketball, football, golf, etc.). The navbox's display is set for a collapsed state, so that it is no larger than any other navbox at the bottom of a Wikpedia article page. If a reader chooses to open the navbox, he will find fourteen well-organized collapsible groups that the reader may open in turn. Only one collapsible group ("Football") has as many as 120 links, and it is segmented alphabetically for ease of search; all other collapsible groups have fewer than 40 links, and, in fact, the vast majority of the collapsible groups have fewer than 25 links.

I might also add that there is no specific size limit stated in the navbox guidelines. In fact, the guidelines link to a well-organized Philosophy navbox that has exactly 200 links, and note its structure and organization with approval despite its relatively large size. The navbox essay cited by the nominating editor links to a Johnny Cash navbox that display 153 links without the benefit of collapsible groups within it. The guidelines and other commentary emphasize the concepts of logical organization and structure over any absolute size limit. This reformatted navbox is well organized, logically structured not to overwhelm the reader, simple, and user-friendly. In the example navboxes linked to the guidelines and essay, organization and structure trump size.

• "how it is useful, compared to a proper list article?" Again, this is not an either-or choice. The navbox is useful because it permits a reader interested in the history of the Florida Gators sports program to easily navigate among the greatest athletes of the 105 years of the program. The reader can browse the athletes within a given sport, or easily jump from one sport to another. The "list of" article provides additional substantive content, structure and explanation. The navbox and "list of" article are entirely complementary.

• "the promise of future work is a rather weak argument to keep." The reformatted navbox with collapsible groups was completed threes days ago; the newly created "list of" article is a much larger and time-consuming undertaking, but it is now approximately 80% complete, with more than enough work in place for the closing administrator to understand the scope and structure of the interlinked system of the navbox, standalone biographical articles, and the supporting "list of" article.

• "Navigation templates are not supposed to have redlinks, especially if those redlinks are unlikely to be created." This navbox has no "red links." The name of every UFHOF member is linked either to a standalone article or a specific section of the "list of" article where the reader may find a 100-word career summary of those athletes who do not have stand-alone articles.

• "a navbox should list a complete set, as opposed to a subset." This navbox is a complete list of every member of the UFHOF, now segmented into collapsible groups for ease of use.

• "Once the list is there, the need for the template probably fades away." Nope. Again, as specifically contemplated by the navbox guidelines, the navbox and "list of" article should be complementary. Such is the case here, where the navbox and "list of" article provide structure and organization for the reader to jump from one related athlete biography to another in the context of the UFHOF.

• By my count of the comments above, there are six (6) votes to Keep/Oppose deletion; there are four (4) votes to Delete. Given that the navbox guidelines have been fully satisfied, and further given that the participating editors above are now arguing not based on the guidelines but on their own opinions, I ask that the closing administrator acknowledge that there is no consensus to delete this navbox, either based on the raw number of votes for and against, nor based on the clear and overwhelming strength of argument based on the guidelines. If anything, the navbox guidelines strongly support the continued existence and use of this navbox in its present, restructured format.

• Counsel for the defendant navbox sayeth nothing further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The main problem with sports award navigation templates is that I think editors use them as "banners" (like those hanging in an arena for championship) for the subject of the article they are transcluded on. The more "banners" a person has, the more accomplished they are. I'm against championship team navboxes for this reason. This template falls under the same category. I don't think there is a use in navigating between members of a club or members of a team. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Anyway, the arguments to delete are short and simple: it can't be a complete navigation template because the people included may not be individually notable for their inclusion in the subject, and as a corollary to that there is unlikely to be consensus that those subjects who do have articles have such a large navbox attached which consists solely of links of minor relevance. Head counts or (God forbid) word counts to the contrary, those suggesting the template be kept haven't sufficiently rebutted these most basis considerations of when navboxes are appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• delete Too large to be useful - Nabla (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2011 (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.