Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5 edit

Template:Manchester City F.C. navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manchester City F.C. navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox, which only duplicates the links provided at Template:Manchester City F.C. Looks awful when applied, taking up space and forcing images to the left. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Matty's rationale. Redundant and inferior to alternative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Masonpatriot (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered in the main navbox which is in the proper place at the bottom so an unnecessary duplicate. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason given for deleting the navbox is it "Looks awful when applied, taking up space and forcing images to the left." The only thing that looks awful in the article is the recent addition of the banner stating that it is being considered for deletion. That is the only reason images and text are being forced to the left. To add the banner and state that as the reason the navbox should be deleted is a purely self-serving argument. If Mattythewhite had refrained from editing the article in such a hack manner there would not be any problem. FYI, I do not have a dog in this race. I agree that the navbox now totally duplicates the information in the standard navbox at the bottom of the article, but it probably didn't do so when it was first created. However, if he wishes to remove it I think Matty should have shown some courtesy to the prior editor of the article who created it and first discussed his recommendation on the article's Talk page. That's what it is there for. If that editor had been stubborn about deleting it himself in violation of WP:OWN THEN indeed execute the TfD process. But for Matty to have accused him of "needlessly" creating the template in his edit summary is a clear violation of both WP:AGF and WP:ES, and proceeding to delete the template from multiple articles prior to first obtaining a TfD consensus to do so violates the whole Wikipedia concept of FIRST obtaining consensus in contentious situations.

Also FYI, I do not consider myself a prior editor of this article; I have only been trying to improve it for the past month or so by sourcing as much of the info. in it to the web rather than to books that no other editor owns. But out of deference for the prior editor(s) that created the article in the first place I have been discussing my proposed improvements to the article in excruciating detail on my Talk page BEFORE making them rather than just forcing my POV onto the article. Mattythewhite et al should take a similar approach IMO. — not really here discuss 14:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you need to read, and understand, WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree and have clarified my comment accordingly. Also see comments here. — not really here discuss 18:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~unless the editor requesting deletion is prepared to put some time in constructively creating an Infobox to replace it with.~~ for the reasons stated below (consider this to be a nominal protest vote). — not really here discuss 14:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as noted earlier, it already exists: Template:Manchester City F.C.. Fenix down (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yes, granted. There are two issues here. The redundant existence of the navbox template and the TfD's initiator's claim that it is "taking up space" in the article he deleted it from. I have no idea how many other articles the template is used in - I suspect not many, if any. My comment above refers only to the TfD initiator's claim that it is "taking up space" in the List of Manchester City F.C. players article that he deleted it from and which he states as one of the main reasons why the template should be deleted. The space it is taking up is the space that is normally occupied by an article's Infobox. The suggestion in my vote to keep is that if the template's existence bugs him so much he should probably put some time in to create an Infobox to properly replace it. You know, to actually do something positive and constructive to improve the article so that the overall result - of Infobox replacing redundant navbox - is viewed as a net improvement by everyone concerned. After all, that's what we are all here for, isn't it? To constructively build an encyclopedia together rather than just use the AfD and TfD processes to destroy the prior work of others (which may have become obsolete over time) simply in order to embellish or enhance our own Wikipedia reputations.
    I have no problem with the argument that the navbox template contents are essentially redundant (which is the first part of the rationale for it being deleted) but the second part of the presented rationale - that it "Looks awful when applied, taking up space and forcing images to the left" - is absolute drivel. On that basis every Infobox template in every Wikipedia article should also be deleted as they too have the same effect on images and text. In adding that additional argument to his rationale for deletion I think the TfD initiator shot himself in the foot because the rule for these sort of deletion discussions is that they are meant to be confined to the arguments presented in the initial TfD request. As his initial TfD argument stands it fails to meet the criterion for deletion. Which is why I voted to keep. I would not have voted that way had the TfD request been based purely on redundancy. — not really here discuss 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Me? I'm not really here: - WP:TLDR. Posting walls of text will only hinder your case. GiantSnowman 18:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hinder my case for what? I have already stated that I cannot dispute the case for redundancy. However, the TfD isn't requesting that the navbox be deleted solely on redundancy grounds; it is requesting that it be deleted on redundancy grounds AND because it causes the text and images to be left-aligned. That only occurs, of course, because of the banner the TfD initiator caused to be placed there. That argument-stacking issue aside, to claim that an article should not contain any sort of box in its top right-hand corner is totally fallacious because the vast majority of articles contain Infoboxes which do reside there. So the second part of the TfD's compound reason for deletion is false. Which makes the whole stated rationale false. Even my ten year old granddaughter with only a rudimentary grasp of Boolean logic understands that T^F = F.
        If the TfD's stated reason for deletion was purely redundancy then I have no case and, as you yourself say, the template is "simply not required". But if the reason for deletion is the compound falsity written by Mattythewhite when he initiated the TfD then the only possible vote has to be to 'Keep' because to vote otherwise would be a vote to delete based on a completely false rationale, which would set a precedent for template deletion that any reasonable Wikipedia editor would hope not to be set. I'm sorry if that is too many words for a simple person such as yourself to understand. FYI, "TfD" stands for "Templates for Discussion" so your whole TLDR comment runs contrary to the very process that is meant to be occurring here. Your smart-arse comment appears to be an attempt to kill any debate in a process that is intended to be a discussion, which only serves to notify other editors that you have no right to be casting a vote in a process whose very purpose you have clearly demonstrated you do not understand.
        That being said, I don't see any value is postponing the inevitable. Even if the TfD was rejected this time based on a botched rationale for deletion (as it should be), it won't be very long before another TfD request will be submitted that sticks simply to the redundancy rationale, and I don't believe the navbox template passes that criterion as all of the links contained in it are redundant repetitions of similar links to be found in the MCFC navbox located at the bottom of all MCFC-related articles (that is an assumption on my part; I haven't bothered checking them all, but I don't believe I have ever accessed one where there wasn't such a navbox at the bottom). I sympathise with Falastur2's views that many users of Wikipedia might never find and open the navbox at the bottom of article but that still doesn't justify redundantly repeating information that does exist there elsewhere in the article in order to cater to this hypothetical group of users. — not really here discuss 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @GiantSnowman: - Allow me to quote from that very essay which you just cited: "Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay in an exchange with a wordy author will come across as dismissive and rude." Enough said.
        As for my own viewpoint, as the original author of the template (albeit I will point out I only turned it into a template because another now-inactive user placed the full code in some articles), I need some time to formulate my opinion on the matter. I sympathise with the view that it repeats some elements of the infobox, but that infobox is just so far out of the way. In some ways I would like to see WP adopt more navboxes like this one as I feel it's simply a better way of creating interactivity between articles. As for it forcing images over to the side, MINRH has a point - your nomination for deletion kind of makes it an eyesore, but that is not the navbox's fault. As for it forcing images over the left, I personally think that that article is pretty much picturecruft anyway, and would happily remove half the images that bedeck that page - it's a sin having that many photos on an article so full of tables - they horrifically reduce the amount of space to work with and don't contribute much to the article save for making it look like a Panini stickerbook. I'll come back with a more measured argument along with a vote in a day or two. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not required. Giant Snowman 18:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. I agree that any appearance issues were likely caused by the notice regarding the pending deletion and should not be relevant to the deletion discussion. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 21:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to the existing Template:Manchester City F.C. navbox. – Pee Jay 07:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ankit Fadia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Ankit Fadia Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ankit Fadia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why you think the template should be deleted. it only has two links203.109.161.2 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is problematic in that it is not completely clear if the IP user or someone else nominated this template. A quick read of the Ankit Fadia article suggests that the subject meets WP:notability requirements, although I did not dig into the sources to confirm they were appropriate sources. The fact that most of the author's works do not (yet) have their own articles is not surprising given the fact that the article is about an author who is from a country where English, while spoken by many, is not the primary language. I think having just two links in the template might be preferable to having a template full of red links. I would be interested in hearing from those who worked on this author's page, especially the template creator, what their intent is regarding articles about the author's other works.Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, per my comment. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.