Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3 edit

Template:Cornashoplaptops.com 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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Old spam. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned "template" that is just text. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, or move to article space then delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2016 (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).

Template:Everett HS (MA) football coach 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Navbox fails multiple criteria of WP:NAVBOX, including criteria nos. 2 through 5 -- and is notably missing an article or list on the subject of the navbox. Most importantly, membership in the class is not a defining characteristic of the class members, none of whom are Wikipedia-notable for having been the head coach of the Everett High School football team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete - There are probably not more than a handful or two of high schools that would warrant a navbox for its football coaches. Based on the evidence, Everett is one of the rare programs that warrants such treatment. At least eight of the 11 head coaches in the school's history are clearly notable (John DiBiaso being the eighth). Sure, some of the individuals achieved greater fame elsewhere, but Everett's role as a cradle of coaches and as one of the great high school programs in history legitimately warrant a navbox. Let's look at the guidelines:
  • The overarching guideline in WP:NAVBOX states: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles." This is precisely such a case.  
  1. "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject."  
  2. "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."   Each article mentions the person's status as head coach at Everett. In the majority of the articles, it receives significant discussion.
  3. "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." No, but I'm not aware of a single coaching navbox that does this. Compare Template:Florida Gators baseball coach navbox or Template:Florida Gators football coach navbox. This is a complete non-issue and a red herring in the discussion of a navbox of this type.
  4. "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."   There currently is no article on Everett High School football coaches, but this could easily be fixed. Not in and of itself a reason to delete the template.
  5. "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." This is irrelevant to coaching navboxes where this would rarely if ever apply. See criteria 3 above.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - The lack of a supporting article or list on the navbox topic is a major fail and one that cannot be glossed over with a "well, it could be created." Contrary to your unsupported assertion above, we routinely delete navboxes for failing to satisfy that single criterion "in and of itself."
While allowing for non-applicability of NAVBOX criterion no. 3 (it's usually treated as a plus when present, and ignored when not), criterion no. 5 is often applied in similar circumstances, the latter demonstrating the relatedness and noteworthiness of the navbox subject overall. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that criterion no. 4 is a biggy and might be in and of itself sufficient to fail this list. I fail, however, to see how criterion no. 5 could be applied to coaching navboxes, except in truly odd circumstances. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After considering the arguments raised, I am persuaded that the absence of a "parent" article is a sound reason to delete the navbox. While Everett HS is one of the truly elite, historical high school programs, nobody has bothered as of yet to create a master article. Unless and until someone interested in that program creates such an article, the navbox is premature. Cbl62 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, do you mean an Everett HS football article or a List of Everett HS football coaches article? Cake (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on recent experiences with coaching templates at TfD, I think an article on the program would suffice as a parent article. As examples, see the recent TfDs on Wisconsin–Whitewater football coaches (here), Toledo Rockets baseball coaches (here), and San Jose State athletic directors (here) where the only parent articles were about the program itself. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have supported the position that an article about the team is sufficient to satisfy WP:NAVBOX criterion no. 4, provided that the team article includes a complete list of the program's head coaches similar to that which would be included in a stand-alone list article (i.e. full names, tenures, win-loss records, etc.). Please note, however, that other editors take a more hard-line position and believe that a stand-alone is required per WP:NAVBOX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer's suggestion that the program article include a coach list is certainly desirable as good practice, and I think that is absolutely preferable, though the "parent" articles in the three TfDs referenced above did not include such a list. Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is navbox clutter and as demonstrated doesn't meet all the criteria for navboxes. Not every position held by these coaches needs an infobox - we have too many as is, so why not choose to draw a line here? I came to this navbox through its inclusion on Frank Keaney's page - in no way was this Hall of Fame basketball coach defined by his three-year stint as a high school football coach. At least with college football coach templates you can make a reasonable assumption of head coach notability for the vast majority. This is not true at the HS level. Rikster2 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." It's dubious whether one could be created that meets WP:LISTN. Moreover, this seems like a case of template creep, inclusion of a navbox that is generally trivial to the subjects' key notability.—Bagumba (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's miraculous that there are so many notable high school football coaches from the same school, but this is a VERY rare exception and we should avoid template creep. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is it possible to keep the template in some state and avoid template creep at the same time?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the compelling reason to keep the template? It's already template creep in the case of Frank Keaney. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced there is one just yet, I'm just questioning the premise that we have to get rid of it to avoid template creep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2016 (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).

Template:Siena Saints football coach 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. In multiple times at TfD, what may or may not happen in the future is irrelevant to what's there now. If the redlinks turn blue, then by all means recreate this template or ask for undeletion. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only two articles, Siena Saints football & Steve Glynn, making it hard to navigate. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 03:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails for lack of linked content and because it is not a meaningful aid to navigation: navboxes should not be created for the sake of one linked subject. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If and when articles on additional coaches are created this template should be re-created. I've added the list to Siena Saints football. Mackensen (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly red links, does not aid navigation. Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."—Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is very likely that the other articles will be created and there is no deadline. The navbox serves the purpose of showing that the articles need to be written.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_3&oldid=699653365"