Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31[edit]

Template:Currentlyactivevehicles[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 debate was Weak keep, but needs reform. I suggest that division by vehicle type rather than nation would be the most useful, but that's just an opinion. Happy‑melon 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is restricted to only four countries Germany/Russia/US/UK and ignores all the other countries with currently active vehicles. No obvious connection between the four countries and appears to be a random sample of countries which presents a POV problem. The navbox presumes that navigation is needed between (for example) russia landvehicles and german watercraft and its use appears to add no value — MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split - split it into 4 separate templates for each country. matt91486 (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - as long as we have these separate articles, I see some use in having a template to navigate between them, as they all have similar subject matter. The arbitrary-looking choices of which countries to include is a problem though. Terraxos (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (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:Germany Squad 1994 FIBA World Championship[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 debate was Keep. An RfC and/or new guideline to end the back-and-forth arguments over templates like these is urgently needed. Happy‑melon 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there has been a discussion on squad templates for different champions. Well, this Germany squad was placed 12th at the World Championship, so how notable this squad really is. If this German team became the World Champions, I wouldn't mind, but being the 12th best team does not warrant a template. There are many more templates for teams that didn't even receive a medal. — Crzy cheetah 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at most leave top 3 teams. Renata (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the FIBA World Championship is akin to the FIFA World Cup, and we have templates for every FIFA World Cup squad.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those FIFA templates should be deleted, as well.--Crzy cheetah 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's standard fas far as I can tell for having roster templates like this for the major world sporting events. These significantly help organization for players from those teams. matt91486 (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, provide links to Olympic templates, or Ice hockey world championships. As far as I can tell basketball and soccer are the only sport events that have roster templates for non-notable teams. Why do we need to organize players from the team that was 12th best at some point?--Crzy cheetah 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hockey happens every year, so it's not the same situation, and I don't believe that there should be templates for every team in that, a yearly event. There are, however, World Baseball Classic templates, a triennial event, for the squads there. You can see, for example, the South Korean squad template [Template:South Korea 2006 World Baseball Classic Roster|here]. The importance for having templates for all the teams comes with the fact that playing for an international team confers notability, and with some of the older squads especially, the internal linking might be sparse as they might have minor, or indeed no, professional careers beyond their international play. These templates might be their only real method of connection from other articles. matt91486 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Olympic games happen every 4 years, but I don't see any Olympic team templates. Playing for the national team in any sport is notable to mention, there's no doubt, but not creating templates and clutter players' pages. What you're saying now is that playing for the national team at hockey championships is less notable than playing for basketball or soccer national teams. That's just biased. Templates such as these should be used to indicate the winning teams only. After all, being a part of a champion team is more notable than being a part of a 12th best team.--Crzy cheetah 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not biased against hockey at all, I'm just against doing roster templates for an annual world championship because there wouldn't be significant turnover between them and it'd be essentially the same template over and over. If hockey's world championships were less frequent, I'd say it would make complete sense to do templates for them. With the quadrennial rosters, there's more significant turnover. I would have absolutely no problem with the creation of Olympics templates, but really, both of our arguments so far have looked a lot at what else is there and not there, neither of which are valid keep or delete reasons. Basically, I think they should be kept because they're valuable navigation tools, especially for the case of older players. And apparently there was an AfD Keep for them already on the books, as someone just pointed out below. I'm just about to check those out, but maybe they have some more reasons there. matt91486 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I've already said, I don't have any problem with templates of medalists, but not just participants. Those templates that were kept were templates of medalists. These ones are the templates of teams that just participated in the World Championships. I think there's a huge difference here.--Crzy cheetah 07:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm in agreement with you on medalists only for the yearly ones, just as only like NBA championship rosters maintain historical templates. However, for the more sparsely held international championships, with the qualifying and such process, I feel as though making it to the games as a whole is honor enough to keep the templates despite finishing twelfth. I doubt we'll convince each other one way or the other on this, though, so we'll probably just have to see what consensus comes up with. It's alright, though, we've generally been in agreement on most basketball related edits, haha. matt91486 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In December 2007 there was another discusion about templates for fiba word cup and olympics and closed as keep. If you see Template:United States Squad 2006 FIBA World Championship and Template:Footer 2004 Olympic Bronze Medalists Basketball Men you can find the result. Sportin 3 June 2008
- Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 22 Sportin 3 June 2008
  - Those teams won medals. I'd keep them, as well.--Crzy cheetah 07:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the discusion you can see that the voting was for ALL the fiba world cup templates. It is obvious you cannot ignore this. Sportin 3 June 2008
- At first, I just saw the templates you provided. Reading the discussion, I still believe that non-medalists should be removed. What they discussed in there is what matt91486 is saying above, nothing new. --Crzy cheetah 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if you would explain the differenced between FIFA World cup templates and FIBA WC templates. To me they are exactly the same and all should be kept.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say they're different? They are exactly the same to me, as well, and should be deleted.--Crzy cheetah 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will show another example exactly the same [1] Template:Angola squad 2006 FIBA World Championship 10th place. The result of the debate was keep. Sportin 11:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no different from the other nominations you showed. All they're saying is that it should be kept even though they're not notable.--Crzy cheetah 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you are at a disadvantage at this debate here. What makes you think that the situation will be better at the Soccer World cup templates? Oh and BTW, claiming that they are "not notable" is just a matter of opinion (minority opinion as I wrote), that's not an argument.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conferring notability on only the winners of a major international competition just doesn't do justice to the qualification process. These teams generally had to win continental qualifying tournaments to get there, which would have made them the winner of an international tournament (which would let them have a template in your system if we just made templates for every continental qualifier ;) ). matt91486 (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would qualifying have made them winners? There is a qualifying round at EuroBasket, as well, but I only see one winner there. Winning a tournament is an achievement while finishing last is a shame. What you're saying now is that finishing last at the FIBA's is more notable (or important) than winning EuroBasket, for example. I have a hard time understanding this logic. --Crzy cheetah 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with club teams winning Eurobasket getting a template. As I said, qualifying would have made them winners by winning a continental qualification tournament. You just need to differentiate between international and club teams and judge them by different standards. matt91486 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, EuroBasket is for international teams and not club teams. It appears that you are the one who needs to "differentiate between international and club teams".--Crzy cheetah 21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound snarky in the least, I was only meaning to say that international and club teams should be by different standards. And I just mixed it up with the Euroleague, which then of course, just made me look dumb. Anyway, I believe with the soccer templates that there are templates for the highest continental tournaments (eg, Euro 2008) as well, so there probably could be ones for Eurobasket along those lines. I'm not sure how the biennial aspect would factor in, and you could judge that a lot of the same squads would be in both the FIBA and Eurobasket. I'm not trying to say there's a perfect solution for all of this. I don't agree with the assessment that because something has a template it is inherently more or less notable, though. There's just a template for it. matt91486 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just looked through it, and if Eurobasket is just a qualifying tournament for FIBA/Olympics, then the winners would get a template in this way anyway. So it shouldn't actually matter. The World tourney would supersede the continental one, so if there are templates for all competitors in the world one, the winner of Eurobasket would always be covered, so it wouldn't matter. Doesn't change the fact that I screwed up by mixing up the Euroleague and Eurobasket, but it should alleviate any concerns you would have about the winner not having a template. matt91486 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←)You gave me a chance to be sarcastic and I couldn't pass that up. Everything's fine. As for the EuroBasket winners. I assume the squads may change from EuroBasket to FIBAtourney. I mean there may be some players who play for their country in EUROBasket and win it, but are not able to participate in the FIBA Championship, so their names are not going to be on the templates. Is it fair/unfair?--Crzy cheetah 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there probably are some squad changes, but they are probably reduced, since the teams that qualify are generally kept together in large part for the tournament. If I had to hypothesize, I'd assume that 9 or 10 of the twelve from each team would be the same. So I guess the question becomes, it is worth having two templates for. As a general policy line and nothing else, it's much easier just to say that the teams competing in the highest level world tournaments should have squad templates. It's not ideal, and the only thing I could think of to remedy it without adding a bunch of secondary templates for the qualifying tournaments would be to have a second line in the template for players who were on the qualifying tournament rosters and did not participate in the actual tournament. I have a feeling that as a whole, though, the idea of adding a second section for qualifying players would be an unpopular one because it then makes it less of a black and white issue and opens a whole secondary debate. matt91486 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (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:World Soccer Magazine 100 Greatest[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 debate was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the templates listed above for the following reasons:

1. I believe these kind of magazine award templates are nothing more than unneccassary vanity templates that clutter up the most important football biographies.

2. These templates could be construed as advertising for World Soccer Magazine, appearing on most of the most successful and most visited Wikipedia football biographies.

3. These lists already exist on the World Soccer Magazine article.

4. These are not official awards, they are based on polls conducted by a magazine

— E P 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. – Pee Jay 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, pure vanity and advertising. Not official awards. Peanut4 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as per nom. Couldn't have put it better myself. - fchd (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination--ClubOranje^Talk 06:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Get rid of it, as it's unnecessary and just clutters up players' pages. There is already an oversaturation of WC/Euro templates, and the World Soccer and Ballon d'Or templates are simply overkill. And while we're at it, let's also ax the World Soccer player of the year award template, because neither are even an officially sanctioned award anyway. Beemer 69 21:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have to disagree about the Ballon d'Or template. It may be an award given by a magazine, but it is basically the equivalent of the Football Writers Association Player of the Year award in England, except on a worldwide scale. – Pee Jay 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, no problem, but the three featured templates in this section should definitely go. Beemer 69 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - magazine, unofficial awards are unecessary templates. Official awards have a template place, but not these. matt91486 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't necessarily reflect public opinion, or have any statistics to it whatsoever. // Finns 19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that mean? The winners of these awards are decided by a public vote, so they obviously reflect public opinion, but I don't know what you mean by them not having any statistics. – PeeJay 08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, should have made myself clearer: What I mean by doesn't reflect public opinion are such things as only a very small percentage of people voted for it worldwide - plus, if you asked 100 people down a street, how many of them would say Iraq were the best team in the world in club and national level. Plus, if its voted for by the public, then obviously there will be politics involved <cough>Eurovision<cough> which obviously shows people will not take the teams performance into account in many cases <cough>Eurovision<cough> // Fi nns 21:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having a artical about it is enough, the template is to much, better to just make a link to either the wiki artical or a other webpage where the fact is - Halmstad 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Having article or category is more than enough. - Riyazusman (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Non notable.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2008 (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.