Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

November 26

[edit]

Template:OBIE Plays

[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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OBIE Plays (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template is factually inaccurate, and contains no supporting references and no coherent method for inclusion of eligible works. emerson7 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Plays included on the template have been recognized with an Obie Award, either the play itself must have received the award, by the Director for the production of the play, the Writer of the play for that particular play, a single production of the play itself or the entire cast for that production, or the score. In these cases the media commonly refers to these plays as "Obie-award winning play", for example "Obie-winning" by the respected Playbill. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 20:18, 26 November 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:UK underground

[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 no consensus, default to keep. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK underground (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems an inappropriate topic for a navbox. No objective inclusion criteria, so it relies on POV. And while I'd argue that all of the links merit mention in the UK underground article itself, it's not true that all of the links merit inclusion in all of the articles. The topics covered here are not necessarily related to each other directly, they've just been lumped together after the fact. Not every topic can be navboxified. In this case the article should be improved instead. Flowerparty☀ 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The UK underground is a recognised cultural phenomenon with leading advocates, publications and bands, as stated in the article. Some of these only have any existence or notability in this context. Others have a major connection with it, or it was where they first achieved wider exposure. This is a standard use of a navbox to enable readers to easily access various articles which are related to this subject. It's contradictory to argue that the links are legitimate in the article, but not in the navbox. As the nom has previously stated, "The box does does provide an admirable summary of the topic."[1] There may be a case for examining specific inclusions, but not for the deletion of the whole navbox. Ty 01:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No contradiction: I'm suggesting we don't need a navbox here - it doesn't follow that if we delete the navbox we should delete the article as well. If people are looking for information on the UK underground then the article would seem a sufficient navigational base, and it should duly be linked to within the text of each article. It's no use trying to second guess the interests intentions of our readers. Flowerparty☀ 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem to be an argument to delete all navboxes. Ty 01:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most navboxes - the useful ones at least - group together articles that are unambiguously subtopics of some broader umbrella topic, like with {{Darwin}}. Or otherwise it's at least clear why what's included is included, as with {{US Presidents}}. This template, by contrast, has no clear inclusion criteria. In fact it feels like an article stripped of all its prose and shoehorned into a box. Flowerparty☀ 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already pointed out above the inclusion criteria, namely "leading advocates, publications and bands" (etc) of the UK underground movement. Ty 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that objective? You suggested here that you'd used wikipedia as a source for this. Flowerparty☀ 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course wikipedia is the source, as it is a navbox for wikipedia articles. It is not an original article, but depends on existing articles. Ty 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem is the unrelatedness of the linked articles. There is no reason to assume that a reader would want to jump from, say, the UFO Club article to the Mersey Sound one, or from Gay News to Pink Floyd, or from Germaine Greer to pretty much any of the mostly fairly arcane other topics listed here. They might, of course, but then it should be up to them to find their way from one article to the next. (This isn't an argument against one or two specific links, btw: pick any random article A from this template and count how many of the other topics are even mentioned within the text of A - very few if any. The only article that should link to all of these topics is UK underground. Again, if a reader is interested in the UK underground they'll find their way to that article.) See also bolded points 1 and 3 at WP:NAV#Properties. Flowerparty☀ 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can apply that argument to any navbox that covers a general topic by cherry-picking links and misrepresenting them. Let us just examine Germaine Greer who you seem to see as a clear invalidation of the template. The article on her states that she "as Dr. G, became a regular contributor to the underground London magazine Oz, owned by the Australian writer Richard Neville. The 29 July 1970 edition was guest-edited by Greer". She has a clear and strong connection to the topic and other articles listed in the navbox. Ty 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll not be dragged into scrapping this out link by link. It's the whole template that's the problem. Flowerparty☀ 08:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You give an example to prove the point. The example is shown not to apply. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Ty 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hopelessly subjective and POV (Who says who is a member of the 'UK underground'? Does being included here mean someone still is 'underground', or just that they were at some point in their lives?), and not useful as a navigational template in any case. Terraxos (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "underground" applies in this case to a cultural movement in a particular period around mid-1960s to early/mid 1970s:
  • "UK underground"[2]
  • 1965 - "The London "underground" scene was just emerging"[3]
  • "The underground or alternative society ... of the Sixties"[4]
  • These people and things would not still be "underground" as this movement is not seen as active now. Participants in this movement are defined in the same way that any information is validated for wikipedia, namely verification through reliable sources. The term is in widespread mainstream use and well documented. Here are references for some of those included in the template—people, publications, organisations and bands:
  • Some of the links are to things that only had an existence in terms of the underground such as UFO Club and certain publications like Oz, so these alone justify the template, which is very useful for those wishing to explore the subject. Ty 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a navbox link does not have to be to an article whose entire content is relevant to the navbox subject. It can link to an article where some of the content is relevant, e.g. Template:WWII history by nation, which has a link to History_of_Belgium, where only part of the article deals with WWII. Also it is not obligatory for the navbox to appear on all the articles it links to. Again this is the case with History of Belgium. Template:UK underground follows that practice. Ty 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an impressive bunch of links. But I'm not sure you understand the POV issue here, so perhaps I should restate it one last time. The subjectiveness lies less in what's included than in what's not included: why are these articles linked and not others? I'm not going to suggest things that should be included but aren't, because that's not the point. The point is that by putting things in this template we're implying there was some sort of exclusive set of movers who comprised the UK underground (and we're promoting this implication by posting the box at the bottom of their articles). There was no such set, and whatever links we decide to include (or leave out), the fact is that we're making a decision, and this decision relies on POV. (This doesn't apply to the article, of course, because in the article opinions can be correctly attributed and put in context. Hopefully some of the references you've found can be used there.) Flowerparty☀ 20:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confusing POV with judgement. The former is a biased use of sources; the latter is a proper and objective use of them. These articles are linked because the sources validate their linking. If others are similarly validated, they can be included. Articles that are not so validated should not be included. There may be a grey area in some cases, as in many instances on wikipedia, and the normal protocol of judgement is applied, if necessary by discussion to reach consensus. The argument that we're "implying there was some sort of exclusive set of movers who comprised the UK underground" is irrelevant. We use sources per WP:NPOV and if a valid source states, as it does above, that "Jim Haynes (is) a leading figure in the London underground", then we follow that and act on it, exactly as the navbox does. It should navigate to leading figures. Your argument is that there are not such leading figures. It is purely your personal opinion that "There was no such set" and there is no place for such personal opinion on wikipedia. I have provided the sources to validate the content. Ty 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Please don't delete this template. It has been invaluable in my research into this time and place, and I think it is one of the more innovative uses of a navbox on Wikipedia, in that it draws connections (which ARE established by third parties, eliminating the POV issue) between various topics that may not have similar links in the individual articles themselves. If people are concerned that individual topics don't belong in this navbox, then those articles could be taken out, or better yet, this template does not appear on those articles in question. In fact, I think this template is a perfect example of what distinguishes Wikipedia from other information sources. I would prefer to see this navbox used as the example of ones that could cover other well-documented regional music and cultural scenes, such as the San Fransisco psychedelic scene and the Bay Area thrash metal scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowtools (talk • contribs) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 19:46, 26 November 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:Intro-tobe

[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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro-tobe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This asserts that articles violate WP:LEAD by not using a form of to be in the first sentence: the articletitle is definition. There are three problems with this: WP:LEAD doesn't say that; if it did, it would be a recommendation, not a requirement; and there is no reason for this tag. (WP:LEAD does recommend against complicated prose to include the article title, btw.) Eithe edit to include is, or pass by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 26 November 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:Palestinian children

[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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestinian children (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has little purpose. It includes four Palestinian children, the only four upon which there is an article at Wikipedia. The only commonality they share is there ethnicity and age. There is no need for such a template. Tiamuttalk 13:33, 26 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_26&oldid=1138692916"