Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

June 29

Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster navbox

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is for players of a Class A minor league baseball team. No reason for this. Most of the players are themselves not notable and are redlinked. Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with the above assessment per WP:NOTDIR (not a "list or repository of loosely associated topics") and WP:NAVBOX ("Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles … Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles"). There's no guarantee that any of these players will make it to the majors or pass WP:GNG at any point in the future. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Spanneraol and KV5. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. Most of the players that have entries have them on the single page "Minnesota Twins minor league players" --Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and KV5. Even those redlinks that will one day have articles will no longer be part of this template by the time they do. -Dewelar (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This template is just one of dozens of similar navbox templates for minor league teams (see Category:Minor league baseball team rosters navigational boxes and its subcategories). I'd like to ask the nominator how this nomination relates to these other templates. If this nomination leads to deletion, do you intend to use it as a precedent for deleting all of the similar templates? Some of them? (and if so, which ones?) Or does this template have unique characteristics that make it uniquely deserving of deletion? And if the intention is to establish this case as a precedent for the other similar templates, have you notified the editors of the other templates of this discussion? BRMo (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually not "dozens" of navboxes for minor league teams.. I have only found a couple of them. Most minor league teams have roster templates (see Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster to see the difference) but only this one and a oouple of others have naxboxes, this is the only class "A team with one. Since most of the players don't have existing pages a navbox makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanneraol is correct. I just went through all the subcategories of the linked category. There are a grand total of four other minor league navboxes, all of them for International League (Triple-A) teams (specifically Buffalo, Indianapolis, Syracuse and Toledo). All the other templates in the list are roster templates. -Dewelar (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I stand corrected. However, assuming that articles exist (which they do—the template is transcluded in nine independent articles), providing a navbox to allow the reader to navigate between them seems like an appropriate use of navboxes according to WP:CLN. BRMo (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's important to keep the merits of the template separate from some other issues. First, the case for keeping the template is that a reader of an article on a minor league team, coach, or player is likely to be interested in reading other existing Wikipedia articles on the teammates, other coaches, etc. So, while I think navboxes are often over-used, this case seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate use of a navbox within Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:CLN. I think this discussion is perhaps being clouded by two peripheral issues. The first is whether some of the players on the roster are actually notable enough to have their own articles. I agree with the other editors here that most minor league Single A-level players should not have separate articles. But there are exceptional cases where an article is appropriate. I count this template transcluded in nine articles. The managers and coaches are former major league players, so they are clearly notable. A couple of other articles have survived AfDs. IMO, some of the remaining articles might not survive an AfD, while other might. But the point is that there are several legitimate articles about players or managerial staff on this team, so I think it makes sense to link them via a navbox, which is a separate issue from whether all of the players who have articles are actually notable. The second issue is all the red links. WP:RED says that red links should be used to indicate that a topic is notable and verifiable so that a new article is welcome. Thus, the use of red links in this template is clearly inappropriate and they should be removed. I notice that most of the other minor league templates I've looked at do not use red links, so this is a problem specific to this template, and one that can be fixed without deletion. BRMo (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Change to delete. My argument for keeping this template was based on an assumption that someone was keeping the tempalte up-to-date and useful. Spanneraol's latest comment indicates that this is not the case. If no one is taking responsibility for updating the information, we're better off without it. BRMo (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surely this can be better dealt with by a list of those from the team who went on to become notable players. DGG (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. The template (similar to templates used in many other minor league articles) shows the current roster. The manager, coaches, and a few of the players are considered notable (at least to the extent that some of the players have survived AfD challenges). I think the template would work fine if the red links were removed. If there are questions about notability of some of the players, they should be taken to AfD, not here. BRMo (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that many of these links all point to players on the Minnesota Twins minor league players page, not to individual articles.. a few of the other players that have articles are not even playing on the Miracle anymore. Only three of the players with links are still on the Miracle and have existing stand alone articles. People wanting to learn about the teams roster would be better served to go to the team page where the full roster is located.Spanneraol (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (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:FC Messina squad

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Messina squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The team currently at 5th level of Italian football, out of fully-professional level. There is no need for template with all red links. Matthew_hk t c 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - we should not have navigational templates for such lowly-ranked teams. Robofish (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2009 (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:Atomic Betty

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atomic Betty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a topic, Atomic Betty only encompasses five articles, many of which are already interlinked. There are links to lists of characters and both the main article and the character list include links to voice actors. The template seems a bit superfluous and its function can be easily duplicated with a "See also" section. BlueSquadronRaven 16:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All articles and lists are well linked enough as it stands through the main subject article and for five articles it doesn't really offer much navigation than you can find in the article itself. treelo _radda 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in theory there might be enough articles for a navigational template here, but in practice they link to one another enough that it really isn't necessary. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (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:Ex Corde Ecclesiae US Catholic colleges

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, with no prejudice toward a rename if the community can agree to one. JPG-GR (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ex Corde Ecclesiae US Catholic colleges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is "Point of View" violation. Someone or some group must have made this list in accordance with what schools they consider theologically acceptable. It no doubt contains arbitrary or accidental omissions, as there are very many Catholic univerities to consider. There is no official list of schools that teach "from the heart of the Church." —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Chrysologus (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Rename: I shared many of these same concerns when I first saw this template. I raised these issues on the template's talk page. I suggest anyone commenting here read the discussion first. The source for the list of schools comes from here. This source does use objective criterion in determining accordance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which in turn is based on theUS Catholic Bishops' document on implementing Ex Corde Ecclesiae. However, not all of the objective criteria is actually found in the bishops' document, but is established by the source based on the language of the document. This is were the POV concerns can come into play, judging schools based on criteria not explicitly given by the bishops. The other weakness of this template, acknowledged by the creator himself, is that will not be responsive to the changing status of schools. As an alternative to deleting, because this template is not without merit, I suggest renaming it to denote the source. Twinkie eater91 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template was taken from [1]. It is (therefore) not WP:OR. Having said that, renaming is a possibility. The current name is "high-level" enough that it doesn't seem to cry out for deletion. That is, it is not, obviously, a poke in anyone's eye IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are too many degrees of fulfillment to recognized by a template. If kept, specify exactly what is meant. DGG (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above the list is taken from Colleges Catholic Identity Guide 2006-07, listed here; original source here, which is an older list of schools from the National Catholic Register's Catholic Identity College Guide (2008 list here). The National Catholic Register (hereafter NCR) invites Catholic schools to fill out a questionnaire assessing their fidelity to the US application of the encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesiae (this process is detailed in the link). The two weaknesses mentioned by Twinkie eater91 above ('judging schools based on criteria not explicitly given by the bishops' and that it 'will not be responsive to the changing status of schools') are addressed by the information given in that NCR article - each criteria used in assessing the schools has a source quoted from an official document; additionally, the NCR updates this list yearly (and actually the template should be updated to reflect the latest assessment). I think reading the NCR source link should also satisfy Chrysologus's objections. It is not an arbitrary list of what is "theologically acceptable" as much as it is a self-identification on the part of the schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHarold (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (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.