Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 18



Template:100y event anniversary

 * 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 all. JPG-GR (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)



Also nominating and  for the same reason. Reywas92 Talk 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Excessive templating that is not any sort of warning and should be mentioned in the article, not in a bright, blaring template at the top of the page. Reywas92 Talk 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This template was created by myself in order for the articles which describe i.e. notable historical, social, cultural, sports events to reflect the celebration that usually occurs "in real life" with real people that gather to celebrate the Centennary Anniversary of a specific event (same with books and organizations/institutions), on which Wikipedia currently has an article: eg. Indianapolis Motor Speedway. It seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia's articles should also emphasize, in these situations, the current status of the "event"; otherwise, those articles are just dead words on a past thing that almost no one cares to read or know about anymore, failing to inform the reader that actually there is people that even after 100 years still gather together to recall that same event (i.e. in those ones that are not recurring events; in fact, the same happens when organizations celebrate their Centennary anniversay or with publishing houses that launch editions to celebrate the 100 years of publication of a specfic book or set of books). The Template is made in order that it generates each year a category list of those important events 100 years old marked with the template (the link accessible through the template); please see also Template:100y_event_anniversary/doc. Best regards. --VanHelm (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then tell the reader that it's 100 years old in the article, not in a huge banner at the top of the page. How the heck are these dead words? Reywas92 Talk  15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Well, it is not the same thing; this way, through this template, we can highlight every year a set of different articles to catch the attention of the readers with the valid reason that those same articles, although not being current event-news, are good reads as their content relate to events whose Centenary is being celebrated by people in different locations of the world: still are up-to-date events. Those articles change from being merely pieces of data/information about a past event (the "dead words" that I had mentioned) to became subjects of interest to the majority of readers which would have no interest in them, unless they lived in the town or country where the event happened: I believe this to be specially true with articles about notable events that occurred different counties. I see it like a policy, enforcing this type of template Wikipedia could have a stronger pedagogic function of getting people-readers from a variety of different locations (like myself, not all readers are citizens of English native speaking countries whose history/social-cultural environment is closer to each other) to become aware/acquainted with notable events that marked, and still mark, different societes in different locations through the recent history (100 years period: centenary). Thanks for the attention. --VanHelm (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And how's it work; should it be added to every one of thousands of articles January 1 and removed December 31, and then the next set? What's next, templates for 50 years, 150 years, 200 years, 500 years? Sure, an anniversary may be somewhat interesting, but this template is not the way to do it. If people cared about finding everything 100 years old, then they should go to Category:1909 books, Category:1909 establishments, or just Category:1909. Reywas92 Talk  17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already expressed my perspective and I surely understand and respect your viewpoint, dear Reywas92. If the majority of editors agrees with the deletion you have proposed I'll be fine and also I'll try to learn something from this situation. Cheers. ;) --VanHelm (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This info does not warrant a template. Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nice thought, but this format is way excessive. Siawase (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for the constructive words toward me that you have used to express your vote. --VanHelm (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - distracting gimmickry. --SJK (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was trying to figure out what is meant with 'gimmickry' : hopefully 1a and 2b are excluded lol. Anyway, no reply required: it was merely a curiosity of mine and not a relevant issue in any way. --VanHelm (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I am actually intrigued by the idea behind these templates, but I think it should be pursued through portals (such as the "Selected anniversaries" sections of various portals or Portal:Current events itself) rather than in the mainspace. However, I strongly disagree with the notion that articles about historical topics consist of "dead words on a past thing that almost no one cares to read or know about". The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give a comprehensive overview of its topic; anyone who does not care about that and is interested only in the current status of an organization or event would be better served by visiting that organization's or event's website rather than an encyclopedia. Ultimately, the arbitrary 100y mark of a publication or organization is not by itself an event of encyclopedic relevance unless something happens at the 100y mark that is documented in reliable sources; if that is the case, the information should simply be added to the article's text. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all, along with Category:Current centenary anniversaries and its subcategories. No need to emphasise this. -- G W … 12:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The categories seem to be wholly template-populated, so they could be speedy deleted (criterion G8) if the templates are deleted. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: These templates violate several policies and guidelines. They add information to articles without reliable sources, in violation of WP:V and WP:RS; they give an incredibly prominent position to something that is terribly minor, in violation of WP:UNDUE and thus WP:NPOV; they are entirely based on original research, violating WP:NOR; and they are not an appropriate use of a template per WP:TMP (they are content masquerading as templates, and are being used where categories are probably more appropriate. Essentially, they violate most of the fundamental content-related policies on Wikipedia, and use templates in a manner that was neither intended for the namespace or desired. --William Ager (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As far as I can tell WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR do NOT apply to the issue of those templates since they rely on details already provided in the articles (pls. see publication date if books: eg. The Road to Oz with Template:100y book anniversary; foundation date if organizations/institutions: eg. Institute of Cancer Research with Template:100y org anniversary) and in NO sense do these templates modify the data of those same articles: So, pls. do not utter a list of Wikipedia's policies without previous proper consideration. I have to concede though that these templates may go beyond the current use of WP:TMP and they do confer more weigth to one of the aspect of the article (the initial calendar date, in order to emphasise the centenary existence of the book, event or org.) and in this sense it may be interpreted as WP:UNDUE; but I won't argue with that since I have already attempted to justify these templates usage in my previous above comments to editor Reywas92. Cheers. --VanHelm (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: if it's a relevant information, put it in the article. The template itself doesn't have information enough to justify its presence. Asendoh (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitrary, typically not encyclopedic information about the article's topic. Kusma (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Wisa and Template:Wisc

 * 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 both. JPG-GR (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)



Only used in a defunct categorization system. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Major League Baseball positional navboxes

 * 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 all. JPG-GR (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)



Propose delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as there is no real significance to any of these. Naturally, Category:Major League Baseball position by team navbox templates would become unnecessary if these templates are deleted. Suggest deletion of Category:New York Yankees roster templates, which would only contain two templates if these are deleted, and both are ably covered by other categories. In contrast to the listed templates, there is significance to the loosely-related opening day starting pitchers, so that should stay. But there are probably too many of these types of templates anyway. I found these while reading David Eckstein a moment ago - his article contains seven templates like this at the bottom. Two are for World Series rosters - fine. One is for his current team - obviously fine. Three are for postseason awards - one seems a little questionable in significance, but generally speaking, fine. We've got to draw the line somewhere, and there's really no significance to Eckstein having been the Blue Jays' starting shortstop for half a season like there is to him playing for two World Series winning teams. Nosleep break my slumber 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion kind of half-heartedly took place a year ago, with the result being nom withdrawn, after very little input. Nosleep break my slumber 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Overtemplatization. If these are kept, we will doubtless see them created for all MLB teams (and other sports as well), meaning that everyone with a reasonably long career will have half a dozen of them. If the information is deemed worthy in its own right, I think these would be much better as lists. -Dewelar (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the above. We've had this discussion at WT:MLB as well, and I think these would be better off as categories or lists, the former preferred by this user. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Detroit navboxes I have no opinion on the other navboxes, but I believe that the Tigers have a tradition of 2B/SS teammates and that is why the navboxes were created in the first place. Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker hold the AL record for most games played at their respective positions and the fairly-long tenures of the other players at the positions.  I agree that there should not be navboxes for every team and every position (D-backs right fielders for example), but these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Also reviewing the reason for deletion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), it doesn't appear any of these navigation boxes fall into the category. And, for clarity, the original TFD was not withdrawn, it was closed as "keep". — X96lee15 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the discussion was closed by the nominator, which amounts to the same thing as being withdrawn. -Dewelar (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that if WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't tickle your fancy, WP:NOTDIR would do nicely as well: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed... [including] lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's what I meant to cite. Nosleep  break my slumber 21:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Overtemplatization per Dewelar. Garion96 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all There is simply no reason for these boxes. Some teams have several starters at a position during a season.. this would really lead to tons of these navboxes on multiple pages.. Also, I see no special significant to the Detroit boxes.. just cause Trammell and Whitaker played together for a long time doesn't make the other guys who played those positions equally important.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete overtemplatization. Reywas92 Talk  21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - I'll add to the overtemplatization chorus. I like these as a list rather than cats, but more importantly, they shouldn't be navboxes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep NYY navboxes, delete some others Because of tradition, I can back keeping the Detroit SS/2B as well. Yankees SP, CP, C, 1B, CF and RF are especially impressive   .  I agree with X96lee15 that these should be examined on a case by case basis. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just Leave them They are convienient and they help young people like me learn about the MLB positions. I agree with the person above me about the NYY navboxes because of the impresive positions, but just leave them. If you don't like them, don't click them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.43.161 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom and Dewelar. Setting a standard like this could lead to Template:Chicago Bears left offensive tackle, it's way too specific and impossible to upkeep. Also there's a lack of criteria for being included.  black ngold29  03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Let the NFL people do what they want, what the Baseball group does has nothing to do with them. And criteria seems pretty self-evident. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the evident criteria? Playing one game in left field for the Yankees is hardly notable enough for inclusion in an infobox. That list would include 56 people—that is if it were limited to opening day starters only. It would be hundreds, possibly even thousands, of players for some teams. And I participate in editing football articles as well, so my opinion seems valid there too.  black ngold29  03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment and suggestion: I created the NYY templates after seeing Toronto and Tampa templates already existed. On further consideration, I should have created list pages first, and then created the templates.  As Categories, lists, and navigation templates states, categories, lists and navigation templates are not redundant, and are meant to complement each other.  If something is appropriate for a list, it is appropriate to have a template for ease of navigation.  We can see this in practice with the Opening Day Starting pitcher list pages and templates.  Therefore, I propose that we decide which of these lists belong in their own list pages, and agree that those should retain a template.  Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, their value as lists would be to provide detail about the history of a position and thus give the user context regarding why the given position is notable. Leaving them as templates removes that value. The list just as a list of names is not notable. -Dewelar (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that a list with no context is useless, and I can see now how these templates don't make a case for the history and tradition I'm thinking of, like some of the sources I added in my earlier comment, and others out there. But saying I make lists with the context of the aura (ie., talking about the transfer from DiMaggio to Mantle in center, from Berra to Howard at catcher, the unceremonious dumping of Lyle for Gossage), wouldn't templates for navigational purposes be appropriate? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, once the list exists, a navbox for it could potentially be appropriate. It would, of course, depend on the quality of the list. -Dewelar (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. As I said, I think there's a case to make NYY pages for CP, C, 1B, CF and RF, although maybe not all of them.  If I do, I will try to recreate the appropriate template, and I will refer to this discussion if anyone complains that I'm recreating deleted material. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It still would be overtemplatization. A link to the list on the article would be much better, because otherwise you still end up with one player having dozens of nav boxes. Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case how would you justify keeping the opening day starter templates? Noone seems to be opposed to those.  If these are limited to only special circumstances that are properly defined, these will be sparse. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would love to see those go too, as I don't see how they are much different from the positional templates, but I don't know other's opionions on those (and while we're at it, might as well include those "inagural season" navboxes created for the Marlins, Rockies, DBacks and Rays... I really don't see the purpose or notability of those either). Regardless, I wouldn't use one extraneous statement by Dewelar above as a complete justification for re-creating a deleted navbox (assuming they are deleted).  I, for one, think that a list is sufficent, and a navbox for this information is unnecessary, no matter how spectacular the list becomes.  Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points here. First, a team's Opening Day starting pitcher does often have a significance, in that it is often used to honor/reward the pitcher chosen. Pitching, and more specifically starting pitching, is different than any other position in that typically a team has multiple players filling that role, and choosing from among them someone to be the Opening Day starter is significant, if not necessarily notable (i.e., the pitcher in question may just be the best of a bad lot). I would not be saddened to see the template go, but it does have the best case for being kept, IMO.
 * As for my "extraneous statement"...it was meant more in the sense that, should such a list be created, this issue could, at that time, be re-examined. Any inference beyond that would be reading too much into it. -Dewelar (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as indiscriminate and copy the content of each template to the talk pages of the team articles and invite editors to add it to the team articles as they see fit. Be sure to do the usual de-categorizing when moving to the talk pages if necessary.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not believe a given position for a given team can be treated as historically notable by default for all players filling that position; players must individually earn their own notability. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All I've never been a fan of these.--Yankees10 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all, per everyone. Unnecessary. Flowerparty ☀ 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just Leave them I don't understand why anything that makes browsing this site easier has to be deleted. It seems like everything that might make the site fun or convinient must be done away with.  It's getting very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.227.51 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I fail to see an issue with templatizing baseball players by their notable, definitive positions. The templates aren't nearly as long as some might think, so that helps settle some of the indiscriminate worries. It could hold some interest (not that it matters to some) to see what players held what position historically (e.g. in comparison to a current player) or presently (in comparison to an historical player). Of course, there are ways to better handle these (not necessarily including one or two-game showings, which thankfully they don't), which should be discussed at the Baseball WikiProject and not on TfD.--Tim Thomason 03:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue was discussed at the project talk page. This nomination was the result of that discussion - we're mostly the ones who want them deleted :) . -Dewelar (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Overtemplatization Adam Penale (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment Honestly, I feel that these templates shouldn't be lumped into one TFD. Some of them can be argued for, but others clearly need to be tossed.  I think it would be preferable to close this as 'no consensus' and then we can debate them on TFD's individually, or grouped by team. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, we should either keep all of them or none... Why are the Yankees second basemen more notable than the Rays? That's a matter of personal preference... Spanneraol (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Spanneraol that not treating these navboxes equally injects way too much subjectivity into this (and in the end the debate would digress into rooting interests). The issue has nothing to do with the teams involved, but whether the positional navboxes as a whole should exist. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with the reasoning that a position that has existed for 109 years is equal to one that has existed for 11, without getting into the names. But if a discussion finds that there is some merit to a position, then it could at least be converted into a list page like the opening day starter pages, in which case it might keep a template. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all, with no exceptions for any particular team. Yes, it is notable that this-or-that second baseman played with such-and-such shortstop, but that can be covered in each team's article and/or the articles for the players in question. These templates just add to the navbox clutter on our baseball articles, without serving a useful navigation function. szyslak  ( t ) 08:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:ISOtranslit

 * 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 redirect'. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)



It's already deprecated and all its transclutions have been replaced with transl. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * itis true that ISOtranslit has been superseded by translit, but I do not think it should be deleted, for reasons of the preservation of editing history. It could just become a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.