Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 11



Template:Hobey Baker Award

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:HOCKEY's standard that we use succession boxes for awards and per WP:NAVBOX which says ''"For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using succession box." -DJSasso (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A list and succession boxes are preferable. Resolute 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While a noble attempt, a succession box is cleaner, and more appropriate. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I continue to believe that like most American dominated sports (football, basketball and baseball), hockey should link articles with of common interest with navboxes. That is my two cents, which seems to be offset by a few loonies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you know WP:NAVBOX. You might also want to refrain from calling people loonies. It is a personal attack. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he meant loonies. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Triggerbit (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2010 (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:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

All articles are perfectly connected to each other. No reason for a navbox. Magioladitis (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete only two connected articles can be done under the see also section.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A navbox is overkill for just 3 articles. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. One of the sub-articles is at AfDwaves and the other is rather afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and content-wise, this template looks likely to collapse-in due to a vacuum. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't need a template for 2-3 related articles. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need--1j1z2 (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overkill for 3 articles; links inside main article are well placed and any additional links can at this stage been but in the "see also" section. --Kslotte (talk) 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely pointless. Ericoides (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary.--Supertouch (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now orphaned per this discussion; time to close and delete. Jack Merridew 23:52, 14 April 2010 (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:Fb competition 2010-11 Europe

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to me to be of any use, but as there is a whole pile of these type of templates in Category:Fb competition templates it seems to be more of a naming/content dispute than a reason for speedy deletion. Peter 11:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete The Fb competition template is for the tournaments, not the qualification. There is no any tournament called "European competition" or "European". Raymond "Giggs" Ko 13:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of a valid use of the template as of April 10, 2010

The column in Fb is "Qualification or Relegation" and such is the valid situation currently in the Ukrainian Premier League season 2009–10 season when both top teams have qualified for European football for the 2010–11 season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Invalid explaination, you did not answer the inquiry. I am asking for if there is a competition called "European competition", not if they are already qualified for the European competition. See 2009–10 La Liga if you don't know how to use those templates. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, the template signifies a correction situation for the current state of qualification. The template is used correctly defined in the "Qualification or relegation" column of the Fb template. That is what templates are used for. The use of "Qualification or relegation" in 2009–10 La Liga is in violation of WP:FUTURE where the links are incorrectly directing teams that have NOT qualified yet for those stages of the competition. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have already misunderstand and the words are totally incorrect. The row of "Qualification and Relegation" shows the fate if the teams reached the baseline. That's why the Fb cl template was bulit. I have viewed all of the football league templates, only Ukarinian Premier League, not only this season, but also occurs last season, use an independent style. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The fate of the teams is in the future. This is a clear violation of WP:FUTURE. Only when the have actually achieve that milestone then that information is to be displayed. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, then all articles at the future should be removed, and this template should be removed too as it also a clear violation of WP:FUTURE. The words you said means no future information in the articles. That's it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And also, I cannot find any words indicated the template as "used correctly defined in the "Qualification or relegation" column of the Fb template". Where did you find it? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These templates are created with the broad assumption of use. "Qualification or relegation" in Wiki understanding is of "today" not in the future. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Today? Okay, there is a fact confirmed today: "The team finished first will qualify for the group stage of Champions League, the team finished second will qualify for the third qualifying round of Champions League, the team finished third will qualify for the play-off round of Europa League, the team finished fourth will qualify for the third qualifying round of Europa League, the team finished fifth will qualify for the second qualifying round of Europa League." That's the usage of the "Qualification or relegation", so you are not telling the truth. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you have quoted is information about the color schema within the Fb competition template. However, that fact is unlined by the word will, which is indicating the future scenario that will occur once the competition has completed. You are brandishing those future scenarios as if they are implied and have already occurred in the competition. The competition is still in progress. There are significant junctions or milestones within the competition which justifiably need to be addressed such as provided by this template - That a team has qualified for Europe but it is not clear which competition they will enter. You seem to ignore that fact dismissing it outright. The competition which teams will actually qualify will addressed at a later date and that should conform to what is used within other competitions. Not by adhoc added canned links as well as notations in very small font where it is redundant, confusing and misplaced (Q) and (R) explanation reside when there is a clear concise area already provided in the template - Qualification and relegation. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, could you explain what is (Q)? If you ignore the (Q), then don't use the template as the league table style anymore. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both the (Q) and (R) are a redundancy. There already exists a "Qualification or relegation" within the standings table to clearly indicates what the state of the team is. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you said those are redundancy, I would call for the whole fb cl templates deleted, as the elements added in the template are, as you said, redundance, then all of the football league articles in wikipedia will become chaos. The reason most of the contributors to choose this template is because it unified the league table expression. Not have to indicate what the teams have to reached to qualify for respective tournament by another words in notes, not have to recalculate the goal difference and points, or so on. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reaction is extreme and unfounded. To delete of the Fb template is not in order. I do not see chaos only into your current interjection as to how this template is being used during the progress of a competition. To use the fb template there must be room for flexibility especially as to display what is actually the real state of the competition which you seemingly ignore.


 * The fb template is used accordingly - and editors do not have to recalculate the goal difference and points. There is enough information which is clear and concise in Qualification to European competitions for 2010 as to how teams are dispersed within the European competitions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well. Not using the format does not follow the concistancy already, that's what this article did. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still, you did not answer me the question. Is there any competition called "European competitions"? If no, the template must be removed as it is not a qualification. As you repeatly stated that there should not have any baselines in the article, then I'm going to remove the whole template from the article. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "European competitions" is plural and my answer is YES and the template's link directs to those competitions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, where is the article 2010–11 European competitions or European competitions 2010–11 or something else, instead of linking to the UEFA? And I was wrong, that should be "European football". Is there any competitions called "European football"? So where is the article 2010–11 European football? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How many more questions do you want to ask? This is not an discussion but an instigation. Obviously the idea here is to delete this template so that there is control on what can be displayed and for what you call would be perceived "chaos". Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The rows don't indicate if a team has qualified or not (that's what the (Q)'s are for), the rows indicate which competition the team that finishes in that position is qualifies for. It seems pretty obvious and is universally used (see UEFA and FIFA for example) chandler 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The template is still valid in this case, in if there is insistence of the using redundant qualifies and notation.


 * This doesn't answer the consistent violations within WP:FUTURE which is
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation (No team has qualified yet). All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (The are no references that team has qualified), and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred (Initial event is in progress and future event's date is unknown - would have its own separate heading and included in common article). It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. (There is no reference provided). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's no speculation about which competition and round position 1-5 lead to. chandler 01:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I think some people forgot those words. They are the only words of the Ignore all rules. The dispute is caused by the knowledge difference of WP:FUTURE. Most of readers thought that the "Qualification or relegation" indicates what is the meaning of the color, only you disagree and keep revert to your ideal style. Well. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is unnecessary and redundant due to the existence of the templates used on virtually every other league season page (e.g. 2009–10 Premier League) without complaint. Not a single editor apart from its creator has supported its use in the discussion at WP:FOOTY. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:21, 21 April 2010 (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.