Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 20



Template:Slashdot

 * 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, there is very little to navigate, and can be handled by a category or a see also section. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Slashdot

WP:NENAN, navigates only 4 articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment there was a resounding keep in the 2005 TFD. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At which point it had 10 articles. Also, even if it only had four back then, WP:NENAN was not established. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Natural consolidation of multiple less notable articles has obviated the need for a navigational template here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, the template because the category is enough to provide classification for a relativly minor topic with just a few articles. meshach (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: What? There are like three things on it. It is not needed.
 * Delete - too few links to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2012 (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:McDonald's AA Dunk Contest winners

 * 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 as leading to navbox clutter creep. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * McDonald's AA Dunk Contest winners

A navbox is supposed to link to a main article about the exact topic in which the navbox serves its purpose. This does not. Furthermore, winning a high school dunk competition is not worthy of navbox clutter. Another tenet of awards navboxes specifically is that being the recipient of said award should be a defining common achievement among the people on it, but this particular award is nowhere near a defining characteristic – it's trivia at best. This needs to go. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Gentlemen, I have not yet had time to form on opinion on the merits of keeping or deleting this particular template, but I do want to draw your attention to WP:NAVBOX, which list lists several factors to consider when determining whether a navbox on a particular subject is appropriate. Among those factors is whether a stand-alone article on the subject of the navbox exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the main article could  eventually be created based on existing sources that mention the achievement per WP:LISTN. Being a high school dunk contest winner might clutter someone like LeBron James, but it is also the lone achievement for many of the entries, so I don't find that as compelling.  While I might support a requirement that the award should be a "defining common achievement", is there an existing consensus for this based on a guideline?  I couldn't find it in WP:CLN.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, in no way is this notable enough to support a template. I'd even question if the article is worthy.  The McDonalds All-American Game is clearly notable, but not the skills events.  The plethora of new HS basketball templates has gotten out of hand in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the level of notability of a standalone list per WP:LISTN is easier to attain than a standalone article. Not saying the template should stay, just that the lack of a main article shouldn't be a factor here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the template, aren't we? The basketball projects get accused of overuse of templates all the time and this seems like a good place to draw the line.  Not sure why the subject couldn't be covered in the McDonalds game article, though, if it came to that. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing) that the template should be deleted (I have yet to !vote as I wait for more input), but dismiss any argument based on the lack of a standalone list which WP:LISTN would support.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As stand-alone lists are articles, and a standalone list could be created for this topic based on existing sources (but has not been created yet), I believe this is not a major point of consideration for this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, stand-alone lists are the equivalent of stand-alone articles. No, the standard for WP:NAVBOX is not whether a list or article could be created; it specifically states that a supporting article should exist as one of four factors to be considered.  Big difference. We've covered this ground before in CFB and other college sports templates Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would create the article first if it had been me; however, I'm willing to grant a waiver knowing that it could be created.  There are probably more compelling reasons to delete than this one.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh. Spamming articles with navboxes which link to subjects with only the most tenuous connections makes it more difficult to find the useful navigation links. Minor competitions should therefore not get navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see the checklist at WP:NAVBOX, shall we?
 * 1) All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.  → Depending on how you look at this, I can accept that all of these are great high school basketball players who won the same national competition.
 * 2) The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. ❌ → Nope.
 * 3) The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. ❌ → Nope.
 * 4) There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. ❌ → Nope.
 * When 75% of the criteria used for having a navbox fails, the navbox should not exist. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For #2, I wouldn't have problem with a comprehensive article mentioning the award in the bio's section on the player's high school career. #3 is "no", but would also be the case for Template:1983 NCAA Men's Basketball Consensus All-Americans.  #4 is not done yet, but enough sources exist, so it seems like a technicality.  No doubt there is a problem with proliferation of navboxes, but #3 seems to be applied inconsistently in this case compared to other "more notable" sports templates.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, comparing high school dunk competition winners to the consensus best Division I college basketball players in the nation is an apples to oranges argument. Not only are the consensus AAs 100% certainly going onto high professional careers to either the NBA or overseas, but their biographies as people and players are better referenced and more well rounded. Furthermore, the level of achievement in which it takes to be one of the consensus best players in the country is incredibly higher than having the ability to jump 40 inches in the air. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm comparing the application of criteria #3, not the achievements themselves. The AA achievement is definitely higher, my point is that AA appears to fail #3;  my question is whether #3 is a criteria used in practice in CBB.—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, #4 being a "technicality" is WP:CRYSTAL. Arguing that a navbox should be kept based on an article that may eventually be created is weak. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I haven't !voted yet. I am undecided, and merely having a discussion based on points made to reach an informed decision.—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you have "!voted". You have opined in favour of keeping the template. Whether you have put a word in bold text at the front of your argument is irrelevant. That's what the "!" in "!vote" is supposed to signify. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDFORMAT says recommendations are made in bold. If I erred by equating no bold to be the same as Comment, please excuse me (though I was not aware of such convention). I would hope I can pose a question without being branded as a supporter of one view.—Bagumba (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what "not a vote" means. It means that this is not a vote. Your "comments" have exactly the same weight as your "recommendations" and indeed anything else you add to the debate. You need not post anything in bold at all. Any competent admin will ignore the bold text in favour of what follows anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NENAN, template cruft. Attempts to link unrelated players by a non-defining and trivial achievement. Resolute 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This template just does not seem to be worth the clutter on most bios. I'm not citing WP:NAVBOX, as actual practice in CBB, NBA, NFL, and Baseball projects is to ignore "3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". NAVBOX needs to be enforced or updated to reflect actual practices.  Until then, navboxes will continue to be kept and deleted with subjectively use of #3.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2012 (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:Episode list/Iron Man: Armored Adventures/doc

 * 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 per G8. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Episode list/Iron Man: Armored Adventures/doc

Templates isnt used in the show it was made for, it was as show hack to allow for extra air dates but has been accomplised in other ways Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Template doc for a template that is not in use and up for deletion (see below). Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment You don't need to put doc pages up for deletion separately from the main template. IF the main is delete, then any doc and talk pages will also get deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:19, 21 May 2012 (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:Episode list/Iron Man: Armored Adventures

 * 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 as redundant to. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Episode list/Iron Man: Armored Adventures

Templates isnt used in the show it was made for, it was as show hack to allow for extra air dates but has been accomplised in other ways Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Correct usage of episode list has negated the need for this template. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (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:Jana Kramer

 * 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 as "too soon". Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jana Kramer

Only linked four articles, but three were redirected as non-notable stubs. WP:NENAN, WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - premature, not needed at this time. Robofish (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (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:Seto li
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seto li

No clue as to what it might be for. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * delete, probably used to indicate Seto in the same way de icon is used for German. however, since it is unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2012 (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:Xenon compounds
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 keep Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Xenon compounds

Relisting as a template for discussion, nominated at MfD by user:DMacks D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is DMacks deletion rationale: "Very few entries, and the ones that do exist are also in Template:Noble gas compounds to which other specific noble-gas compound templates were previously merged (Template talk:Argon compounds reports its merger in March 2012 for example), so this one is a completely redundant/subset of that one. The set of targets is small, so no need to break out this one separately (and the set of noble-gas compounds as a whole is the highly notable group (have Noble gas compound but not separate page for each gas). Regardless of this XfD, the full template (and the Xe one if it survives) should be pruned of non-links per MOS as well (will wait to do it so the XfD sees the situation as it stands)."
 * Very Strong Keep Xenon is the noble gas with the most compounds. I agree that the template is now overloaded with entries that don't even have their own articles, but if you just look at this old version, the template was clearly much more useful. We have templates like Template:Polonium compounds which have only two entries; if that can be kept, why should this one (with at least 10) be deleted? We can easily prune it down to the old version, which would be more useful to a reader seeking to browse through all the articles on xenon compounds, and leave the full list of compounds to noble gas compound for the more interested reader. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that the value added by having just Xe separated out seems small vs the whole noble-gas one (or the cost of having the other ones also there is nil). It's a subset comprising about 2/3 of the parent. I see no evidence of consensus or even discussion that the Po template should be kept, but also that is a fairly niche element and compound-set already. What are the special features or navigational advantage that make "Xe" a useful grouping alone that wouldn't be equally satisfied by having several Ar/Kr/etc rows adjacent? It's also annoying to keep these two templates in sync with the actual articles that exist (again a cost of redundancy). Finally, it's confusing that this (nom'ed) template has blue-backgrounded entries within the sections--those are "main article" for each section, but this does not seem to be a standard format (example: some Xe(II) compounds are listed indented beyond the "Organoxenon(II) compounds" item)--alt/superset-template is a clearer-looking hierarchy of elements/oxidation-states/articles-related-to-them. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is just the right size, and has a very clear rule for inclusion. It is one of the optimal templates for elemental compounds. If noble gas compounds has a problem, then it should be addressed at that page. Templates are permitted to have overlapping content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2012 (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.