Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 3



Pacific-12 Conference football award 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pacific-12 Coach of the Year
 * Morris Trophy
 * Pacific-12 Player of the Year

Consensus at WikiProject College football has been that conference awards navboxes are overkill that lead to clutter and overlink crisis in the footer of biography articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a navbox for a notable award. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, request the nom to rephrase, or link, regarding the statement of consensus, as one month ago they initiated a discussion on the topic asking if there was any consensus. None was subsequently demonstrated in that discussion (while both as-is support and refactoring for some of the navboxes was observed). Likewise, a search of the talk page did not immediately find any relevant discussion/consensus. Review of the coaches in particular and players in general shows overlink crisis not to be a general issue. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (Creator of all three)
 * Keep all three as notable.
 * Keep and reformat P12POY Eliminate Freshman awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep They are notable awards so I see no reason why they can't exist.--Yankees10 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all as navbox clutter. Just because an award is "notable" by Wikipedia standards doesn't necessitate a navbox. WP:NENAN exists for this exact type of nomination. Superfluous navboxes should not be included on articles when all they do is clutter them. That POY is an especially egregious offender. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree that there is a problem with clutter. However, the process of determining whether or not a navbox is notable is generally ad hoc. Personally, I think any award that would reasonably be mentioned in the lead of an FA biography is a minimum starting point for evaluating notable navboxes.  A Player/Coach of the Year award for a major NCAA conference meets the criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the previous WP:CFB understanding that we were not going to create navboxes for every conference-level CFB award. While it is entirely appropriate to include these conference awards in infoboxes, it is overkill to create navboxes for conference coach of the year, player of the year, offensive player of the year, defensive player of the year, freshman player of the year, freshman offensive player of the year, etc. . . .   Sure, and why not all-conference honors for each position or by year?  Conference championship team navboxes?  What about conference statistical "champions?"  The previous understanding was that we would create conference-level navboxes as an exception, and only for the most significant conference awards of unusually long standing and tradition, such as the Big Ten's Silver Football Award which receives significant media coverage every year in the Midwest.  Maybe the Pac-12's Morris Trophy rises to the same level.  Then again, maybe it doesn't.  Wikipedia's college football articles do not suffer from a shortage of navboxes.  Quite the contrary.  We already have them for national awards and honors from the Heisman Trophy to consensus All-American honors, and, in my opinion, that's where the emphasis should remain . . . not on the Pac-12 Freshman defensive Player of the Year or anything similar.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (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.