Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24

Template:WikiProject Persian cinema

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 Speedy deleted under G8 as a template which depends on a nonexistent WikiProject. Martin^msgj 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Persian cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old banner template for a long-ago merged WikiProject. All transclusions have been replaced or removed as appropriate. PC78 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G8 Dependent on a nonexistant parent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 24 February 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.

New Mexico Activities Association 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--Aervanath (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:District 2AAAA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NNAA 5A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The two templates listed here are not as inaccurate as the earlier ones, but are still based on the false premise that the New Mexico Activities Association alignment and classification applies to whole schools and not to individual sports within schools. Like the other templates, these show data for basketball and not for all sports. Specific inaccuracies with these templates: (1) Swimming & Diving is not divided into classifications, so there's no such thing as an 3A or 5A school in Swimming & Diving. (2) In 5A, there are only 4 districts for wrestling and so the districts are different than for other sports.

Keep. Uncia claims that the navigation boxes for the NNAA are riddled with factual inaccuracies. His claims of "inaccuracies" themselves are themselves inaccurate.

Uncia has claimed that within Swimming and Diving "there's no such thing as an 3A or 5A school". This is not true. The alignment and classification rules specifically state that in Swimming and Diving "all classifications compete as one". In other words, it explicitly recognizes that schools retain their respective classifications but mandates that they compete against each other regardless of classification. This is not the same as saying that they classification doesn't exist.
Similarly an examination of the Wrestling shows that Uncia is not being entirely forthright. Each of the schools are still categorized within their respective district alignments; the only change in 5A is that districts 3 and 4 have been combined.

These are the only inaccuracies listed and they are simply not inaccurate as Uncia describes them to be. While I do not believe Uncia has described any true inaccuracies, we could address his complaints by adding a simple clarification, such as one that says "the NNAA may combine certain classes or alignment for different sports". Greg Comlish (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Happy-melon brought out important additional points in the earlier deletion discussion atWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 29, namely that the earlier templates "do not highlight a notable or useful connection between the articles" and that they "serve little or no valid purpose as navigational tools". --Uncia (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Happy-melon's statement was not a statement of a factual absolute, but his opinion at the time based upon flawed debate. It was also an opinion about which he was expressly ambivalent.
The notable and useful connection established in the template is that the template agglomerates the large New Mexico high schools that compete with each other. There is a well-established norm of using navigation templates for athletic conferences, and they are used for articles about high schools (to say nothing of colleges) all around the country. US High School Athletic Conference Templates. Our usage in New Mexico is consistent with the standards put forth by WikiProject Schools. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Restore Uncia's claims are without merit per Comlish. We should also restore the AAA and AAAA templates that were deleted under false pretexts. Ryan Utt (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I cannot in good conscience close this TfD, I note that the arguments of the two keep voters do absolutely nothing to address the real issue with these templates, which is that (as I noted in the previous TfD) they provide no useful navigational link between the articles. They do indeed serve no purpose as navigational tools, which is the purpose of navboxes. Happy‑melon 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:Happy-melon You claim that I have put forth "absolutely nothing" to address your concerns. In fact, these concerns were explicitly addressed above and there has been absolutely no argument made to refute my reasoning. If you disagree, you should explain yourself. For other observers I will restate the rationale below:
The notable and useful connection established in the template is that the template agglomerates the large New Mexico high schools that compete with each other. There is a well-established norm of using navigation templates for athletic conferences, and they are used for articles about high schools (to say nothing of colleges) all around the country. US High School Athletic Conference Templates. Our usage in New Mexico is consistent with the standards put forth by WikiProject Schools.

Greg Comlish (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that similar templates exist does not automatically imply either that the principle as a whole is sound, or that these particular templates are thereby 'annointed'. Other than picking at specific examples, you have made no effort to resolve the nominator's legitimate concern that the schools' position within the divisions is not constant across all sports, as the templates imply. More pertinently, because the schools in the league cannot be so easily 'pidgeonholed' into divisions as can schools in other leagues, the utility of having a template that links such schools is reduced. It may be viable to create a template that merely lists "schools competing in the NMAA league". Subdividing the league in such an arbitrary (from the perspective of a wikipedia reader) fashion, is not. Happy‑melon. 12:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Happy Melon Contrary to what you and Uncia have been claiming, the NMAA places each school into a classification level and a district. Allow me to quote from the NMAA Handbook Section IV: Alignment and Classification

4.1.3 Rules of Alignment and Classification 2008-09/2009-10

A. Schools will be placed in a particular classification and/or district for a two year block. Schools will not be moved in classification and/or district until that block has ended.

This template reflects the classification of these schools mandated by the NMAA and ergo it is not an "arbitrary" subdivision. Now that we've explicitly established the falsehood of Uncia's claims, I hope we can move quickly to resolve any lingering or residual concerns about these templates. Greg Comlish (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you continue reading the cited Section IV, you will see that there are a number of additional rules, and at the end of Section IV there's a list of all schools assigned to classification and district by sport; schools are not simply assigned to a classification and district. Earlier in this section, paragraph 4.1.2 says, "A global look at the entire state is used to determine alignment and classification by class, district, and particular sport." --Uncia (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your citation from Section 4.1.2 describes the factors taken into consideration when classification assignments are made. This does not refute the very clear dictates of 4.1.3 (A): "Schools will be placed in a particular classification and/or district". Furthermore, 4.1.3 (E) makes it clear that when a school is granted an exception for a particular sport, the school itself retains it's original classification:

E. Schools may choose to play up in classification, but not down. They must inform the Director in writing one year prior to the beginning of a two-year block to be granted this opportunity. In the sport of football only, schools play at their actual classification, although they play up in all other sports. Schools choosing to play up in classification must commit to a four-year block (2 – two-year blocks) upon declaration.

This template uses 4.1.3 (E) to establish and reflect the school's "actual classification". Greg Comlish (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prominence of repeated reference to division by sport, from "in team sports, schools..." (4.1.3B), to "in individual sports... schools can enter..." (4.1.3C), to "Independent status may be achieved by member schools in all team sports" (4.1.3D), to "In the sport of football only..." (4.1.3E), to "schools that fail to complete seasons... in any sport may be placed on probationary status in that sport" (4.1.3F), etc; and the fifteen pages of tables detailing the very careful breakup of the league by sport rather than by school, does nothing to convince me that your one repeated quote is anything other than severely out of context. Happy‑melon 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(4.1.3F) is about probationary status, not classification. (4.1.3E) specifically says that schools may compete beyond their school's classification in all sports except football, and supports the interpretation of classification by school. (4.1.3D) is about independent status, not classification. (4.1.3B) and (4.1.3C) discus the timing associated with transitions between classification. Looking at these tables for 5A shows that the same schools play in the same classification and in the same district in sport after sport, and supports the interpretation of these rules consistent with (4.1.3A): "Schools will be placed in a particular classification and/or district" Greg Comlish (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Argument and Resolving conflicting interpretations of NMAA rules. Much of the debate about this Navbox has, rightly or wrongly, surrounded subtle interpretations of the NMAA rules. I think we can at least agree that this document is flawed and could be clearer. Opponents of this template maintain that schools themselves have neither an alignment nor a classification and that these properties are assigned to a school's sports teams. Supporters of this template maintain that schools themselves are assigned an alignment, allowing that the NMAA may (pursuant to 4.1.3E) allow certain sports of a particular school to play beyond their school's classification.

To me, the language used in the document suggests that the second interpretation is more correct. In the sport of swimming it says "all classifications compete as one" not "all swim teams compete in the same classification". This suggests that the classification is an attribute of the school itself not the sport. In (4.1.3e) the text reads: "Schools may choose to play up in classification, but not down. They must inform the Director in writing one year prior to the beginning of a two-year block to be granted this opportunity. In the sport of football only, schools play at their actual classification, although they play up in all other sports." In my interpretation this rule makes sense. But if one holds the opinion that the classification belongs to the school's sports, then this section presents some difficult questions. For instance, what is meant by "actual classification"? Why is it that a school's sports team would "play up" in a classification instead of just changing it's classification outright? Finally the clearest language supporting the interpretation of schools' having their own classification is (4.1.3A) where it says "Schools will be placed in a particular classification and/or district." Each of these issues needs to be addressed by those who deny that NMAA classification is a property of schools.

However, I think the argument over NMAA rules is missing the point. The Navigation box is accurately representing the competitive brackets for all 5A sports, hence it is useful for people who care about NM high school athletics. What detractors are suggesting is that despite its usefulness in describing the 5A competitors, the Navbox should be eliminated because it fails to portray the subtleties of their controversial interpretation of an unclear rules document. This argument is lacking. If the Navbox was inaccurate we would need to fix it or maybe even delete it, but there is no justification to delete the Navbox simply because a bystander could, justifiably or not, imagine a hypothetical situation where the Navbox could conceivably be inaccurate at some point in the future.Greg Comlish (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, where are the "standards put forth by WikiProject Schools" that you claim support these templates? I can find nothing on the matter. Happy‑melon 12:07, 8 March 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:White supremacist organizations

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. Erik9 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White supremacist organizations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation templates should be used sparingly, as a means of allowing movement between closely related items, particularly in an series. But, in the case, we have a bunch of groups around the world, who in most cases, had no known contact with each other. It's not to big yet, but only because it's been arbitrarily limited to only six countries. There's no clear scope, so it includes the odd defunc group, but if you count all expired groups, the potential size is huge. Unlike a list, a navigation template, doesn't allow for proper citations, and notes to explain reasons for inclusion. Rob (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur - no citations; periodically requires renewed debate between "no, they're just separatist, not supremacist"; generally a pain to maintain. Quaeler (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur - No clear scope or definition of "white supremacist". No citations or notes available to explain, etc. --scochran4 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe have one for xxx by country. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, nor does it rationally link the disparate groups named. Could very easily be abused. Collect (talk) 12:40, 26 February 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:Infobox Electronic component

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 Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Electronic component (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in mainspace, deprecated by Template:Infobox electronic component. Suggest redirecting Papa November (talk) 16:45, 24 February 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:WPN

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 speedy delete WP:CSD#G8, remnant of deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Nutrition

Template:WPN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used since 2006, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nutrition. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-24t12:16z 12:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G8 as parent project was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:12, 24 February 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.