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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penguins2009StanleyCupChampions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Several different templates like this have been created, and they have been deemed not defining for the players. It also becomes problomatic with players who have won multiple championships, as it takes up a large part of the article with templates. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per precedent. This issue has been discussed to death (18 April 2007, 12 October 2007, 23 November 2007, 4 December 2007, 10 May 2008, 12 May 2009), and I'm beginning to think such "Stanley Cup winning team from year X" templates ought to just be speedily deleted. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of them prior to this year can be speedy deleted because they have all fallen to Tfd before. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nearly did speedily delete this template, but felt that since it pertains to an event that ended days ago, it would have probably been contested, or recreated, and ended up here eventually. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A useful template for navigating biographies.--Blargh29 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:EMBED which says navboxes should only include articles which would otherwise already be linked in the article that the navbox is on, and each of these players would not be linked to on each others pages. And per WP:NAVBOX which says navboxes should not be used for winning a championship or gaining a position. Nevermind the fact that these have been routinely deleted previously. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per prior discussion as indicated above by Twas Now -Pparazorback (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, all previous debates and the fact that we don't wish to clutter the articles. Winning a championship is defining and notable for a player. Who else was on the team is not. Resolute 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - these just clutter the pages. Previous discussions for similar templates have resulted in delete, as pointed out above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These templates don't clutter the pages, they make them easier to navagate. It's the clearest way of listing a championship team roster -and hockey is a "team" sport. Why do you think every other sport on Wikipedia uses them for their championships?--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They become clutter when a player has won multiple championships. Someone like Henri Richard, who won 11 Stanley Cups, or Jean Beliveau, did 10 times, would look quite cluttered. It is also not notable on the article about Sidney Crosby that he won the Cup with say Matt Cooke or Hal Gill. It has no bearing on his article whatsoever. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment they may be clutter to some users, however to your average user, it tells
    • 1. How many championships a team or person won without going to much into detail
    • 2. Encourages users to view other pages (like Matt Cooke or Hal Gill
    • 3. Gives an entire roster in a compressed form without cluttering up the page
    • 4. They are kept at the bottom of a page for God's sake!
    • In general, I fail to see how this diminishes page. Every other sport uses them for championship teams, why can't hockey get on board?--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every other sport does not use them, in fact most do not. Yes the other big three North American sports do but other major international sports are starting to delete them such as soccer etc. Those other sports are actually in the minority, and just because other sports do it wrong doesn't mean hockey should. Secondly the roster shouldn't be on the biography of every play it does not belong so the fact that its a compressed form is irrelevant that doesn't belong on the bio page it belongs on the season page for the team which it already is on. Thirdly it doesn't matter if they are at the bottom of the page or not there is still important stuff at the bottom of the page. Adding a bunch of very remotely related links to a page as this does camoflages the actual important links that would be in other navboxes on the page. You essentially render the links useless by throwing a million links at the reader. The idea behind navboxes are to link to the next most likely page a person is likely to go. And the next most likely page a reader is likely to go is not to another random player who played on the penguins for a couple games one season, they are more likely to go to the actual pengiun page or the championship season page at which point on the championship season page they would then be able to go to any player as the roster is listed there. -Djsasso (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Precedent Template:Super_Bowl_XLIII, Template:Los_Angeles_Lakers_2008–09_NBA_champions, Template:2008_Philadelphia_Phillies, and probably others. As a side note, the "clutter" issue can easily be rectified: see how it is done on those sports teams' main pages, Pittsburgh Steelers, Los Angeles Lakers, and Philadelphia Phillies; namely by using Template:Navboxes. BocoROTH (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're basing it solely off of precedent then what about the "precedent" to delete them? As mentioned above, 18 April 2007, 12 October 2007, 23 November 2007, 4 December 2007, 10 May 2008 and 12 May 2009 (a couple of those being bulk nominations). You'll also note that perhaps different sports have different precedents - of all of the ones you link to that were kept, none of them are hockey-related. All of the ones that I linked to and were deleted are hockey-related. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out WP:Consistency, pertaining to the "stylistic" argument, and ask why Hockey needs to be different. This is not WP:OSE, they all fall in the category sports. The example about Star Trek episode lists in WP:OSE seems to me to follow the same basic pattern as we have here. And also, I have already suggested a solution to the other main objection of "clutter". BocoROTH (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding this template in another template is hardly a solution. But, okay. Surely hockey articles should be consistent with each other. That seems more important. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could make them super consistent by adding all the deleted templates back and make hockey consistent with all the other major sports...;) BocoROTH (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey is to <basketball, football, baseball...> as apples are to oranges. I don't understand your logic, but we're going nowhere here so I'll leave it at that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've made my points so I'll leave it up to a moderator to make the decision. I am, however, a fan of these on other sports pages, andI'd like to see them on hockey pages as well. I used these boxes on Steelers pages to compare which players were, for example, part of the various 70's dynasty teams and which ones left before getting 4 rings. Especially on main article pages, if nothing else, they can be quite handy. BocoROTH (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note those 3 you are using for precedent are actually 3 of the few left who do, most other major sports are starting to delete them as well. Remember the big 4 in North America are not the only sports around the world. And there has even been talk to start removing them from those 3. -Djsasso (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Twas Now and Djsasso. This template is an example of poor organization of content. There is no reason to plaster this template on the biography of every player on the team, which is in principle the same as creating a section within each article titled "Pittsburgh Penguins 2009 Stanley Cup team roster"; if the information belongs anywhere, it should be at a centralized location, such as in the article about the team or the championship. In the context of any one article about a player, this template constitutes trivia. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:03, 20 June 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.

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 Nom Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. While I still feel this template is nothing but a nuisance, clearly it has a lot of fans. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was suggested all the way back in 2005 that this template serves no useful purpose. I asked several weeks ago on the talk page if anyone could explain what it actually accomplishes and got no answer. This strikes me as a most useless, wrong-headed template. It's only purpose is to tell anyone looking at the image description page that it could easily be moved to the Commons, and that anyone can do it. If it's so all-fired easy, what is the point of this template, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for persons noticing this to go ahead and move it themselves? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Moving images to commons is a long-standing goal. Some people do different things on wikipedia: some write articles, some cleanup articles, some work with images. This template is a recognition that some people, when they encounter a free image, may not have the time or inclination to transfer it to Commons, even though it is easy. So, they can tag it quickly and at a later date, someone who likes images and feels like making a lot of transfers to commons has a ready-made to do list. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't good enough of a reason to delete. --Blargh29 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It gives Wikipedia editors a quick link to the CommonsHelper so that they do not have to fill out all of the information for transfer. Logan | Talk 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous two commentors. This template is useful because it helps categorize images, is used with a transfer bot and is a tool of a longstanding wikiproject. It is also used across the different wikis. Philly jawn (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to nom this for a speedy close as I think the nomination for deletion was unneccessary. Philly jawn (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded; the template has a clear purpose and shouldn't be shuffled off like it's not important (it's currently used on roughly 13,000 pages). However, I'll recuse myself from doing it due to the fact I've already participated in the TfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unnecessary eh? The question of the utility of this template was brought up in 2005, and again by me last month, and nobody bothered to even try and answer this question until after it was nominated. I still don't see that this template actually accomplishes anything when added to an image, and if you are so sure it won't be deleted, what is the harm in letting the TFD run it's course? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because nobody saw your talk page comment doesn't mean that it should be deleted. It's quite possible for template talk page messages to get lost in the shuffle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was thinking of WP:SILENCE. In the absence of a compelling (or any other) explanation of this template's purpose, it seemed appropriate to see if we needed it at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would say voiced disagreement has become evident. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "wouldn't it make a lot more sense for persons noticing this to go ahead and move it themselves?" It would be nice if that happened, yes, but I fail to see how that makes the template worth deleting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In an ideal world not needed - in the real world I know at least one admin who finds it a little too much to keep up with policies/categorizing ect at Commons and so rather use such a tag to let those who do it all the time do the transfer. Agathoclea (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without it, I would not know how to transfer images from Wikipedia to WikiCommons. I have transferred 30+ images succesfully with this template, too.--Leoboudv (talk) 03:40, 15 June 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.

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 Withdrawn by nominator.  Logan

Template:WikiProject Templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I believe that this template is unnecessary - template talk pages should be tagged with the corresponding WikiProject. Logan | Talk 16:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep The Template WikiProject is still active, with new users and discussion in just the last few days. I think you may misunderstand the purpose of this template, the talk page could be tagged with this and any other relevant template, just like any other talk page, and it's nice to know there is a group of editors keeping an eye on templates. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Beeblebrox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:55, 14 June 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.