< February 20 February 22 >

February 21

Template:Ontario Australian Football League seasons

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox template only contains redlinks so it cannot be used for navigation. No transclusions. BLAIXX 22:20, 21 February 2019 (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).

Template:2017 Liga 2 Group 1 table

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:2017 Liga 2 tables. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused templates Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All seem to have been superseded by ((2017 Liga 2 tables)). Nigej (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Template:2017 Liga 2 tables for attribution. although, it looks like ((2017 Liga 2 tables)) may soon be be merged with the articles per this thread. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:09, 22 February 2019 (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).

Template:2004–05 Welsh Alliance League table

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused templates Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Hi, just to recap:
I have been working on Welsh Alliance League and its seasons, having recently created the 2017–18 and 2018–19 seasons (while keeping 2018–19 up to date). I then wanted to go back to all the way to when the league started in the 1984–85 season. So I created league table templates from 1984–85 season to date. I was next going to work my way back through the seasons and create and update all seasons (using these league table templates in the articles). So to see 'Nomination for Deletion' come about feels unfair considering that I am currently working my way through. I'm sorry @Zackmann08: if I caused offence when I replied to you first about the nomination for deletion but it did throw me back. I understand that you don't want unused templates to exist but these templates will be used. I am just getting round to implementing them into the articles. If you look at my contributions you will see that I have made many contributions to the Welsh Alliance League, which is a mammoth task. I have enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia and would like to continue in doing so.
 :@Onshore: no one ever said you couldn't keep contributing... If you have an objection to the deletion, then discuss it at the TFD. That is what it is for... --'Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)'[reply]

Please advise how I go about resolving this issue so that those templates are not deleted? Onshore (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think will look messy with 2 divisional tables from the 2010–11 season onwards, I will cut and paste the tables from the corresponding templates and paste them to the corresponding articles as I go about creating and updating existing articles. I've got 35 seasons to do, so please bear with me and hopefully all this can be done with next few weeks for the templates to be deleted. Can I just ask, why we're the league table templates created for use on Wikipedia in the first place if we are now reverting back to how they were pre-League table templates? Onshore (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The confusing thing for me is that Template:2004–05 Welsh Alliance League table looks very like 2004–05 Welsh Alliance League so I'm not sure why the template was created in the first place. As to the general issue: templates are really there for situations where the content is to be used many times - if its only used in one place there is generally no point in it, and if it is not used at all it should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej:@GiantSnowman:As I mentioned above I originally created those template league table pages to replace the league tables in the articles. My original plan was to create all 35 seasons of the league table templates and then create/update all 35 season article pages with them. However, after the discussions on here I will now cut the league tables from the templates and paste them into the actual article season they relate to. Hence all 44 templates (35 seasons) eventually being deleted. I will get try and get this done as soon as possible. Onshore (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2019 (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).

Template:2004 Mid-South Conference football standings

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).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused templates Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 21 February 2019 (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).

Template:1977–78 Pacific Coast Athletic Association men's basketball standings

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2019 (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).

Template:120th

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 21 February 2019 (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).

Template:1970 Middle Atlantic Conference football standings

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Now only using an article, not unused. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it will be reused on other articles, still to be created. It's a member of a class of analogous templates, which you can see by exploring it's categories, that are already in use on multiple articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (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).

Template:1963–64 Big Sky men's basketball standings

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The templates are used in Big Sky Conference#Big Sky men's basketball and occasionally elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej: the templates aren't used, the content is... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a template as if it were a real article is not an allowed link. --Gonnym (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: can you clarify where that is being done? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole year column in the link provided by Nigej does it - |align=center|[[Template:1963–64 Big Sky men's basketball standings|1964]]. --Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep templates cover notable content; will be used in more articles that should be created. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox YouTube personality

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this infobox is deprecated, selectively changed to already existing infoboxes by manual review, and deleted. In this nomination, I will first provide arguments that all (semi-)exclusive fields that this infobox provides are either not exclusive to this infobox, or are unnecessary/harmful. After that, I will examine the arguments in the last discussion. Finally, I will provide examples on how to do the merging. Just a note that I am not nominating ((infobox Twitch streamer)) here in order to minimize the possibility of a "no consensus" close, and that I will nominate that infobox for similar deprecation if this proposal succeeds. Also note that this infobox is often used as a module, and my arguments will hopefully be convincing enough that this infobox is not useful/helpful even as a module. This infobox has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube.

The more or less uncontroversial stuff first. ((infobox YouTube personality)) is similar to many other infoboxes e.g. with |name=, |logo= and |logo_caption=. One of the fields present in other infoboxes is |website=, where we get to the first violation of other infoboxes' standards because the YouTube infobox has |website= AND |channel_url= AND |channel_website= which all three generate different fields in the infobox. ((infobox person)) says about |website= the following: "Official website only. Unofficial websites should be placed under ==External links== in the body of the article." ((infobox company)) should obviously have only one website listed, as listing its YouTube channel(s) would almost run afoul of WP:NOTSPAM. ((infobox television)) has both |website= and |production_website=. Now about the biographical parameters. They are all already in ((infobox person)). I also count |pseudonym= as biographical, and it has obvious solutions in other infoboxes e.g. |other_names= in ((infobox person)). I didn't talk about the fact that the YouTube infobox has both |logo= and |image=. This is the same as in ((infobox company)), while I think it is either unnecessary or runs into copyright problems elsewhere. |location= can also be found in other appropriate infoboxes so it's easily assimilated. |creator= and |presenter= are nothing when compared to all the parameters of ((infobox television)). |years_active= is from ((infobox person)), ((infobox television)) has better alternatives of |first_aired= and |last_aired=, and other infoboxes also have the ability to accept some form of "start year" and "end year".

Now onto the parameters created specifically for this infobox. |genre= and |associated_acts= need to go away even if my proposal fails. YouTube is not music, and other than at ((infobox musician)) and similar, these two parameters do not belong anywhere. They aren't at ((infobox scientist)) or ((infobox person)) even though they are at least as useful as on the YouTube infobox. Don't forget that the YouTube infobox is the last place you'd put |associated_acts=, since this single infobox parameter has generated hundreds of talk page debates over its use on various infoboxes. I can imagine |genre= becoming similarly contentious sooner or later, as editors have strongly opposed my proposal to create a list of YouTubers by genre. |catchphrase(s)= is unencyclopedic and per WP:NOTQUOTE Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. |network= is not something I'd be extremely worried about, as there are alternatives at ((infobox television)) and ((infobox person)). YouTube networks are almost a thing of the past now, and most YouTubers had a network for just a short time. Not to mention that these networks don't make much difference to one's channel. YouTube Play Buttons are very controversial and almost always come too late, so I support removing them from any infobox. We are left with only the number of subscribers and views. The number of subscribers is unreliable (as explained at Talk:Mark Dice and at WT:WPYT), often useless, often spam, but what can you expect when YouTube constantly lies about everything and only admits fault when it's too late. Maybe in the future we can revisit this, but Internet popularity numbers are not a metric I trust too much, and they change all the time so we can't provide a reliable source to satisfy the verifiability policy. The number of views that a YouTube channel has is of little relevance to all but the most popular channels. The problems are also the same as those about subscriber counts, and neither of ((infobox film)) or ((infobox television)) supports a similar field. In short, WP:NOTSTATS.

The previous discussion had many similar arguments, and I will try to answer the keep !votes. An argument is that being a YouTuber is an occupation. However, that occupation is extremely diverse, which is shown by the uselessness of the term "content creator" which was a proposed rename of this infobox. Here I bring much more arguments than last time, because the previous nomination wasn't convincing in my opinion. There was the argument to delete because this is unnecessary branding of YouTube. I agree with that, and it may be useful to come up with some infobox that covers people popular for their content on the Internet, if this proposal fails. Many of the arguments boiled down to whether some infobox parameter was useful or not, but that is not a very good argument.

The already existing infoboxes that I believe cover all instances of this infobox are the following: ((infobox person)) (or an appropriate infobox from Category:People and person infobox templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes, which will almost always be more useful than the YouTube infobox), ((infobox musical artist)), ((infobox company)), ((infobox television)), ((infobox podcast)), some infobox from Template:Film- and television-related infobox templates. ((infobox presenter)) will be very useful. Articles about groups of people who have a YouTube channel (e.g. Dude Perfect), as well as articles about YouTube channels that are synonymous with a group (e.g. Sorted Food and Hat Films), should employ a biographical infobox. I'm not exactly sure about articles like ChuChu TV which are only about the YouTube channel, but I believe that ((infobox television)) or something similar will suffice. Webseries already use ((infobox television)). wumbolo ^^^ 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative infobox
The Slow Mo Guys
The Slow Mo Guys logo
Born
  • Gavin David Free
  • (1988-05-23) 23 May 1988 (age 35)
  • Thame, England
  • Daniel Charles Gruchy
  • (1988-07-28) 28 July 1988 (age 35)
NationalityBritish
Other namesGav and Dan
OccupationEntertainers
Years active2010–present
EmployerRooster Teeth
WebsiteYouTube channel
This 2018 article on the subject describes the problem. It states that "YouTube says fake views represent just a tiny fraction of the total", and that it is actively combatting the problem. From my understanding, the main offenders are music labels, and that the vast majority of youtube channels do not purchase fake views.Emass100 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emass100, that article, entitled "The Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube Views: Plays can be bought for pennies and delivered in bulk, inflating videos’ popularity and making the social media giant vulnerable to manipulation" is literally ABOUT how easy it is to manipulate the stats and how common it is. The fact Youtube says fake views represent a tiny fraction of the totals and that they're actively combatting the problem is Youtube on Youtube and not remotely relevant. Show me some reliable independent source saying that. valereee (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any recent independent studies on the issue. But whether it is easy or not to buy them, it doesn't matter much for our purpose if the fake views get removed a few months later, as there is an arms race between coders and youtube on this issue, as even the people selling the fake views claim they can't be permanent. I don't see why we need to remove this information for all youtubers is only a small minority of them constantly manipulates them.Emass100 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emass100, what reliable independent source is saying only a small minority of accounts are manipulating stats? valereee (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should’ve clarified that the remainder of my explanation is the same as comments above. Sorry. Benica11 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... You're right about "Born," and I was not aware of that when I wrote the post, my bad. When it describes a single YouTuber, it doesn't stick out ("imperfect fit"), but when I saw it in your example above applied to more than one person, it just seemed confusing, which is why I referred to it in my !vote. Regarding "entertainer," I have yet to see an article about a YouTuber that calls them an "entertainer" in the infobox unless it's in a string of other roles that are better (more specific) (such as "YouTuber" or "vlogger") ... but I see now that this is not an essential part of the template but something editors choose/modify anyway. Striking through my !vote above.--MattMauler (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://theoutline.com/post/3804/inside-youtube-s-fake-views-economy?zd=1&zi=qcyzdbw4
  2. ^ https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2380848
  • @AwesumIndustrys: No alternative? What about ((Infobox person))? Nothing would break from deleting this – if it is deleted, we would convert every article to use a different infobox before actually deleting it. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wumbolo:​ This does not account for sub count, channel links, and (as far as I could see) associated YouTube Channels. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scrolling through a few pages of the transclusions list for this template, it seems to me that most YouTube personalities are famous for more than just their YouTube career. In my opinion, this template limits what is presented about those people, and gives undue weight to their YouTube career. Creators like Arin Hanson and CGP Grey are very active on YouTube, but also do much more work outside of YouTube, and I feel their infobox is overly focused on their YouTube career. Meanwhile, people who actually are focused entirely on YouTube, such as iJustine and Casey Neistat, are actually using ((Infobox person)) instead, because this template is so lacking in parameters. If we are going to keep this template, I think we should configure it so that it can only be used as a child/embedded template – it is almost always a subpar solution when used as a standalone infobox. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. I have nothing more to say. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (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).

Template:FIBA Intercontinental Cup Finals Top Scorer

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." The main article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer. Note, the creator moved this template to its current name after that AfD.[1] Let's prevent WP:TCREEP. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm still very doubtful about this one. The list has now been added to the main article: FIBA Intercontinental Cup#Finals top scorers. However if we look at (randomly chosen) 1978 FIBA Intercontinental Cup we can see that there wasn't actually a "final", just a round-robin. http://www.linguasport.com/baloncesto/internacional/clubes/intercontinental/IC_78.htm does mention "Final (Decisive Game)" but there is no indication that being top scorer was any particular award. The article on the top scorer that year, John Coughran, mentions that he was part of the winning team but fails to mention that he was top scorer as would be good practice per WP:NAVBOX #2. Similar issues with other years I tried. Overall, the template seems to fail most of the reasons for having a navbox. Also confused as to why it is "Finals" when it relates to a single match: "Final" surely. Nigej (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2019 (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).

Template:Team Dixie

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 28 February 2019 (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).
More