Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11

edit

Template:Poetasters

edit
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) Primefac (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that these people are known for their lack of talentin poetry, but this template is based on a WP:POV assessment, not an objective one. Any number of bad poets could be added to this, and it serves little actual function as a navigational aid (disorganized, gives users no idea who these people are aside from their being "poetasters" which is a term I'd never even heard of before I found this). Others in the category "Poet navigational boxes" seem to serve actual objective grouping purposes; this one seems largely reserved for those judged by others to be of poor quality. WP:NENAN also applies because there's no reason this couldn't be presented as a series of "See also" links on each article (which some of them are). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I guess. BTW, is a "Poetaster" someone with a taste for Poetic poetry? A cannibal who contemplates eating him? Or something even more sinister? EEng (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's comment I created this navbox back in 2010, after Category:Poetasters was deleted at CfD 2010 July 25. The CFD showed some editors supporting the creation of a navbox, so I made it.
    Personally, I think that the consensus in favour of the navbox was largely a way to soothe the very defensive category creator. I don't really hold with subjective criteria for navboxes any more than for categories, so and will not object to the deletion of this navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subjective criteria (because it is based on critic reaction), and there is no other connection between the subjects. If there was such a thing as a trivia navbox, this would be a good candidate. MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2015 (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:Knoxville area malls and shopping centers

edit
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 Relist at Oct 21. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates template Knoxville area malls. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:46, 11 October 2015 (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:Isetann Department Store

edit
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) Primefac (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:44, 11 October 2015 (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:EventsAt2015MilitaryWorldGames

edit
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. The articles at AFD all look to be kept, and while there are a lot of redlinks there still are enough links to merit this being a valid navigational tool. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable event, does not require a navbox JMHamo (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2015 (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:Facebook of Sri Sri NitaiChaitanya Paramhansadev, and also youtube

edit
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 Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, for deleted article Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 11 October 2015 (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:Longevity header

edit
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. This might be a convenience template, but it's not being transcribed and the text can easily be copied from elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unused template. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say! Could you name two or three of those articles? EEng (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the List of centenarians articles with dabs after them, they all use it. DN-boards1 (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what you're talking about. Could you just name one? EEng (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I guess you have to use pageviews to judge the use of a subst'd {{}}. This one's still delete. EEng (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2015 (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:Oldest men

edit
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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not exactly clear what list this is based on. List of the verified oldest men only has a source to one person (the current oldest living person) so most of the names here are technically here without any sources backing them up as the oldest man at that time. Second, we don't need this template as being a member of this template isn't sufficient for notability. Close to a majority of the names are hard text and a number of the articles here are subject to AFD discussions and will likely be deleted or redirected so it'll eventually be text or a bunch of red links and redirects but with a few links to individuals that have their own articles due to their independent (who also coincidentally are considered the oldest living people at that time without a source to that effect). List of the verified oldest men is sufficient. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've survived so long. They have a place in history, a place in the record books. ALL of them have been in Guinness, so that helps their case. DN-boards1 (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If of them are in Guinness, then that information should be added to List of the verified oldest men first. This isn't Template:Academy Award Best Picture where everyone knows there's a clear order and undisputed sequence. We don't have the sources as the page doesn't have them and even the GRG has retracted and gone back and removed people (and added people years if not decades later) so this is just a dynamic template that requires an article to explain. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky, why do you bother answering nonsense? EEng (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? It seems you two think you WP:OWN the longevity-related articles.DN-boards1 (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a sad aspiration, since they'd be of little value to own. Anyway, random statements about earned places in history are useless in these discussions. EEng (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's where the GRG goes (maybe not). Realistically, we're not going to be able to figure out the oldest living man in the 1st century (in part due to us divining which are legitimate and which are not) so it's going to end somewhere. Should we add the Sumerian kings? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, more realistically, why 1962? Why not 1963? Or 1964? Or 1958? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me. This went back to 1884 based on the 110 Club which is spam blacklisted here so I can't even post it (it's a really reliable forum lol). The GRG will go back and remove people years after the fact with no explanation so I can't tell. I think the oldest man from the Netherlands from like the 1890s was removed after like six years. On some "scientific" basis I'm sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this is based on Guinness World Records as well. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's basically the same source. Robert Young (aka the User:Ryoung122) does the oldest-person verifications for both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shows that one editor made a dodgy edit and it got reverted. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, ok but the table that is the source still only goes back to 1973 while the template goes back to 1962. There's still a question about the sourcing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the template so that it only goes back to 1973. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
how is linking the World's oldest men together arbitrary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.217 (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.44.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Because otherwise they probably have nothing to do with each other. Other navboxes serve a useful purpose with a clear link holding all their subjects together. Albums by a recording artist. Books by an author. Notable figures of a historical event. I could go on, but such a thread of consistency does not and cannot exist in this particular navbox. Other than being record holders for oldest people in the world, the navbox does nothing to inform the user of whom these people actually are. They more than likely have nothing to do with each other. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Other than being record holders for oldest people in the world..." ---> So there IS a clear link! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a clear "record" being held. This would be the equivalent of having a list of "World's most beautiful woman" and then we make a list based upon sources such the Miss World winner, the Miss Universe winner, Maxim's top 100, whatever is the latest thing that came out rather than what each separate distinguishable list actually says because we have multiple sources that it's based upon. Unless of course this is another round of the "the only source is really the GRG" debate at which point we're just going in circles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. In addition, since many of most of the few articles listed that survive deletion will be redirects to a list, the whole thing will be just a bunch of links to the same half-dozen targets. EEng (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I was quote-mined right there. Ollie, that part didn't even have to do with a link connecting all the subjects in the template together. In context, it was about identifying the people to the reader. The point was that the template doesn't actually tell the reader who these people are. Why should we care that these people attained the record for being among the oldest who ever lived? Other navboxes, particularly those about a historical event, give proper context and headings - e.g. "Leaders", "Opponents", and so forth. You couldn't do that with this template. It's just not possible. These people remain a total mystery to the reader besides a rough estimate of their age (because it doesn't state how old they actually are/were, and no, putting that info there would make the template no more informative than it actually is). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good on the WP:RS argument, but why 1973? Is there a reason it only goes a certain amount of time backward? Why not 1972? Or 1971? Or 1975? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's as far back as the reliable sources go. But it has to start somewhere! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not a title. Your title wording implies that the only people there are those who won Guinness' title. Therefore, if another source (let's say the GRG) says someone else was the oldest man, but there's no Guinness source, it wouldn't be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. The only way this would make sense would be if we called it "Oldest men as recognized by Guinness", which (once you say it) is obviously a bad idea, not to mention that since, retrospectively, Guinness wasn't always right (according to other RSs), so we'd have to call it "Oldest men as recognized by Guiness Note: sometimes Guinness was wrong"... EEng (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wanted to let this go and bit in case I missed something. I don't see much new in terms of discussion so I thought I'd list the main one then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used to say something very much like that to my mother when she wanted me to clean my room. EEng (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't clean your room for 10+ years? I am not buying it. Petervermaelen (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you suffer from excessively concrete thinking. EEng (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. Also, to make it clear, I am not a single-purpose account. On the user contribution page, you can see, I edited more than 100 pages since 5 april 2009 (Maybe not a lot in your opinion but not everyone edits that much). OK most if not all, in the field of old age, but having interest in one field, is not forbidden. Petervermaelen (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the definition of a single purpose account... CommanderLinx (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ment I am an SPA but within Wikipedia rules. Petervermaelen (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally fine if you're an SPA. I just want you to be sure that there's nothing wrong with being an SPA. However, we have to be careful because depending on the topic area, some discussions may attract sock puppets and the like, and so we've developed litmus tests to help others be wary. And for some reason this discussion is attracting a lot of SPAs. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, we're not deleting any of the articles listed on the template (if any of them are pending deletion right now, that's a whole other discussion; this one has no bearing on it, nor vice versa). We just believe that the template has no use for reasons already given here. However, I would like to address your appeal to tradition - an article existing for 10 years doesn't make it OK. It probably means we just haven't been aware of it for that long (you'd be amazed how much patently-deletable content goes unnoticed and for how long; one particular bit lasted for over five years). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only people who are listed are the ones who are recognized to at one time have been the titleholders. Also note that only one person at the time is listed as the titleholder, which means that they are listed in relation to each other. And Guinnness does have lists over the Worlds's Oldest Living Men, starting from the time that they were first printed (in 1955 that is). Also, considering that the GRG has been the longevity consultant for the GWR for many years, there are likely no differences between the lists that the GWR and the GRG have. That the GRG and the Guinnes Book of World Records work together has been shown on a number of occasions, for example here: GWR 2015 and here: GWR 2016. So, I would say that this template is functional and useful because it gives the general readers information that the WOM titleholders do, in fact, have titles, which can be sourced. Futhermore, such information helps to educate people as to how long the oldest validated males live. 930310 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whether or not there is "likely" no difference doesn't solve the issue unless you ignore the possibility of any other sources such as this medical journal piece used at List of supercentenarians who died in 2002. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_11&oldid=1136066692"