< August 9 August 11 >

August 10

Template:Rangers F.C. greatest

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. ЯyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rangers F.C. greatest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NPOV, and WP:WPF has decided to remove any squad template for teams that are no longer current. Rballou 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is the "Greatest Team Ever" put out by the football club. If not, then delete. POV doesn't apply when it is sourced material guys, if this was some obscure wikipedia editor saying that it was the greatest team ever, then THAT would be POV. If this counts as POV, then how about how nearly all the football player pages...like Steven Gerrards say that he is "considered one of the best midfielders in the world." The source is Pele, is that not also POV and should that not also be deleted? Its the exact same thing. If Pele can say that Steven Gerrard is one of the best midfielders in the world and it stays, then why can't Rangers say who their best 11 players are? Batman2005 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not sourced though, is it. Philc TECI 20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then a source should be found. If the source turns out to be Rangers F.C. then it is their right as the club to designate who their best squad ever is. In which case, my vote would remain a Keep. However, if the source is some guy at a newsmagazine, then my vote is delete. An online poll conducted by the team is also good enough for me, so in that case I would vote keep as well. Batman2005 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if there is no source, if we did it your way we would just assume we hadn't found it. Philc TECI 13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then find, on the official Rangers webpage, the results of the poll, and there you have the source. Then, its no longer a POV problem. Batman2005 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be sourced on the template itself, otherwise it is completely unclear where such a list is coming from. Robotforaday 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen those kind of things lots of times, and while they're interesting lists, I really don't think they can simply be taken as creating a NPOV list of 'best ever players'- for one thing, people have short memories, and also limited access to television pictures and so results are always likely to be weighted towards the most recent players- for another thing, especially if the poll is an online poll, the things are hardly conducted in the best way, and generally feature some people voting hundreds of times. Any such list would firstly have to say exactly where it was derived and how- and secondly, I'm not really sure it is right that we simply accept such polls as a means for organising an encyclopedia (which is inherantly what templates set out to do, in that they prevent a means of navigating from one player to another). So it's one thing to say what the results were; it's quite another to present them as a template. And that's without even getting onto the templates as clutter arguments...Robotforaday 02:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is indeed the "Greatest Team Ever" as released by the club then "hopelessly POV" isn't a valid argument. Would you also then say that no mention should be made about the MLS All Time Best XI? Or that we should remove stuff on the Pele page about him being the best player of all time....isn't that POV as well. If this Rangers stuff can be sourced, then POV isn't an argument anymore. Sourced statements CAN be POV on wikipedia, as long as the article is not inherently POV. Batman2005 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the MLS All Time Best XI or even the MLS Best XI for a single year should be a template. If you want something beyond an article about the team then it should be a category. This is not only a POV, but also an issue of whether or not non-current team templates should be kept. A template such as this is meant as a navigational tool, but it becomes clutter when the information is no longer relevant and is mixed with several other templates (as is the case on many of the players on the team). Secondly, no source has been found yet. Even the Rangers article does not have a source for this information. --Rballou 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you see its NOT a pov issue. It's an issue about two things 1) sourcing material 2) relevance. POV isn't an issue. If Sports Illustrated put out a listing of what they call their best 11 players in the history of soccer, and they were all women, and wikipedia posted it as "Sports Illustrated Best 11," it's not pov. This template is not a pov issue, its a unsourced issue. Sourced material isn't considered pov if it only shows one side, as I've shown with my Pele analogy. If we remove the "Rangers Best XI" and MLS All Time Best XL because they're strictly the pov of the voters or what have you, then EVERY pov quote in the entire project needs to be removed, like the ones saying that Pele is the greatest player of all time, or that Steven Gerrard is one of the best midfielders in the world...those are also strictly the pov of one person. If the sources for the Rangers Best XI can be found somewhere then the issue then becomes a discussion on whether or not a template should be used for that information and whether or not it is useful to editors and visitors to the site. POV isn't an issue at all here. Batman2005 01:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the POV "issue", but this is not the only problem with the template. The two issues your list are still valid issues for this template's deletion. Just because I labeled this as a POV issue doesn't mean we should ignore the second part of my reason for wanting this to be deleted. Issues of page clutter, relevance, and usability (not to mention that this is not a current team) are all central parts of the WikiProject discussion for deletion of templates just like this. I am willing to create the category and/or add this information to every single players page if it is not currently available. --Rballou 14:14, 17 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:User OU

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. ЯyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User OU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A better template, with more features, has been created ( ((User NCAA-Oklahoma)) ). It also ties in with the naming scheme for all college userboxes. NMajdan•talk 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of new template. Anyway any fule kno that OU is Oxford. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (who went to Otago U.)[reply]
Delete per Grutness Valentinian (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (from Odense University).[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 page.

Template:Infobox British Royalty

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep ЯyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox British Royalty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superfluous as Template:Infobox Monarch does the job. Philip Stevens 06:00, 10 August 2006 (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 page.
More