Knowledge (XXG)

:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 10 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

439:
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.
895: 258:
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?
381:
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
449:
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. --
429:
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. --
243:. The real question is, whose greatest team? Surely there many possible 'greatest teams'- one person declaring his a means for navigation around wikipedia certainly doesn't seem right. Even if it is an 'official' list from Rangers (and there's no indication of that), it still has POV written all over it. 385:
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.
438:
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
380:
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
257:
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
448:
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
428:
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
288:
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
418:
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.
413:
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
856:), and an extremely useful one at that - please, do let us keep this template - it will be discussed, formatted, and editted so all project members are happy with it before integration is attempted. -- 42: 37: 485:- Pointless. There is no need for it. As much a fan I am of football squad templates, I see 'Greatest Squad' templates as being very pointless. -- 21: 808:
British Royalty articles - including those not about monarchs. Implementation into said articles has merely not been embarked upon as yet. --
204: 765: 506: 345:
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.
17: 835:. We can intergrate the functionality of British Royalty into Monarch if there is anything special, similar how the functionality of 471:- not because of POV, it seems it is not POV. But I just don't see any use of it. Just put the info into all players' articles. -- 756: 705: 336: 279: 231: 189: 120: 836: 913: 721: 695: 556: 530: 76: 773: 111: 60: 128: 874: 847: 826: 798: 749: 681: 668: 647: 584: 475: 453: 443: 433: 423: 404: 390: 362: 349: 340: 311: 293: 283: 262: 247: 235: 211: 193: 169: 156: 104: 736: 629: 571: 307:
The greatest ever team was voted for in an official poll by the club in 1999, with thousands of fans taking part.
91: 912:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
720:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
694:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
555:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
529:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
75:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
791: 495: 852:
The use of this template would bring an aesthetically pleasing sense of uniformity across the WikiProject (
745: 580: 100: 868: 820: 600: 401: 331: 274: 226: 184: 840: 795: 662: 486: 608: 714:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.
549:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.
69:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.
894: 741: 733: 642: 576: 568: 387: 359: 244: 96: 88: 863: 853: 815: 289:
conducted by the team is also good enough for me, so in that case I would vote keep as well.
678: 591: 540: 308: 166: 149: 844: 440: 420: 346: 325: 324:
But if there is no source, if we did it your way we would just assume we hadn't found it.
290: 268: 259: 220: 178: 657: 177:
if it fits into the article perfectly well put it in the article. Not as a template.
165:. I can't see any reason to get rid of it as it fits into the article perfectly well. 636: 472: 450: 430: 153: 883: 208: 152:
has decided to remove any squad template for teams that are no longer current.
386:
And that's without even getting onto the templates as clutter arguments...
858: 810: 207:
is that only infoboxes for current football squads should be used in WP.
358:, otherwise it is completely unclear where such a list is coming from. 635:). It also ties in with the naming scheme for all college userboxes. 656:
in favour of new template. Anyway any fule kno that OU is Oxford.
804:
The template designed for British Royalty is intended for use on
906:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
688:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
523:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
415: 145: 625:
A better template, with more features, has been created (
781: 777: 769: 761: 616: 612: 604: 596: 136: 132: 124: 116: 724:). No further edits should be made to this page. 559:). No further edits should be made to this page. 79:). No further edits should be made to this page. 916:). No further edits should be made to this page. 698:). No further edits should be made to this page. 533:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 882:Necessary and potentially very useful. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 7: 28: 205:consensus on WikiProject football 203:. Inherently POV templatecruft - 893: 757:Template:Infobox British Royalty 706:Template:Infobox British Royalty 267:Its not sourced though, is it. 729:The result of the debate was 564:The result of the debate was 112:Template:Rangers F.C. greatest 84:The result of the debate was 61:Template:Rangers F.C. greatest 1: 30: 837:Template:Infobox Arcade Game 354:It would need to be sourced 875:09:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 848:19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 827:10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 799:06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 750:05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 682:07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 669:23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 648:19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 585:05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 476:07:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 454:14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 444:01:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 434:19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 424:04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 405:02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 391:02:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 363:02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 350:16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 341:13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 312:23:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 294:00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 284:20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 263:20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 248:18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 236:20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 212:07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 194:20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 170:03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 157:00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 105:05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 933: 684:(from Odense University). 909:Please do not modify it. 792:Template:Infobox Monarch 717:Please do not modify it. 691:Please do not modify it. 552:Please do not modify it. 526:Please do not modify it. 72:Please do not modify it. 671:(who went to Otago U.) 356:on the template itself 839:was assimilated into 746:(The people rejoice!) 581:(The people rejoice!) 101:(The people rejoice!) 841:Template:Infobox VG 630:User NCAA-Oklahoma 400:- hopelessly POV. 748: 665: 583: 512: 501: 219:Useless clutter. 103: 51: 50: 924: 911: 897: 891: 873: 871: 866: 861: 831:Leaning towards 825: 823: 818: 813: 786: 785: 744: 739: 719: 693: 663: 645: 639: 634: 628: 621: 620: 592:Template:User OU 579: 574: 554: 541:Template:User OU 528: 515: 510: 504: 499: 493: 328: 271: 223: 181: 141: 140: 99: 94: 74: 47: 36: 31: 932: 931: 927: 926: 925: 923: 922: 921: 920: 914:deletion review 907: 884: 869: 864: 859: 857: 821: 816: 811: 809: 790:Superfluous as 759: 755: 737: 722:deletion review 715: 709: 702: 696:deletion review 689: 643: 637: 632: 626: 594: 590: 572: 557:deletion review 550: 544: 537: 531:deletion review 524: 507: 496: 487: 339: 334: 326: 282: 277: 269: 234: 229: 221: 192: 187: 179: 114: 110: 92: 77:deletion review 70: 64: 57: 52: 45: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 930: 928: 919: 918: 902: 901: 900: 899: 877: 829: 796:Philip Stevens 794:does the job. 788: 787: 727: 726: 710: 708: 703: 701: 700: 685: 672: 623: 622: 562: 561: 545: 543: 538: 536: 535: 519: 518: 490:MATTYTHEWHITE 479: 478: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 408: 407: 394: 393: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 335: 330: 315: 314: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 278: 273: 251: 250: 238: 230: 225: 214: 198: 197: 196: 188: 183: 143: 142: 82: 81: 65: 63: 58: 56: 53: 49: 48: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 929: 917: 915: 910: 904: 903: 896: 892: 890: 889: 881: 878: 876: 872: 867: 862: 855: 851: 850: 849: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 828: 824: 819: 814: 807: 803: 802: 801: 800: 797: 793: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 763: 758: 754: 753: 752: 751: 747: 743: 740: 735: 732: 725: 723: 718: 712: 711: 707: 704: 699: 697: 692: 686: 683: 680: 677:per Grutness 676: 673: 670: 667: 666: 659: 655: 652: 651: 650: 649: 646: 640: 631: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 593: 589: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 575: 570: 567: 560: 558: 553: 547: 546: 542: 539: 534: 532: 527: 521: 520: 516: 514: 513: 505: 503: 502: 494: 492: 491: 484: 483:Strong Delete 481: 480: 477: 474: 470: 467: 466: 455: 452: 447: 446: 445: 442: 437: 436: 435: 432: 427: 426: 425: 422: 417: 412: 411: 410: 409: 406: 403: 399: 396: 395: 392: 389: 384: 379: 376: 364: 361: 357: 353: 352: 351: 348: 344: 343: 342: 338: 333: 329: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 313: 310: 306: 303: 302: 295: 292: 287: 286: 285: 281: 276: 272: 266: 265: 264: 261: 256: 253: 252: 249: 246: 242: 239: 237: 233: 228: 224: 218: 215: 213: 210: 206: 202: 199: 195: 191: 186: 182: 176: 173: 172: 171: 168: 164: 161: 160: 159: 158: 155: 151: 147: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 113: 109: 108: 107: 106: 102: 98: 95: 90: 87: 80: 78: 73: 67: 66: 62: 59: 54: 44: 41: 39: 33: 32: 23: 19: 908: 905: 887: 885: 879: 832: 805: 789: 730: 728: 716: 713: 690: 687: 674: 661: 653: 624: 565: 563: 551: 548: 525: 522: 509: 508: 498: 497: 489: 488: 482: 468: 397: 388:Robotforaday 382: 377: 360:Robotforaday 355: 304: 254: 245:Robotforaday 240: 216: 200: 174: 162: 144: 85: 83: 71: 68: 679:Valentinian 309:Archibald99 167:Archibald99 845:Hbdragon88 441:Batman2005 421:Batman2005 402:BlueValour 347:Batman2005 291:Batman2005 260:Batman2005 566:deletion. 86:deletion. 55:August 10 43:August 11 658:Grutness 38:August 9 20:‎ | 888:ÉIREANN 854:WP:BRoy 770:history 731:to keep 638:NMajdan 605:history 517:17/8/06 451:Rballou 431:Rballou 378:Comment 305:Comment 175:Comment 154:Rballou 125:history 833:delete 742:rbil10 675:Delete 654:Delete 577:rbil10 511:stalk 469:Delete 398:Delete 241:Delete 217:Delete 209:Qwghlm 201:Delete 150:WP:WPF 148:, and 97:rbil10 778:watch 774:links 734:ЯyanG 613:watch 609:links 569:ЯyanG 327:Philc 270:Philc 222:Philc 180:Philc 133:watch 129:links 89:ЯyanG 46:: --> 16:< 886:Fear 880:Keep 782:logs 766:talk 762:edit 664:wha? 644:talk 617:logs 601:talk 597:edit 500:yap 473:Monk 416:Pele 255:Keep 163:Keep 146:NPOV 137:logs 121:talk 117:edit 35:< 806:all 660:... 22:Log 843:. 780:| 776:| 772:| 768:| 764:| 633:}} 627:{{ 615:| 611:| 607:| 603:| 599:| 383:is 135:| 131:| 127:| 123:| 119:| 898:\ 870:D 865:B 860:D 822:D 817:B 812:D 784:) 760:( 738:e 641:• 619:) 595:( 573:e 337:C 332:T 280:C 275:T 232:C 227:T 190:C 185:T 139:) 115:( 93:e

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion
Log
August 9
August 11
Template:Rangers F.C. greatest
deletion review
ЯyanG
e
rbil10
(The people rejoice!)
05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:Rangers F.C. greatest
edit
talk
history
links
watch
logs
NPOV
WP:WPF
Rballou
00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Archibald99
03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Philc
T
C
20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
consensus on WikiProject football
Qwghlm

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.