|
User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/SISwimsuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
This DRV is more to get consensus for changes responding to the prior deletion (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27#Template:SI_Swimsuit_issues) than a true contestation of that decision. All the templates at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/SISwimsuit have been tweaked a bit from the deleted versions. Before I expend a lot of energy placing them on all the pages I want consensus that the templates can have value if pruned as now presented. Much of the prior debate had centered on whether the templates had too much useless info (athletes, locations, etc.). I have trimmed them all down a lot. I think what is left should be acceptable. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following templates (which can all be seen simultaneously at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/SISwimsuit) are being nominated for overturning deletion:
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:1984SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:1996SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:1997SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:1998SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:1999SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2000SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2001SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2002SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2003SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2004SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2005SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2006SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2007SISwimsuit
- User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2008SISwimsuit
Additionally, I have begun creating User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2009SISwimsuit.
- Keep Deleted, the fundamental concern in the previous TfD was with the indiscriminate nature of the templates, not with their size, and reducing them hasn't changed that. While the subjects of the BLP articles these templates would appear in are notable, and their participation in the swimsuit edition is notable, who else was in those editions is not relevant to the articles. If these people are relevant to the careers of individuals, their interactions should be mentioned in the prose of the article - not plastered at the bottom on another template for the sake of templates. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Comment most discussants in the prior debate used indiscriminate to refer to the variety of topics included in the template. I have eliminated that. I have not just made them smaller. I have eliminated locations and sets of athletes who appear in a limited role in the Issues. Look at the top of the closing summary. The complaint was about all the information that I have cleansed from the templates. Since Swimsuit model categories have been CfDed, that is not an option. Describing the other 18 women to be in the issue as you suggest within the prose is not a reasonable solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that listing ALL the models in each articles prose would be impractical and disruptive. I didn't suggest that, what I suggested was that if any of the models they shared an issue of SI Swimsuit with has a relevant and encyclopaedic effect of their careers or lives they should be mentioned. If they didn't, they shouldn't be linked from the article, from prose or navbox. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted as per Usrnme h8er. Seems very much like a navbox for the sake of having one. If the people's participation in the magazine is notable, then it should be mentioned in the prose, or maybe in one category for everyone who has participated. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - That Person A appeared in one of SI's Swimsuit Issues is a significant fact in the context of the article about Person A and should be mentioned in the article about Person A. However, this information is virtually always insignificant in the context of the article about Person B, and referencing it in any form except perhaps a passing mention ultimately amounts to trivia. I'd fully support a list (such as List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue models), but this information does not belong at the bottom of tens of biographical articles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to understand how your argument would be different than any navbox of groups of people such as Template:Tour de France Yellow Jersey, Template:2008 NBA Draft, or Template:USSenIL. General opposition to navboxes of multiple persons is not a relevant argument to any particular navbox of multiple persons, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no "general opposition to navboxes of multiple persons". I'm afraid I failed to clearly express my position and I apologize for that. (I rewrote my original comment several times to make it shorter and realize now that I ultimately excised the core of my argument: "these groupings do not reflect a characteristic that is defining for their members".) A good navbox for biographies, in my view, has two properties
- It reflects a defined grouping – a grouping whose membership is mostly stable and readily identifiable
- It reflects a defining characteristic – a characteristic that is defining to the persons in the group (i.e. it is what they are primarily known for)
- The SI templates reflect defined groupings (of people who appeared in a particular edition of the Swimsuit Issue), but they do not group people on the basis of a defining characteristic. Even though it is a significant fact, in the context of their respective biographies, that Heidi Klum, Beyoncé Knowles, Rebecca Romijn, and so on (just examples) appeared in a particular edition of SI's Swimsuit Issue, they are not defined by that appearance. Alan J. Dixon is known primarily for being a United States Senator from Illinois and Lance Armstrong is known primarily for having won the Tour de France, but Klum is not known primarily for her appearance in the 2006 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (I've no comment on the NBA template, since I don't know much about how the NBA works). –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your clarification. I am not sure how to interpret a lot of that in the context of highly templated articles like say Charles Woodson who is not known for having started in the 2002 Pro Bowl. Barry Bonds is not known for having been a Home Run Derby Champion in whichever year he won it. However, sticking with the supermodels at issue. No model is known for a particular year unless she was on the cover. However, Supermodels are known as Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Models. This is a somewhat career defining characteristic. By your argument it seems that a more general Swimsuit Issue template might be relevant. I have considered creating a template by decades. An Ana Beatriz Barros who was in the issue for seven consecutive years but never on the cover or a Jessica White who has been in the issue about seven times but never the cover are defined as Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models. Thus, I don't entirely get your point. Is it that any given year is not defining?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When it comes to navboxes built around winning a sports competition or participating in a sports team or season, or anything of that nature, I simply lack the subject-specific knowledge to form an informed opinion. I can, of course, comment on a navbox that is marginally related to sports (for example: one that groups sportspeople who have been interviewed by Jay Leno) because it doesn't involve subject-specific knowledge that I lack.
- Tying that into the matter at hand, my response to your question is: yes, largely. A navbox for SI cover models, for instance, would group people on the basis of a characteristic that is more defining than just appearance in any given year's issue. I see that it was already created by you: {{SISwimsuitCoverModels}}.
- One final clarification: by endorsing deletion I am not suggesting that this information be thrown down the memory hole; instead, I am of the opinion that it should be contained in a list article rather than in templates. And for models like Beatriz Barros and White, who've been in the issue multiple times but never on the cover, a "See also" link to such a list (in addition to discussion of their appearances in the main text) would be my favored approach. I hope this helps to clarify my comment. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently there is a Swimsuit Issue article, which has a section listing models and there is a List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models. I think both articles contain links to the former. Getting back to your defining characteristic, do you think it is a defining characteristic for a model to have been a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In general (and I think we are ultimately focusing on the general picture), I don't think that appearing in the Swimsuit Issue is defining for most of the models (technically, not all of them are models) who did appear in the issue for one or more years. As for the list in Swimsuit Issue, could it perhaps be split out into its own article and more detail added? –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? I am somewhat in agreement with you now. I just threw together an article for Gail O'Neill. So far, I don't see mention of her Swimsuit Issue appearance. Her career is highlighted in other ways in the press I have seen. I don't understand why it gets so much publicity and is not a defining event. However, it is probably as defining as several of Charles Woodson's templates and as the Home Run Derby template is for Barry Bonds. The early online years the print edition and online edition had different sets of women. Also, the women in the issues are of multiple classes. There are models, celebrities and athletes. Much of the complaining about the earlier incarnations of this template is that no one who is not a model considers it important to have been part of the issue for long afterwards. That was what much of the indiscriminate info complaining was about. If an athlete's wife or a celebrity appeared, it was not template worthy. I have excised all of that information in the current templates. Now, the argument seems to be that a subject that has two dedicated articles is not that notable. I am not sure what to make of this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no doubt in my mind that the subject is notable as defined here; it's appearance in a single year's Swimsuit Issue that I don't consider to be a defining characteristic of most of the models listed (by "defining characteristic" I mean the thing, or one of the main things, that is the source of the person's notability). Models can be notable due to being a Swimsuit Issue cover model (so, in the case of the navbox for cover models which you created, I do think that it reflects a defining characteristic) or due to having appeared in the Swimsuit Issue many times, but I imagine it would be rare for a model to be notable solely due to being in a given year's Swimsuit Issue. So, for me, the problem ultimately rests in the fact that these are single-year navboxes (as you observed earlier); while creating per-decade navboxes or a navbox for the whole history of SI could largely bypass the issue, such navboxes would contain so much information (100+ names per decade) that I think it would be better in a list. Actually, now that I think about it, a List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue models (a complement to the list of cover models) could be justified regardless of whether the templates remain deleted or are recreated and reintroduced.
- I understand your point about the possible inconsistency between the use of navboxes in articles about SI models and articles about sportspeople, and I am unfortunately at a disadvantage on this question, as I simply don't have the subject knowledge needed to determine for myself whether the various sports navboxes reflect defining characteristics. By the way, kudos on the Gail O'Neill article; I hope you don't mind, but I've nominated it for DYK. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 150 names (maybe 100 unique names) is not so big a deal for a template. I doubt that my most inclusive (in terms of number of names) template, {{NYRepresentatives}}, is seen as a problem. I will be watching commentary here for clues to how a decade template might be received. We have not gotten feedback saying SI Swimsuit Models are not at notable grouping. I am trying to understand User:Stifle's point though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to the use of navboxes. I realize that not everyone shares this approach, naturally, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if a number of editors (such as Ikip) disagreed with me. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn "While the subjects of the BLP articles these templates would appear in are notable, and their participation in the swimsuit edition is notable, who else was in those editions is not relevant to the articles." According too? I think these templates are very relevant, useful, and interesting. So on two of three issues, notability is met. A red linked article on a non-notable model is not like having an article itself. The deletion of Tony's templates just shows how any article, no matter how relevant, useful, and notable, can be deleted by editors who have a outdated 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. Ikip (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to me, I can speak on behalf of no one else, which is why we have these discussions. With regard to redlinks, I've always considered a redlink to be a request for content, essentially, if there is a redlink it should be filled and if it shouldn't be filled, it shouldn't be linked. Finally, I'm not sure why you are extending this to a content inclusion/deletion discussion, this discussion is one of form and organization of content, not of inclusion and exclusion of information. As I stated above, if any of the models they shared an issue with had an impact of their professional or personal lives it should be mentioned in the article prose. If they didn't - it's just trivia about a coincidental shared timing. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - no indication that there was any procedural error in the initial TfD, no new information or change of circumstances has been presented here to warrant overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that these are not the same templates that were deleted. Most of what people complained about as indiscriminate has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some information has been removed. However, I do not consider that change in circumstance to warrant overturning the deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per back falcon. An extremely compelling argument. Spartaz Humbug! 09:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation The template, in-and-of itself, seems quite reasonable. I'd say appearing in the SI swimsuit issue is a notable achievement for a model. Now the template might add too much WP:WEIGHT to the topic for a supermodel or someone who is highly notable outside of the modeling field. Thus the template might not be put on every page where it could be placed. But AFAIK that's not a reason to not have the template. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. Think for a moment. How many publications will a model have appeared in over a career? To have boxes like this for any one will immediately invite similar ones for every other, a completely unsustainable situation. These templates add cruft, not utility;utility could be served vastly less obtrusively with a simple category. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bit different than most publications in many respects. First it gets its own page on WP. Thus, we know it is more notable than all other publications that you mention. It gets a six day publicity countdown on www.cnnsi.com. It gets a cover announcement on Late Show With David Letterman. It only invites templates for appearances in similarly publicized publications.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Playboy, Mayfair, Heat, GQ, Popular Mechanics - all have their own articles. WP:HOTTIE anyone? Guy (Help!) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are overexaggerating your point. They don't unveil each month's GQ cover on Letterman with a weeklong publicity campaign. There are many surviving Playboy templates last I checked. I even have made a few. Being a playboy centerfold is a modest notable achievement worthy of a template. Here are a few I have created: {{Playmates of 2001}}, {{Playmates of 2003}}, and {{Cyber Girl of the Year}} in addition to the corporate template {{Playboy}}. Playboy is different than all the others that you mention as is SI swimsuit. I actually think models should have decades templates for magazine covers, but that is a whole nother issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel some other stuff should be deleted, I encourage you to nominate it. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
