Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9 edit

Template:Minor planet 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depreciated template. Not used on any articles. Superceded by Template:Infobox Minor Planet. Mike Peel 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from my view it looks completely unneeded. Arjun 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Template:Infobox Planet seems to be a relevant discussion. —Tox 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should probably have linked to that. That's a discussion about a template I'm writing now that will hopefully replace the template that replaced this template. :) Expect to see some more on this in future TfD discussions... Mike Peel 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will. Not much point keeping it if it's not used anymore. — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superceded ages ago. Deuar 14:33, 16 January 2007 (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:EditAdvice 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete for the same reason that {{civil1}} and {{civil2}} got deleted. It should have been a group nomination, there's no need to hold the same debate three times. And no, templating users to stop being incivil really doesn't help. >Radiant< 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already deleted civil1 and civil2 on the grounds that boilerplate is no way to successfully encourage someone to play nice. It invariably makes the situation worse. This is {{civil0}} tweeked and moved to a new location.

Basically my deletion reason is the same. This is counter-productive. If a user is overheating, a quite word may calm them down, boilerplate is more likely to inflame. If you haven't the time or the tact to write a real message, then you are not the person to intercede with the user anyway. Slapping templates on overheated users is usually simply fuel to the fire. --Doc^g 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fully agree that a 'real' message is always better, however this template, which is basically an extract of WP:MASTADON is a reasonable enough start. Addhoc 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is reasonable enough. But my question is, will it lead to more harmoniously editing than not having it, and forcing the phantom template-slappers to consider what and if they should write.--Doc^g 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates are rarely used to inform new users of something they may not be aware of. They're most often used against good contributors as a form of "You have a demerit now!" A simple "You have one mark-down for being incivil" conveys the same message, but nobody would even think of having a template to say that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made a couple changes to the wording of the template, which I think help make it a little less confrontational. Of course, it's almost always better to write a personalized message to the editor, but if you don't speak English very well and you're dealing with a new user, I could see this template working. As for Amarkov's comment, people will find ways to accuse established editors of being uncivil regardless of whether or not such a template exists, and there are much more direct ways of saying so without crossing the line. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, it's non-confrontational to the point of being passive-aggressive. "Yeah I'm not going to say I think you're being uncivil, I'm just going to point out these guidelines *wink* *wink*" Civility notification templates, if we use them, have to be straight up honest. ("I don't think you were civil here, please try to keep these guidelines in mind.") Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would feel more taken aback if I was a new user and someone left a directly confrontational message on my take page. This template is really meant for new users who don't quite know wiki-etiquette yet. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perfect example of why WP:TEMPLAR was created. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an essay, not even a guideline, much less an official policy. Plus, it just says that such templates shouldn't be used on the talk pages of experienced editors. We have templates like {{Npa3}}, which are more confrontational than this one. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:56, 11 January 2007 (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.

VIA templates 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. —Phil | Talk 12:01, 11 January 2007 (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:Pronunciation of Linux 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not supposed to be used to include article-space content. Because of how MediaWiki works, templates that include references appear out of order, which is jarring. It's only used in two article-space pages anyhow (Linux and Linux kernel), so I propose deleting this template and putting the content into those pages. -- -/- Warren 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Only used in two articles, and it's not information that's subject to later change, so no point in templating it. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. It's not like Wikipedia will chrash if those two articles ever get out of sync... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Subst and delete. Shouldn't be included in Linux kernel anyway. Djiann 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete, yes not a useful template (why is it one?) Arjun 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced usage of template in Linux to standalone text - template commented out in article. Did not change Linux kernel. Jkstark 17:28, 15 January 2007 (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:Serbian Football Clubs 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have, and should not have, templates for all clubs in a country. This template duplicates the list, the category and league templates. --Punkmorten 11:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- I've already merged clubs from this template into the list. If anything, we should only create separate templates for the top 3 divisions in the country (Superliga,Prvaliga,Srpskaliga). // Laughing Man 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but because we generally use league templates instead of countrywide ones,not because of redundancy (or we could hardly justify {{2006 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} and its numerous predecessors).Circeus 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leaguewise templates and lists should handle this, not one large template. – Elisson • T • C • 21:49, 12 January 2007 (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:Terrorism in Kazakhstan 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible template. The user who created this created tens of terrorism categories and included many unrelated groups, changed its name, moved it back again, added even Kurdistan Workers Party, the Grey Wolves etc. Then he added "Category:Terrorism in Kazakhstan" to those articles [1] and [2]. Also see WP:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism. Not only is this violated everywhere in the template, but it has POV, original research, non-verifiability written all over it. You name it, this template has got it. Baristarim 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Baristarim 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has no idea what he is talking about. Number one, I did not create "tens of terrorism categories." I created seven categories. Terrorism in Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Central Asia, and China. This is per the preexisting Terrorism in country categories that exist for Pakistan (Category:Terrorism in Pakistan), Russia (Category:Terrorism in Russia), India (Category:Terrorism in India), and many others, none of which I created. The Kazakh Government banned the KWP and GW as 'terrorist organizations operating in Kazakhstan' last year. I never chanegd the categories names, and I reverted Baristarim's edits to two pages one time each. It is not POV, these are internationally recognized terrorist organizations. If you have a problem with them being called terrorist organizations then I suggest you take it up on the article talkpages. This is obviously not POV or OR since, if you actually look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan, I have sourced the Supreme Court's recognition of them as terrorist organizations. KazakhPol 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user then warned me about violating WP:3RR, after one reversion. User seems unfamiliar with Wikipedia's basic policies. KazakhPol 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on content. I know what 3RR is and I gave you a warning only because I had the feeling that you would go all the way to three reverts from your tone. You did your second revert only a couple of minutes after the first one and the warning. That's all. I have no problem with any organization being labelled terrorist, that's not the problem. This is the TfD for the template, not the RfC for one of the groups. See Wikipedia words to avoid-terrorism. Saying "X is a terrorist group" is not encyclopedic, the correct format is "X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list." You are also including categories to groups unrelated to Kazakhstan. "Argument from authority" (such as the Supreme court of Kazakhstan) doesn't change Wikipedia rules. It can be mentioned as "X has been listed as a terrorist organization by Y". It doesn't warrant "X is a terrorist organization". And other articles are of no concern either, this TfD is only about this template. This template breaks every guideline that concerns it. Baristarim 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the numerous preexisting categories on "terrorism in X country." I suggest you take a look at all the subcategories in Category:Terrorism by country. KazakhPol 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't CfD the categories :)) This is about the template. Stick to the topic please. Baristarim 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is like talking to a brick wall. Terrorism in X country is the topic. Since this is all sourced, and uses official terminology, this can neither be seen as POV nor OR. KazakhPol 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official terminology of whom, precisely? That of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan? That is not grounds for the inclusion of the "Category:Terrorism in Kazakhstan" to Kurdistan Worker's Party or Grey Wolves. I have no problem with none of the groups, Grey Wolves are a pan-Turkist organization and the other one is just the opposite. I reverted both additions. The template is even worse. "Terrorist organizations", "Terrorist leaders", "Three evils"? What three evils? According to whom and how? The template fails gravely basic guidelines, but what is really funny is the inclusion of completely irrelevant groups in this template. Since when has the Kurdistan Workers Party or the Grey Wolves done something in Kazakhstan? Baristarim 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey Wolves and the PKK are recognized as terrorist organizations in Kazakhstan. They have financial and arms ties to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which operates throughout Central Asia. The Three evils is an internationally used term. the fact that you are unfamilar with this term only shows how much you know about terrorism in Asia. These groups are not irrelevant. This TFD is irrelevant. It's a waste of my time, as are all of your edits of the moment, KazakhPol 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfDs are always relevant, they are part of the wikiprocess, which is fundamental to Wikipedia. PKK is a Maxist-Leninist organization, by the way. I don't see them hanging out with Al-Qaeda types :) That's the point, this whole template is so confused, and the only source is the rulings of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, and that only covers part of the template. I am sorry but, for Wikipedia, the Wiki rules are what is important and they are pretty clear. As I said, it has OR, POV, WP:V issues written all over it. And please do not make this personal, focus on content.Baristarim 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fundamental POV issues. Contravenes virtually every rule in the book. It is as though WP:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism never happened. No attribution at all on the template which also fails basic WP:ATT guidleines etc etc. --Zleitzen 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep none of the above claims are even remotely true. If you look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan you will see all of the organizations in question are banned in Kazakhstan as terrorist organizations. I began changing this into a Template:Terrorism in Central Asia thing today, but that ran into a roadblock, this TFD. KazakhPol 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have all kinds of people labelled terrorists with no attribution at all. Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev is on your template as a "terrorist leader/captive" with no justification other than he was captured by US forces, placed in Gitmo and then released without charge. Even if they were described as terrorists attributed to some government or group, it still contravenes NPOV. For obvious reasons. It labels groups and individuals in a POV fashion that only shows one side of the story.--Zleitzen 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer "suspected," I have no problem with that. I was actually thinking of removing the Gitmo detainees due to non-notability. If you are taking issue with the POV of listing them under Terrorism in Kazakhstan then you should be adding the POV template, not advocating deletion. KazakhPol 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking issue with all the entries on the template due to OR, POV, WP:V issues and was using the GITMO case as an example. See the second part of my last comments : "Even if they were described as terrorists attributed to some government or group, it still contravenes NPOV. For obvious reasons." If we take out all the individuals and groups on this template, there is little left.--Zleitzen 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These people are internationally recognized as terrorists and these organizations are internationally recognized as engaging in terrorist activities. These aren't exactly Hizbullah or Hamas. It sounds like you are suggesting this template be deleted on the grounds that terrorism is an inherently pov term, which seems to ignore the fact that it is the terminology that is used. "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" comes to mind. KazakhPol 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Alleged terrorism in Central Asia", or some such. It must be renamed, but I don't think deletion is needed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh... please do not turn this into Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Muhammad al-Durrah. We have enough Wikipedia pages of such low quality. KazakhPol 05:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And... why would POV warring be affected by the name? POV warring happens no matter what something is named. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I mean about the use of "Allegations" in the title. Sources in the real world never refer to it as "allegations" but Wikipedia does in an effort to be politically correct. If the alleged allegations are questionable then that should be established in the article, or in this case the template, and not in the title. It's an issue of show versus tell. KazakhPol 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I see what you mean. The title didn't quite let me make the connection. It really does need to be renamed to "Middle East" or "Central Asia" or something, just Kazakhstan is weird. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is I was trying to rework this today when Baristarim interrupted me. The template is too big and clunky to remain in its current shape. Thanks, KazakhPol 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why cant this be covered under [[3]] a category of Terrorism in Kazahkstan ?RaveenS 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to change this is into a more general template on Terrorism in Central Asia when Baristarim listed this for TFD. As of now this can basically be covered with that category. KazakhPol 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meaning "category" - not a template Wiki-speak. Not the meaning of "category" in general usage. If this template is going to be kept, it should be moved to "Militancy in Central Asia" or something. Baristarim 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should never be calling anything terrorist. It is inherently POV -Doc^g 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with revisions I think the POV issues can be overcome through use of "alleged", etc. See List of terrorist organisations for a NPOV way of discussing groups accused of terrorism. At it's core, this template can be a good unifying navigational device for the various articles dealing with terrorism in Central Asia. Crocodile Punter 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you'd want it renamed to Template:Alleged Terrorism in Kazakhstan?--Doc^g 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He never said that and to infer that he meant this is inappropriate. KazakhPol 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Astrotrain 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigational templates are supposed to aid in navigation between related subjects. This template is pretty scattershot, and can't reasonably be included in all the articles it lists. People not familiar with how this kind of template should be done are encouraged to read Wikipedia:Navigational templates. -/- Warren 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename There is WP:RS sources for Terrorism in Central Asia. it is WP:N As long as individual articles listed under the template are written with WP:NPOV the template should stay I am also partial to renaming it militancy in Central asia or Political violence in Central AsiaUser:RaveenS 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rename is not happening. The article/s only discuss those which are banned as "terrorist organizations." KazakhPol 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I no longer need this. This was a bad idea, not due to any supposed pov or OR issues, but because it is too clunky. It works much better as more specific, smaller templates. KazakhPol 17:45, 10 January 2007 (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.