Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10 edit

Template:WikiProject Energy3 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. IronGargoyle 03:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is confusing to have three templates for one project and unnecessary. 199.125.109.64 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems redundant. Sverre 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has also agreed that it is redundant and should be deleted. 199.125.109.20 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just where, exactly? No comments on talk page or here by User:Beagle. Not weighing in on the debate, but the above comment seems borderline out of line without a link. MrZaius^talk 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was made on User talk:199.125.109.64 and transcribed to User talk:Beagel. "As one possible solution I made template with wind farm image, which is suitable for renewable energy articles. All three templates actually identical--the only differences are images. But as I said, it's ok for me if there will be only one (original) template." And then later: "Ok, fine then. I personally have nothing against oil well image and I agree that it's better to have only one template."199.125.109.37 18:21, 14 July 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 section.

Template:Infobox Uzbekistan City 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. IronGargoyle 03:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was not used on any articles and even if it was it would be redundant to Infobox Settlement. Also, the talk page is empty. — MJCdetroit 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Sefringle^Talk 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Standardise on settlement. Andy Mabbett 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and redundant to Infobox Settlement. — mholland (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with {{Infobox Settlement}} --Kralizec! (talk) 19:31, 16 July 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 section.

Template:Year nav range 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 keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, {{Year nav}} does the jod and any changes can be merged. Philip Stevens 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a while: The new template "Template:Year nav range" is still evolving into more features, and it is not intended as just a copy of {{Year_nav}}. However, at some point in the future, the new features, once fully tested, could be merged into the older template which is used in hundreds of articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep if it is in fact about to be improved, but not for the far distant future DGG (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by nom, the improvements can be merged back into Year nav or made there initially, if they haven't been yet. No reason to have two separate templates when you can just as easily add an optional arg to the preexisting one. Hasn't changed since June, either. MrZaius^talk 16:01, 14 July 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 section.

Template:WikiProject Energy2 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. IronGargoyle 04:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This duplicates the WikiProject Energy template and is a dilution of editor focus, and as such is unnecessary. — 4.233.143.46 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems redundant. Sverre 17:49, 11 July 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 section.

Template:History of German 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 Speedy deleted Test version, never used. Thatcher131 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. The template {{History of Germany}} is used instead.. 52 Pickup 12:17, 10 July 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 section.

Template:Infobox Historic Cricketer (Overs) 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. IronGargoyle 04:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in the main namespace. Idea being for old cricketers who played Tests but not First-Class matches, but with the number of overs they bowled as opposed to balls. By design this is bizarre and even potentially oxy-moron-esque (not the best wording, but you get my point) as the point of the namesake infobox ({{Infobox Historic cricketer}}) is that it lists balls bowled due to the changing number of balls per over over the years. For newer cricketers, {{Cricketer Infobox}} is better to use. Slightly different from the nom below, so listed seperately; although discussion here still applies. Suggesting delete. — AllynJ 09:38, 10 July 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 section.

Template:Infobox Cricketer alt 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. IronGargoyle 04:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largely redundant template. Was an interesting idea at the time, which was discussed here at WP:CRIC. The idea never took off, however, and is now completely unused and unlikely to be used in the future due to other, perhaps better designed, templates (eg {{Cricketer Infobox}}). Recent discussion at WP:CRIC agreed that this is OTT. Suggesting delete. — AllynJ 09:31, 10 July 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 section.

Template:DriveNav 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. Whether or not the show is canceled is irrelevant. The fact that all the links go to the same place is relevant. IronGargoyle 04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show is no longer on the air. All of the links in the template redirect back to the main article or to the characters article. The characters are all listed in the main article. Just unnecessary. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nom states, every one of the links is a redirect to one of two articles, both of which link to each other. MrZaius^talk 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the show has been canceled and this is no more useful. Wael Mogherbi 18:26, 14 July 2007 (GMT)

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 section.

Template:cjk 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. IronGargoyle 04:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have reached a concensus that this template duplicates the features of other existing templates. Consensus was reached here. All articles that use the template has already been cleaned out. You can see the remaining links here. This should be an easy delete. Benjwong 04:50, 10 July 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 section.

Template:Dead links 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. If the template was used, I'd be more inclined to redirect. But it isn't. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was previously {{404}}, and it is essentially a notice that one or more of the links in the article are dead (that the server returns a HTTP 404 error). When I found the template, there were two usages. In both cases, I had to go through every link in the External Links section (where the template was located) to find which ones were dead (since this template says "links"). In one case, there was one dead external link that was the labeled as such; in the other, none of the links in the External Links section were dead. It is much more convenient for both the reader and the link-fixer to identify each broken link individually rather than view a general maintenance tag; therefore, I suggest that this template (and Template:404) should be redirected to Template:Dead link), which serves this function. I had boldly redirected the template prior to this, but it was reverted, so I hope this TfD debate can address the template's value in terms of consensus. Gracenotes^T § 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: redirection seems like a bit of a bad idea, since the usage of the two templates is so different. I'd be more inclined to support outright deletion, without prejudice to recreate in some other form (i.e. as a redirect) after enough time has passed. But maybe that's just me. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was pretty obscure, though, so I didn't think that redirection could be harmful. But there are no issues with deletion. Gracenotes^T § 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Incorrect usage can always be fixed. --- RockMFR 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see how it would be very annoying to fix an article with this template. The Template:Dead link is much more useful to anyone who wants to fix the link. I don't think redirection will work here, because Template:Dead links would be placed at the top of the section (or even article).Sverre 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If you had put some of that in the edit summary then I wouldn't have reverted. The redirects should probably be {{404}} →{{dead link}} and {{dead links}} → {{External links}} which is similar enough. —Dispenser 04:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those redirection patterns makes sense. And the edit summary definitely could have provided rationale—I fear I forgot about that. Gracenotes^T § 03:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Via 'What links here' I saw no current uses of this template. Also check out WIkipedia:Dead external links which also makes no reference to this template, although it is a lengthy and well-written article on link repair progress and strategies. Agree with User:Sverre that redirecting to {{Dead link}} is not useful, because the context is different. Redirecting to {{External links}} could be confusing, since that template is heavily used in spam fighting, which is a whole different problem. But since there are no current uses, we should be less concerned about finding a sensible redirection, and more worried about future people employing this wrong-headed template by mistake, which can be avoided if we delete it. EdJohnston 16:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WIkipedia:Dead external links doesn't get updated very much. {{404}} should be redirected to {{dead link}} since it the second most logical guess a person could make. Additionally, {{dead links}} may find some use on pages which are have many dead link (typically from news sources) such as Deaths in January 2007 which has 103 out of 303 reported to have some sort of issue (either dead or redirecting). —Dispenser 07:56, 17 July 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 section.

Template:Baker Street (band) 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. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nav template for articles all of which were speedied. — DES ^(talk) 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Technically, there's an article (on the band's EP) that hasn't been speedied yet as of this writing, but the main band article was deservedly A7 speedied, so there's obviously no reason to keep the template. Can't we speedy this, too? --Finngall ^talk 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, noe of the speedy criteria aply to such templates. Maybe one should be added, but does this situation come up often? DES ^(talk) 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that housekeeping would cover it; the template and deleted articles can be considered a bundle. When the articles are deleted, it seems like housekeeping to remove the template as well. An admin can take it upon him/herself to speedily delete it, but through whatever appropriate means, I suggest deletion. Gracenotes^T § 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. --Haemo 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that decision to delete articles should cover the template.Sverre 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm completely pro-navboxes, but until a least a couple of those redlinked articles are created, the template does not serve much purpose. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam or WP:CSD#G6 (housekeeping). To above: these articles were created, but they all failed WP:CSD#A7 and were speedily deleted as well. Quite why the EP wasn't I have no idea - it really didn't need to be prodded as the person did so, it *was* a speedy candidate. AllynJ 23:34, 11 July 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 section.

Template:Box Office Leaders USA 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 no consensus. IronGargoyle 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that we do not need a template like this. What's next? Lowest Box Office in USA? There could be so many similar templates that would soon fill the end of articles. Let's keep these at a minimum. — Steinn inn 02:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the template to clean up a long string of non-templated entries that users had been creating long-hand. The comparison to "Lowest Box Office USA" is to make a point, I realize, but it's so wide of the mark that it doesn't really apply. Box office rankings are the subject of major press coverage on a week-by-week basis and I believe adding this as a browsing function adds value to Wikipedia. - Richfife 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single running list of top box office grossing films should be enough. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note: this template is used in 150 articles, if my calculations are correct. (Calculations = sekrit script!) Now my argument: in general, these succession templates are used for chronological context (for example, such-and-such a king followed such-and-such another king), while box office rank is a bit arbitrary and provides no useful context. So although definitely a good idea, I recommend that this template should be deleted (no hurt feelings, I hope). Gracenotes^T § 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite KEEP & cancel AfD: The template is fairly new (from 21Jun07), with room for improvement, and functions as a low-key, bottom nav-box, not upsetting current article formats. I verified 150 usage-links, and agree it acts like predecessor/successor for kings. It shows no potential to become a "vanity box" (those vertical side-boxes that upset top images and grow to become "more important" than any article on WP). The originator clearly documented inclusion to each article, so I find NO evidence of a hidden agenda. However, the originator has cast "Delete" opinions for many other articles, and I fear that Delete-opinions cast against this template could easily be mere retribution, so I advise to cancel AfD pronto & de-list this new template, in favor of watching development/discussion through the template's Talk-page. Also, saying the template is unneeded is like saying, "A worldwide Atlas of roads is sufficient, and no Wiki article needs to show local roadmaps of the roads connecting to an individual town." (Ever try to get MapQuest or Google Maps to correct the so-called "diagram" of your neighborhood? There "ought to be a law" against posting incorrect maps, from the wrong planet.) Anyway, the template is valuable for predecessor/successor films, analogous to roadmaps showing nearby towns. Definite keep & please cancel AfD. I analyzed this thoroughly (duh), so no need to waste any more time "debating" with potential hate-based Delete-opinions. I hope you note the political pressure against the originator (Richfife): AfDs cannot see grudges; let that template's future be decided in its talk page. Thank you (for your time). -Wikid77 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (14,900 edits, 2.6 per page)[reply]
- For the record, I saw absolutely no political content or hate in this discussion. I spent a fair amount of time on replacing the existing longhand boxes in articles with the template, but I would never, ever count the amount of work spent on edits in nominated content towards whether it should be included, even if I was doing the work myself. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Anyway, I'm not offended by anything anyone has said in this TFD and, although I obviously disagree with some of the opinions expressed, I don't question the professionalism of the people holding them. Thanks! - Richfife 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This template appears to have some potential as being significant in articles it is included in. There is probably room for expansion, however, in terms of the information contained in the template and the particular formatting of the template. -- Scottjar^{(t • c)} 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally created the template to address Systemic Bias issues (the original edits didn't mention the country). My priority wasn't to make it pretty, but to centralize the format. - Richfife 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why this can't be handled by normal succession boxes. Atropos 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template does eventually recurse to a normal succession box, so I'm not sure what you mean. - Richfife 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because like Huntster said, a single running list of weekend toppers is appropriate enough. The templates take up unnecessary space in the article without explaining any real-world context to the numbers. The media hype over #1 weekends suffers from recentism; it becomes increasingly irrelevant as the weekends add up to the ultimate gross of the theatrical run. In any appropriate film article, the opening weekend would be recorded in a prose manner in a Release/Reaction section, with any significant details if necessary -- breaking records, number of theaters, et cetera. It would be better to write about the box office performances of films in prose rather than resorting to templates about even the simplest numbers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys, there's a real, objective, hard core reason why this template has to be removed. You're dancing around it, but no one's gone out and said it. Starts with a "P". - Richfife 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedence - The problem that occurred to me just this afternoon, even as the creator of the template, is that there are 243 countries currently on the planet and WP:BIAS states that we are not allowed to favor one over another. This could lead to massive overflow of templates at the bottom of pages of films with wide international releases. - Richfife 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alternative It just occurred to me that this could be handled by moving the multiplying templates into a drop box like one of these: Template:Harrypotter. That way the real estate issue is avoided. - Richfife 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not very much for that idea. It still doesn't answer why we shouldn't then make templates for every country in the world. Titanic would be filled with them. --Steinn inn 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this template. It does provide some interesting, rather important information. It's not at all different from the template for the #1 album in the country or the #1 single in the country. -- Kicking222 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Steinninn. Takes space and it's uses are few. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and Subst Get a bot to replace with the template {{succession box}}. SpecialWindler talk 06:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These were succession boxes. The current template recurses to a succession box. If you use a succession box and decide you need to change the text of the template label, you need to revisit every single page. That's why this template was created. - Richfife 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why does one need to have this? I agree with the above who say if there's a succession box about USA #1 gross earnings in movies - who's to say we can't do so for other countries? what about other businesses? Make this a list! master son^{T - C} 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that something like this provides a somewhat useful service and as long it remains as humble as it is now, I don't see any reason why this template should be deleted. I believe that it provides a quick at a glace look to see where it stands in the ratings of the box office and provides a link to the main page to see the complete list. In my opinion, if the template doesn't change to drastically, then there is no problem with keeping it at the bottom of each article it appears on.スミスナサニアル 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Box office leadership is a notable concept in the film business, template provides a useful way to navigate between film articles. If it proliferates into a bunch of other country-specific templates, we can deal with that all at once at a later time. My only concern is what if we get another film like Titanic from 1997 which stayed #1 at the box office for what? 15 weeks? How do we avoid a repetitive loop? (But that's a technical issue that doesn't go to the merits of keep/delete.) Wl219 04:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually set up a way to handle that in the template. See the usage here: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film). Thanks! - Richfife 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A template that relates movies through Movies Box Office seems enough notable by gogling some. (be sure to add proper references)--Andersmusician VOTE 00:31, 18 July 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 section.

Template:Allegations of apartheid 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 no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The main problem with this template is its use of the word 'allegations'. Allegations are, by definition, not proven, and generally represent only one side's POV. I find the existence of this template highly worrying for Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It reminds me of Category:Alleged American war criminals, which was speedily deleted, and rightly so; 'Allegations of X' is a very bad idea for any category or template. I have no issue with the main article to which this refers, Allegations of apartheid, since that is backed up by reliable sources; but a template cannot be, and is inherently POV. This one should ideally be deleted, but since it failed a TFD before, I merely suggest giving it a more encyclopaedic name such as 'Template:Modern Apartheid' or 'Template:Apartheid outside South Africa'. — Terraxos 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (tentative to further discussion)—This template is meant to be a navigational template, so that means it must have a function of navigation. But the function provided by this template is not particularly useful; these articles are more correlated to the history of each country than they are to each other. Someone interested in apartheid and discrimination would want to see articles describing instances of apartheid discrimination listed together: and such instances already are, in Category:Discrimination. As the nominee mentioned, there are NPOV problems. But my main concern, again, is that each of the included articles is related intrinsically with the history of discrimination of each country, and an examination of apartheid (and its adhesively related concept of "discrimination") in general can be handled far better with the category than with this highly, highly selective template. Failing that, rename it and expand its criteria for inclusion (somehow). Gracenotes^T § 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Storng Delete template that just links POV articles. There is no need on wikipedia for a template to link a bunch of allegations that present an anti-american, anti-Israeli POV. In many ways this template is inflammatory, meant to link bias articles. It certianly isn't a neutral template. Other than to push POV's, and show which countries have and haven't been accused of apartheid, this template is pretty useless.-Sefringle^Talk 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - template was recently (april) subject to another TfD, there are several pages joined by this template, and any content issues with regards to the articles in question should be made in the articles themselves, most of which have been subjected to repeated AfDs that have been survived or overturned in DRV. The allegation that the template is selective is not true: all (but one) of these pages are a result of necessary sub-articles from the parent page. This template is clear in that it joins a main article, Allegations of apartheid, with several sub-pages of all the allegations that have warranted pages of their own due to the wealth of reliable and verifiable sources. --Cerejota 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a main page is broken up into subpages, Template:Main should used. And indeed it is here. But why do we need a navigational template connecting these articles, especially when important examples not yet notable enough for an article are excluded? Why not just have a link to Allegations of apartheid in each article's See Also section, so that a reader may be presented with a list of allegations of apartheid (and not just a list of allegations of apartheid that have an article)? Gracenotes^T § 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Functional objections are not good ones: following your logic, all of the wikipedia navigation templates should be replaced by {{Main}}, which is, well, rather limiting. This template does it function and does it well, and it even looks good. Any POV issues are editing issues in the article themselves, and of course, I would object the non-inclusion of additional pages as those pages emerge. I fail to see, as claimed, how this template is in any way POV.--Cerejota 12:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - BTW, the suggestion to make the links "See Also" links defeats the entire purpose of navigation templates in wikipedia, which is to standardize content across pages. It makes no sense at all!--Cerejota 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is it limiting? It does it's function quite well. Its function is to push certian POV articles foreward, by showing what articles are accised of apartheid, and which countries are not. It thus presents a bias for some countries and another bias against countries. It would be better to just add the Allegations of apartheid link to the "see also" section of each of those articles. At least then, we aren't pushing certian POV's. It doesn't look good; it just links POV articles.--Sefringle^Talk 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cerejota, I don't have much of a problem with the template; it just strikes me as inconsistent. For example, this template does not link to information about allegations of apartheid in China. It gives undue weight to allegations of apartheid in countries which have an article (as opposed to merely having a section), which is probably where Sefringle's POV argument comes from. But right now, the listed countries appear a bit arbitrary in their inclusion.
  - I think that agreement is a good thing to work towards. So: I think that this version of the template is consistent; I'm pretty sure that it takes care of Sefringle's POV concerns; then, are you happy with it? It does have a couple of links to the main article, true, but consider also its benefits. Right now, the template is not truly symmetrical, as EdJohnston says. This version is. Gracenotes^T § 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I find this set of articles annoying, I'm impressed by a comment by Jayjg from the last TfD debate, This template helps join a number of articles related by common issues of alleged discrimination and verbal hyperbole regarding it. There is a kind of compromise in place whereby 'allegations of apartheid' will be symmetrically discussed across a range of different countries. The parent article Allegations of apartheid has been heavily discussed in a number of AfDs, a DRV, and an especially exciting third AfD, which it survived. Keeping this template around will allow the compromise to continue in place. If we knock out the template, expect another uproar and a new compromise somewhere down the line that is not likely to be better. Note also the year-old arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. EdJohnston 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Nobody is asking for the allegations of apartheid article to be deleted. I am against its deletion, but we really don't need a template like this one to link together POV articles.--Sefringle^Talk 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically my point. The article is fine, but the template seems like POV to me (it implies that only these countries have been subject to allegations of apartheid, contradicting the article itself), and sets a dangerous precedent ('allegations of X' as a template). As I said, I would be happy if it were simply renamed to a less dubious title. Terraxos 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with this view, and that is that navigation templates are meant to navigate (duh!). This template is obviously not meant as an info box, but a navigation aide. It is obvious that all the articles included are not included for POV reasons, but because those articles are the only ones with enough sourced material regarding the allegations to warrant pages of their own. The proposal by Gracenotes, while obviously well meaning, is ultimately a collection of redundant links to the same article, which instead of helping navigation, actually makes it cumbersome. Lastly, POV issues are content issues, not reasons for deletion.--Cerejota 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, per EdJohnston. Anyone who is impressed with my comments must be right. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I must be right all the time ;). Of course, one can be both impressed and in complete disagreement...just not in this case >:)--Cerejota 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or failing that rename, per Terraxos. Tiamat 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful template that encourages people to look at the issues it pertains to. POV is evidenced in many articles, with a lot or a little bias, but "allegation" is not POV. it refers to a POV, and the article this refers to is fairly NPOV as far as wikipedia goes.Dean Sayers 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if there are articles about the allegation, a navigational aid should be helpful. --Leifern 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template groups together articles containing similar allegations. Unless the articles go (which would be fine with me), the template should stay. IronDuke 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per EdJohnston, Leifern and IronDuke. I'd rather see all these articles gone and these "allegations" covered in the various "human rights" or "discrimination" articles, but as long as they are here, the template is useful. 6SJ7 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The templates is necessary as long as the articles are on Wikipedia. My first choice would be to delete them all, but sadly that doesn't seem to be a viable option. Beit Or 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles are not linked in any meaningful way, and this template only gives the appearance that they are. Most of the articles themselves should be deleted or merged.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's ridiculous to claim these articles aren't linked in a meaningful way. No policy violation here.--Urthogie 14:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as long as those "allegation" articles exist. Nominate those for deletion if you think they are FUBAR.--Svetovid 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete. Most of the articles in the template are WP:POINT-hoaxes created in protest by editors who opposed the existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid on ideological grounds but were overruled on policy grounds (is it five times now or six?). The whole topic here has been invented by Wikipedians; the point of the multiple individual articles and the template is to create a mirage of authenticity, a critical mass of echoing self-referentiality whereby it looks and sounds to the casual reader as if there were an actual topic here – "Allegations of apartheid" – that exists in the real world and is merely being presented by Wikipedia. In fact, no one has ever produced a source that discusses "allegations of apartheid" as a general topic. Instead we have very different things being conflated here in a brazen violation of WP:SYN. On the one hand, there is a vigorous, detailed, contentious, and multi-faceted real-world debate about purported resemblances between the Israeli occupation and the South African apartheid regime; the comparison has been the subject of both scholarly and popular sources who have looked at it variously from historical, ethical, pragmatic, and strategic vantages. And on the other hand, there are a lot of loose, uncorrelated instances where someone mentions apartheid rhetorically and in passing while criticizing this or that government. POINT-making Wikipedians have revved up their search engines and found as many of these passing mentions as possible and pretended they collectively constitute a subject, in order to smuggle in a POV-framework for the article, one without a shred of RS-backing, that says in effect: "sure, they say it about Israel, but they say it about everybody." For the purposes of this hoax, almost anything counts as an "allegation of apartheid." Any statement of solidarity from Desmond Tutu, for example, no matter how vague, is an "allegation of apartheid." If Tutu objects to indefinite detention in Guantanamo, saying it reminds him of a similar law in South Africa, the POINT-makers scribble it in; if he tells the Tibetans God is on their side, well he must be alleging Chinese apartheid. And Wiki-hacks, crayons in hand, are ready to report it as such.

Here are two analogies, pretty exact equivalents actually. One, if Islamofascism (which already has a dubious "See also" section) were changed to Allegations of Islamofascism and linked via a template to a suite of spurious articles on topics like Allegations of Fascism in American law enforcement, Allegations of fascism in Berlusconi's Italy, Allegations of fascism in American elementary schools, Allegations of fashion fascism, Allegations that all authority figures are crypto-fascists, and so on. Two, an Allegations of ethnic cleansing template linking articles on the Junjaweed's campaign in the Sudan to a suite of ad hoc articles grouping together odd instances of rhetorical verve in which the phrase "ethnic cleansing" is used to characterize the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, for example, or the effects of Hurricane Katrina.

It's not just a bad idea, this template – it's a hoax, a prank. It has been suggested on this page by manifestly good-faith editors that at long as the various articles exist the template should exist. Wrong. The template itself is original research, as not a single real-world reliable source anywhere has correlated these disparate phenomena, or described "allegations of apartheid" as a topic in itself. With the spurious template – and its unsourced, POV-pushing argument – gone, we can set about deciding which if any of the original articles should remain (it is possible, for example, that the article on Cuba's tourist industry is legitimate). Horse first, cart in tow, let's proceed on the path of policy.--G-Dett 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate those articles for deletion then. This template is accurate as long as those exist.--Svetovid 22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the template accurate if not a single reliable source links any of the subjects listed therein?--G-Dett 23:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting point, but like the original nominator's argument, one that confuses navigation (meta non-content) with infoboxes (templated content). These articles have something in common: their titles. We help our readers navigate to see the difference and commonality of these articles, and reach their own conclusions. You and others should spend less time arguing for deletion of obviously helpful navboxes and more time sourcing the articles to demonstrate the differences you alleges there are among them.--Cerejota 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G-Dett I laughed when I read the "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" article. Jayjg is seriously trying too hard.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) User is a sock puppet of Kirbytime.[reply]

Yeah, that one's a corker. It doesn't help that the two boys building that sand castle don't know the first thing about China.--G-Dett 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 35 hits on Google for "Chinese apartheid", 48 for "French apartheid", 189000 hits for "Israeli apartheid". This is an obvious attempt at OR'ing ideas that aren't discussed outside of Wikipedia. --Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be serious? Using a google search for “Israeli apartheid” is certain to come up with a massive number of hits. But this doesn’t prove anything. One just needs to check out some of the sites and it will be revealed that most of them are POV sites, many of which just throw out the word apartheid in their attempt to push their own POV! One such site may have many pages containing the words. There is a plethora of sites on the Arab-Israel subject which frankly is not the case with other similar subjects, so no conclusion can be drawn from this. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Chesdovi 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. A google search for: 'china apartheid -"south africa" -"South african" -israel' results in 618,000 results related to China's apartheid (more than the results you got for israel): http://www.google.com/search?q=china+apartheid+-%22south+africa%22+-%22South+african%22+-israel&hl=en&start=20&sa=N

--Urthogie 14:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and googling 'israel fascism –islamofascism –islamism –"Islamic fascism"' gets over 2 million hits. Anyone can play these games; happily, most don't. Look, if "Chinese apartheid" with regard to rural peasants is a serious topic with substantial and extensive RS-backing, then get the help of some editors who know something about China and write a quality article. But until you have some RS's – even one RS would be a start, for G-d's sake – who treat "allegations of apartheid" as a phenomenon in itself, and who link up instances of it in different contexts as examples of said phenomenon, the template will remain spurious, a blatant piece of POV-pushing and unsubstantiated original research. If Richard Rodgers were alive, well, and editing Wikipedia, and wanted to group articles on Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes, Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes, and Silver white winters that melt into springs into an infobox template, I'd probably give him a pass. If John Coltrane wanted to do it, I'd certainly give him a pass. But not you and Jayjg, sorry.--G-Dett 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that the article doesn't just deal with peasant apartheid but also with Tibetan apartheid. We don't need a pass from you, G-Dett, because the current policy at Wikipedia is to keep "allegations" articles if they're well sourced and follow wikipedia policies. If you're interested in changing this policy, rather than singling out Israel, then we can work together on that.--Urthogie 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "forgetting that the article doesn't just deal with peasant apartheid but also with Tibetan apartheid"; that was precisely my point. The article doesn't have a topic; it just collates disparate examples of the use of a metaphor. This collation has no RS-backing; it's not an actual topic. You and Jay are just singing about a few of your favorite things, however tunelessly. Ditto with the template, only there the OR is even more egregious. You have no sources for it, period. You don't need a pass from me, but you do need to follow policy.

"Israeli apartheid" refers to a bunch of disparate allegations that have no logical connection between each other and yet all inhabit a single article. For example, Carter explicitly rejects the idea that there is apartheid inside of Israel and yet is lumped with the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin who thought Israel shouldn't exist whatsoever, like South Africa. The attempted AFD's of the "Israel apartheid" article have shown us that it is not OR to discuss all of the allegations of apartheid made against a given country all on one page, even if they are not directly connected to one another.--Urthogie 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 6 AFD's for Israeli apartheid never addressed this objection, because it was never raised. It was never raised because it doesn't make any sense, and because the same people insisting the article be deleted were insisting it include Idi Amin's rants.--G-Dett 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, heres a source I found pretty quickly which dealt with allegations of the crime of apartheid outside of South Africa.[1]--Urthogie 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly? You've been pushing this template for around six months now; is this odd little unpublished page-and-a-half document all you've managed to find?--G-Dett 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Reply and Comment This is a TfD for this template (duh!). You should argue why this template doesn't fit the rules for tamplates in wikipedia, not about larger issues around Allegations of apartheid. Please discuss these issues in that main and related articles. I think all of your votes are invalid because they failed to address the TfD as a TfD.--Cerejota 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, Cerejota, I don't follow. I object to this template because its topic has been invented by Wikipedians, and because the connections between the things it lists have been invented by Wikipedians. I don't find "rules for templates" anywhere on either Wikipedia:Navigational template or Wikipedia:Embedded list, but surely navigation templates must group articles in ways that are sourceable and uncontroversial, no? And if the organizational rubric is unsourced, idiosyncratic, and tendentious, then a TfD is the place to discuss it, no? I've looked over the list of navigational templates, and this is the only one I can see that doesn't have a sourceable organizational rubric. If I'm wrong about this please explain. Presumably I can create a navigational sidebar for British Romantic Poets, and create therein a hub of links to Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, and Keats, because those six are traditionally grouped that way by scholars, anthologists, etc. But can I create a navigational sidebar for Aesthetic Memoirists – a topic of my own invention – and create therein a hub of links to Marcel Proust, Federico Fellini, and Jimmy Carter, if no real-world reliable source has ever linked these topics up in this way? What are the "rules for templates" anyway, and where do I find them?--G-Dett 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Reply - Your ad infinitum argument might be correct or wrong, but ultimately doesn't belong here: the fact is that these articles exist, they are joined by similar titles, and a navbox is called for. If the underlying articles are an invention, are not properly sourced and deserve to be deleted, I invite you to raise AfDs for them, as that is a content issue for the individual pages. If all included pages are deleted under AfDs, then perhaps this helpful navigation aide would be rendered irrelevant, and hence need deletion. This is not about OR, but navigation, meta issue, not a content issue. I bet you are smart enough to see the difference. --Cerejota 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll bet you know the difference between ad infinitum and ad absurdum, and have made a merely careless error. At any rate, stop talking about whether the individual articles should be deleted; this isn't the place for that. Those will need to be considered on their own merits, on a case-by-case basis and not en toto, and – most importantly – by editors with a knowledge of France, China, etc., rather than Israel-Palestine partisans. The relevant question for this discussion is whether the template is appropriate – i.e., whether the connection it frames and presents between and among these subjects is a sourceable one, whether it flows naturally from article sources. Sound familiar? It should, because you articulated the point very well just yesterday, when you cautioned against any "wikisilly" attempt to

push unsourced POV by construing a See Also that doesn't flow from article sources.

For example, none of the sources we have, to my knowledge, mention the "crime of apartheid" in connection with Israel: if we see also this we are telling our readers that the "crime of apartheid" are [sic] somewhat related to the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid": that is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" if the connection is not made by reliable and verifiable sources.

In other words, it's original research to create links between articles if the connection between the topics isn't itself supported by the sources. That's what you said yesterday on a closely related page, and you were right. I have no idea why you are now arguing exactly the opposite on this page.--G-Dett 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed my vote after reading some of the above comments by User:Fâtimâh bint Fulâni.--Sefringle^Talk 03:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--G-Dett 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Sefringle, that was nasty. You agreed with a fellow editor of a different POV until that editor expressed their opinion, when you chnaged. Your inability to agree with someone that doesn't share your worldview is petty and questions your good faith. I am truly saddened that you have revealed yourself as such a creature, the worse type of editor in wikipedia, because this means its impossible to reach consensus with you. :(--Cerejota 16:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fâtimâh bint Fulâni is a sock puppet of banned user Kirbytime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And Sefringle too?--G-Dett 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        G-Dett, ofcourse not. Do you see anything objectionable about Sefringle's edits? Kirbytime is a community banned troll. You should be more careful about the people you associate or cooperate with or it might put you in a bad light as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I saw that Sefringle's comments were struck out as well, and thought you'd done it. Regarding your second point, I am not worried about serious, good-faith editors falling for the stupid old fallacy of guilt by association.--G-Dett 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didnt strike out Sefringle's comments - what are you refering to? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There are three comments of Sefringle's that are struck out above. I noticed all three at the same time I noticed your striking out of Fâtimâh bint Fulâni's comment, saw your edit summary about a Kirbytime sock, and mistakenly thought all the strike-outs were your doing.--G-Dett 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my own comments out when I changed my vote. The reason is simple. I origionally voted "delete" because I thought the template was POV pushing by linking POV articles together. After reading the Kribytime sockpuppet's comment, I realized this template is not POV pushing; it is the articles that are POV pushing. The template links to other articles of similar topic, and so it is legitimite and necessary to mantain NPOV within the articles. As long as the articles exist, the template should. If the articles are deleted, which they should be, the template then should be deleted.--Sefringle^Talk 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I soon realized my mistake, why you had struck out your own comments, etc.

Comment Both the template and all the articles linked therefrom should be deleted. Per Beit Or above, the template itself is not the problem but only one of its predictable symptoms. Wikipedia articles should be about things which actually exist, not collections of tenuous allegations and partisan epithets. Apartheid already has a meaning. If there are complaints about the policies of other nations, they belong in articles about those policies.Proabivouac 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. If someone were to nominate all of the allegations they would have a better chance of succeeding than doing silly AFDs like this which go after the symptoms of our current policy for keeping allegations articles.--Urthogie 14:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem here really is the template. If you're reading about Anarchism in Austria or Religion in France, the fact is nobody would put a template at the top solely to link them to similar articles in all other countries. The only reason it was made into a template here was after the argument was inserted into the lead of one article[2] and then removed,[3] leading to the creation of this template a few days later.[4] This is now continuing to where people are creating shoddy articles solely to put them on this template which can then appear on another page to further that same argument. If the articles pass standards that's great, and people should be allowed to create whatever they please. But the effect of this template is to artificially tie these articles together, mischaracterize them, and push them in directions that they wouldn't otherwise go, which I see as a significant problem. Mackan79 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, Anarchism_in_Austria has a template which links to anarchism in other parts of Europe at the bottom ofr the page. Your objection is purely aesthetic-- that it should be at the bottom rather than the top. This shouldn't be an AFD issue, but rather an editing issue.--Urthogie 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The problem specifically is using a template to make a point, and damaging other parts of Wikipedia in the process. While this could be lessened by moving the template or by changing its scope, neither is a good option here, since neither a broader template on each nation's life or on apartheid would be appropriate. Mackan79 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting we remove this template but keep similar ones?--Urthogie 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a similar one? I'd be surprised if there are any that wouldn't work better as a category. I should say this one may be uniquely bad, though, both due to the silliness of creating a template on recipients of an allegation, and by misrepresenting widely disparate discussions as all the same kind of thing. Mackan79 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of X apartheid. I don't see whats silly about categorizing based on X if such articles exist. It's not different from Anarchism in X.--Urthogie 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this navigation template like any other. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I wonder if anyone on either side of this debate knows of any other navigation template on Wikipedia that connects articles and subjects in a way that a) has no support from any known reliable source, and b) is hotly disputed by editors of one or more of the affected articles? It would be helpful to know if any other such navigation template exists. If one does exist, it could provide insights into this dispute. And if none exists, that would settle this dispute. Win-win, as they say.--G-Dett 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Template:Discrimination sidebar}}? However, I disagree the question is useful. We can always be bold and be first.--Cerejota 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. To have such a template implies that there is a causal connection between all these allegations, which is absurd, or at any rate original research. In any case, most of the articles are trashy OR - including much of the original article, thank you very much. As I said, everyone here knows that there is a reason why this template exists. I would support a replacement with a category:accusations of apartheid, which would meet Jay's purported objection. Hornplease 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as in the last TfD, plus what Hornplease said. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this template very useful indeed. As these pages are not categorised, there is a need to find similar pages with this tool. Chesdovi 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to delete this template as an obvious violation of WP:POINT. I think, however, that it might be a more useful suggestion at this stage to suggest merging it with Template:Discrimination sidebar (which would both address legitimate concerns, and eliminate the transparent POV-pushing aspects of the current template).
I suspect that we haven't reached the final act of this farce, one way or the other. CJCurrie 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. These are allegations, meaning there is doubt as to whether or not it actually is discrimination or whethar the allegation is real or not. Thus that would be creating even more POV problems.--Sefringle^Talk 03:26, 18 July 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 section.

Template:Category-Class 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 redirect, early non-admin closure. The exact wording of the template can be discussed at Template talk:Cat-Class. Gracenotes^T § 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted and redirected to {{Cat-Class}}. There are currently two category classes for article assessments. Only one should be used. Having multiple templates for the same classification makes it more difficult to manage article assessments. — Scott Alter 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:44, 10 July 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 section.

Template:ISBN 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 keep. IronGargoyle 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The resources by which one would look-up ISBNs are available to the users of these templates. Except in the case of extraordinarily long bibliographies, the use of this template is little more than a nagging of others to expend effort that the template-user chooses not to expend. —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a cleanup template. That's what they do. --- RockMFR 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So a template that said “The first sentence needs a period at its end!” would be okay, because it would be a clean-up template? —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This template doesn't make much sense to me, but it's on 40 actual articles at the moment, in Category:Articles lacking ISBNs. If it were deleted, these articles would lose a bit of information that someone once thought would be helpful. I can't imagine thinking it would be worth using myself, but other people may have a different approach to improving reference lists. EdJohnston 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. While I suppose it could have some usefulness, it just seems extraneous. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You're right that most books can be easily looked up, so it should not be used for that. But there are some obscure books for which it is not necessarily easy to obtain the ISBN. So the person who has the book needs to add the ISBN, both for completion and to check that said book actually exists. -Amarkov moo! 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, (1) Why not then replace this template with one noting that an ISBN is obscure? (2) Not all (real) books have ISBNs. (3) If a book's ISBN is obscure, then even identifying the ISBN is not likely to help one locate/obtain a copy of the book itself. —SlamDiego_←T 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that important that a copy of the book be obtained, since we can just assume that the person isn't lying. The problem is, unless we have an ISBN, there's no evidence that the book actually exists. Yes, this means that books without ISBNs aren't as good for sources, but we can't just assume that everyone has some obscure book for their source. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the ISBN is truly obscure, then we're not likely to be able to use it to verify the existence of the book. Almost any dB that will give the title for an ISBN will give the ISBN for a title. So, if I had a lot of trouble getting the ISBN, then you're almost surely going to have trouble with the inverse. (That's why I wrote “locate/obtain” rather than just “obtain”.) One implication, then, is that books with obscure ISBNs aren't as good sources as books with readily-found ISBNs. (However, I would resist a scheme of removing books without ISBNs or with obscure ISBNs from lists of acceptable sources.) —SlamDiego_←T 06:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything which encourages readers to become editors is good. Andy Mabbett 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup templates are good for two reasons: 1) The Bots live by them 2) WikiGnomes would have a hard time without them. Both creatures being essential to wikipedia, any and all specific cleanup templates help direct their efforts. We cannot deprive the Super-Duoble-Secret ISBN Research Cabal of this template. Besides, every time you delete a cleanup template, a puppy dies. Please think of the puppies.--Cerejota 02:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the silly monkey! :) Gracenotes^T § 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, everything to ~~win~~ persuade in this ~~vote~~ consensus discussion.:P So keep? :)--Cerejota 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per above--Sefringle^Talk 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looked a a few--they are being used appropriately for the most part.DGG (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per nom - The nom himself points out that this template is relevant when facing huge bibliographies w/o ISBNs. MrZaius^talk 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Saying that a nail should perhaps be driven is not the same thing as saying that it should be driven with a lump of toxic waste. —SlamDiego_←T 23:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Think of the puppies. :( --Cerejota 16:01, 15 July 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 section.

Template:B.S.S 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 speedy deletion due to violation of policy at WP:SIG (early non-admin closure). Dream out loud (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template created solely for use as a signature, in violation of WP:SIG. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly as per nominator's reason. —SlamDiego_←T 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, clear violation of WP:SIG#Transclusion of templates. -- Satori Son 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no problems with sigs substed from the user namespace, but signatures do not belong in the template namespace, whether substituted or transcluded. Gracenotes^T § 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:SIG violation. --Haemo 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:SIG. Mystytopia is now Lig hts 22:06, 10 July 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 section.