Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 November 8)
< November 7 November 9 >

November 8 edit

Template:South African first-class cricket clubs in 1971-72 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jac16888 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South African first-class cricket clubs in 1971-72 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Redundant template in which all articles have been deleted apart from one which is a redirect. ---BlackJack | talk page 18:39, 8 November 2008 (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:The X'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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jac16888 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The X's (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant navbox, each article linked redirects to the parent article. treelo radda 16:02, 8 November 2008 (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:Future airport expansion 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future airport expansion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

First of all, the usual applies: No, information will most likely not change "dramatically", there's no need whatsoever to warn our readers about that. Information will change rather slowly and according to expectations, unless something truly unexpected happens. And I dearly hope no one wants to warn our readers of the unexpected. :) Secondly, do we really need a template for everything? What's the point of a big template telling the reader about a future airport expansion in a section that is usually called "Airport expansion" or "Future airport expansion"? The template adds nothing to the section, and doesn't tell the reader anything that he doesn't already know. --Conti|✉ 14:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another example of temporal template proliferation copying the functionality of {{future}}. Superfluous. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use {{future}} instead. --Syed 05:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conti said it all. --Kildor (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Conti, Syed. --R27182818 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (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:Road under construction 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, not useful. --Conti|✉ 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yet another temporal template that copies the functionality of {{future}}. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur. --emerson7 17:07, 11 November 2008 (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:Current sport-related2 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current sport-related2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, a bigger version of Template:Current sport-related, it seems. --Conti|✉ 14:23, 8 November 2008 (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:Current game 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. What is a "current event in video gaming", anyhow? --Conti|✉ 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If you know what a current event is and what video gaming is, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out. For example, Hot Coffee minigame controversy was a current event in video gaming back in 2005. E3 and Penny Arcade Expo are current events every year. I suspect that as infrequently as this template is used, it could be replaced by {{Current||event in video gaming}}, or just {{Current}}. Pagrashtak 15:03, 8 November 2008 (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:Building redevelopment 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Building redevelopment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is rather misleading and not very useful. Very rarely, if ever, does information on a building that is being redeveloped change "dramatically" or "frequently". On the contrary, information changes slowly and in a quite undramatic way. And if we take that away the template says "This article or section contains information about an existing building due to be redeveloped.", which should be obvious by the lead of the article, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 14:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - vague and unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another example of temporal template proliferation. The lede of the article, and the article text and citations are better able to describe the nature of the activity. Functionally a copy of {{future}}. Superfluous.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (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: Discrimination Bihar 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Discrimination Bihar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No established connection between the topics and the template (WP:OR). BTW what is Fright equalization policy?KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Freight equalization policy is related to economic discrimination against Bihar. It was adopted in 1948 by the government of India to facilitate the equal growth of industry all over the country. The worst sufferer of this policy was the undivided Bihar (now Jharkhand hewed out from it) and to some extent Orissa and Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatisgarh carved out from it). Industrialists interested in setting up plants anywhere in the country––Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi etc––would get coal, iron ore, aluminium etc at the same price as they used to get in Bihar (now Jharkhand), Chhatisgarh or Orissa. A factory can be set up anywhere in the country and the transportation of minerals would be subsidised by the central government. This resulted in the growth of heavy and middle level industry in the post-independence years outside the mineral-rich regions of the country. The coastal states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were the greatest beneficiaries and so where Delhi and its surrounding districts. Bihar’s huge competitive advantage of holding the minerals got destroyed as now factories were set up everywhere else but in this state. This was not the case in the pre-independence era when Tatas and Dalmias etc had to come and set up industries in Bihar. The freight equalisation policy continued to destroy states like Bihar for about half a century.

The template aims to group together all the topics related to discrimination against Biharis(economic discrimination, violence, xenophobia, racial discrimination, prejudice etc). Manoj nav (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Freight equalisation policy has too many problems. First, the article is non-existent and second, it is not descrimination in any sense. Freight equalization policy is related to economic discrimination against Bihar. It was adopted in 1948 by the government of India to facilitate the equal growth of industry all over the country.
What makes this policy descriminating???? Economic policies dont bring equal advantages to all region and states in any country. That is just how they are.
I am yet to see what is descrimination in Permanent Settlement. Docku:“what up?”23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reply Freight equalization[1] and Permanent Settlement [2] were discriminatory. Manoj nav (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Arvind N Das, The Republic of Bihar, Penguin Books, 1992, pp. 80, "Once again, in the 1950s, the question of the existence of Bihar as a separate state was debated and a serious proposal to merge Bihar with West Bengal was mooted...The scheme was logical for it would have united the vast resources of the two states ..But the scheme was opposed both by the Central government and the Bengal unit of CPI.. The Centre then engaged in blatantly discriminatory economic practices like fright equalization and subsidization of the growth of Bombay and Madras, was not enthusiastic about the combined economic strength of Bihar and Bengal expressed politically."
  2. ^ Goswami, Urmi A (2005-02-16). "'Bihar Needs an Icon, a person who stands above his caste'(Dr Shaibal Gupta - Rediff Interview)". Rediff. Retrieved 2005-02-16.,"First, as part of the earliest areas conquered by the British, it was placed under the Permanent Settlement (of 1793). This meant the land was not held by the farmers but by zamindars, who had the right to collect revenue and pay a percentage of that to the British. The zamindars began to exploit the farmers for more and more and also, they themselves did nothing to develop the land's productivity.'


  • Keep: the main dicrimination entry, the 2008 attacks on north Indians, and now, Railway exam attacks can be placed in to one group. I see its as a grouping and user friendliness issue. (Not-Ashamed (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Agree with KHP and Docku. There are simply not enough articles and the topic is not distinct enough to warrant a template.GizzaDiscuss© 06:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as of now. Looks like an overkill. The conections between the other articles to the main is vague and just acts as a background and doesn't need a template for now. The authors can concentrate on creating valid entries on the so called discrimination and then try a template. But as of the current template, its just an overkill. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment-Following articles listed in the template contains information about discrimination against Bihar and Biharis.

  1. Discrimination against the Bihari community
  2. 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra
  3. Fright equalization policy
  4. Permanent Settlement

We plan to add more articles or article-sections in the template in time to come. As of now the articles have not been categorized and there is nothing called main article. Manoj nav (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have posted a message in Wikiproject India talk page. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Agree with Wiki San Roze. Limited scope for the template -- Tinu Cherian - 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete it do we want to show our internal disputes to whole world? Wikipedia is not place for that.
  • Delete :Agree with KHP2 - no real connection. Permanent settlement was in past 1700s. Nothing to do with violence presently happening. Also, template has hardly any links to offer. --GPPande talk! 15:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not useful at all. Suffers from recentism. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- Useless thing spreading hatread--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A bunch of disgruntled Biharis have turned Wikipedia into a soapbox to air their views about "discrimination" racism etc that they supposedly face. This template is a cheap attempt to grant an "officious" look and feel to their soapboxing. --Deepak D'Souza 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is this template accomplishing that a similar category will not. I take strong objection to the asertion that this is somehow soap boxing. Biharis are killed just because they are Biharis in Assam, Maharsahtra, Nagaland and other places. They face state sponsored discrimnation in Bangladesh as a community. This is a valid subject but my question, can we do it with a category instead of a template ?Taprobanus (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you will observe that Assamese and people of the North-east have often complained of discrimination in other parts of India; people from Jammu and Kashmir have often complained of discrimination when they travel to other parts of India; South Indians are often ridiculed for their dark complexion when they move to North India; there occur frequent Tamil-Kannadiga and Kannadiga-Marathi tussles in which, sometimes, migrants are targetted; in fact, if we make a detailed observation we will find that there exists regional chauvinism and prejudices almost in every state in India. This is not a reason valid enough for an article. We can group these issues together and created an article on Regionalism in India but I strongly feel that both the articles and the template fails notability and NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place to lament or publicize something.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 12:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussion is about a template not an article, I would say yes if we hav enough RS sources that treat the subject of X discrimination as a Notable subject then we can always create an encylopedic article about it. The question here is what is this template achiving that a category will not ? Taprobanus (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is made up of "Discrimination against Biharis by Marathis". A few insignificant comments and incidents by non-Marathis are reproduced and their interpretations border on OR. Else, should the name of the article be renamed as "Discrimination against Biharis by Marathis"-RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete:Violates NPOV. Besides, regional prejudices exist everywhere in the world. This appears to be an attempt to blow things out of proportion-RavichandarMy coffee shop 11:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is never ever used as a criteria to delete anything in Wikipedia let alone a template. The reson has to be better such as this template is not needed because a category can do the same etc. Taprobanus (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if POV mandates the deletion of this template but expression of POV is prohibited in templates as per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Reasons to delete a template. At the same time, I doubt whether the template could be replaced with a category in this state and if at all a cat is created there would be just two articles in it. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:13, 16 November 2008 (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:Ordovician Footer , Template:Carboniferous Footer, Template:Permian Footer, Template:Cambrian Footer 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 19:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ordovician Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Carboniferous Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Permian Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cambrian Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used; subperiods merged into main article as per WP:... so redundant.Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Carboniferous Footer}}, delete the rest; it's the only one where more than one link points to a different article. (Alternatively, delete them all for consistency, but that one at least does seem to have some value.) Terraxos (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2008 (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:Information needed 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Information needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is misleading. Policy does not require the use of {{Information}} or {{Non-free use rationale}} templates. They're handy ways of organizing things and making sure you've got all the information needed, but you can also provide the information in any other way you want. --Carnildo (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a good amount of images though, when there is no Information box their is also no Fair Use or a summary of the image. For example; Image:Sanford-Logo.png does not contain Fair-Use rationale, nor does it contain the source of the image. According to {{Di-no source}} constitutes deletion of the image after 7 days. I think that the Template may require editing to not portray this misleading statement but it should not be deleted. Spitfire19 01:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a source and not having a fair-use rationale are problems with the image. Not having an {{Information}} template and not having a {{Non-free use rationale}} template are not problems. --Carnildo (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have revamped the template to try and accommodate for what you feel it should present to the uploader. Hopefully it's too your liking.Spitfire19 02:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be redundant with {{Di-no source}} and {{Di-no rationale}} now. --Carnildo (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still defend the use of the {{Information needed}} template because it can be used to embed image violation templates into it and it also has helpful Navboxes with good links and the {{Information}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} code it.
Embedded templates? Please no. They're hard to read and they're even harder for bots to handle. --Carnildo (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider it. Hey, I've got to go to bed right now so I'll get back to you around 2008-10-25 18:00 UTCSpitfire19 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question, have you gone through and read all the documentation of the template recently? There's been some changes.Spitfire19 14:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't look too useful. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe to you it doesn't. But I find it as a preferable way of alerting users to image problems while easily providing resources in which to solve the current issue.
  • Delete—{{Di-no source}} and {{Di-no rationale}} are better ways of tagging images with these problems. We don't need to create a second method for handling this. The two-collapsible boxes within the collapsible box approach is ungainly.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unsigned comment above this. An information box is not required, and we already have adequate templates that can be used to complain about the things that are required. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—it seems that we have better ways of tagging image problems, so I don't really see a pressing need for this template. Pagrashtak 14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete due to its redundancy.. however, its user-friendliness is exceptional, and it woud be a shame to lose that. Perhaps we can incorporate the template assistance into {{Di-no source}} and {{Di-no rationale}}... If I were a new user, and I noticed that an image I'd uploaded was tagged with the latter two templates, I would have no read idea where to go or how to fix it. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIf you want to change those templates, I wish you luck. I tried replacing the wording at {{Di-no license}} with a more reader-friendly version, and got reverted four times. --Carnildo (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_8&oldid=1146591298"