Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 April 18)
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18 edit

Template:Modelref 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 discussion was keep. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modelref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very unusual use of a template to support selected external links in model articles. Strikes me a borderline advertising and an inapprioriate use of a template. Spartaz Humbug! 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is very standard for elite models to have a list of these types of links containing biographical information in an external links section. Although these women make careers out of advertising, these links are not what are suppose to be excluded by the advertising argument because they are not links advertising for specific companies. I have requested that this be modeled this after the popular {{Baseballstats}} and {{Footballstats}} template that serve a similar purpose of consolidating biographical links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made this template at the request of TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), so it's really up to him to defend it. the point, though, was to have a single line which linked to the model's internet galleries rather than the current practice of listing each gallery on a separate line. the template is easy to expand to other sites, and has instructions for doing so in the docs, so I'm not sure you can really say that it's designed to support selected external sites (except in the limited sense that I personally only added the few that were suggested to me). whether it's an inappropriate use of a template? I'm not sure what the OP means. diffs or a better explanation of the problem would help. --Ludwigs2 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although I don't really agree with the nominator's rationale, I don't see the value in this template. For each article it's in, the individual ELs included still have to be picked out as applicable from what it seems to me (or am I wrong here?), so it's not like the template offers any ease of use. The only thing it seems to accomplish is putting certain ELs (many leading to redundant stats lists and possible copyvio galleries) on a single line, while leaving others in a bulleted list, which is too clutterish to me.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just thought that its value was in eliminating lines and lines of external links. like in the templates that I modeled it from.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm somewhat confused by the advertising rationale. I agree with Mbinebri that it could result in the inconsistent appearance of links in some articles. But I think that this just means that it should be used with discretion by editors and not applied blindly to every article. (If some editors don't like the appearance of these links, then they don't have to use it on the articles they're writing.) I'm not sure about the copyvio claims - these sites have been around for ages, and if magazines thought they were copyright violations they would be dealt with already. I would say that for established commercial sites there's no reason for us to assume they don't have the permission of the copyright holders to include the images. More discussion should probably happen within the fashion wikiproject about how best to avoid redundancy and highlight the highest-value model databases. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. a way to resolve this issue might be to scrap the use of external links to galleries and add a sub-table to {{Infobox Model}} that users can add links to for online sites. users could add a parameter 'sitename1', 'sitename2', etc, and 'site1', 'site2', etc., in which they would enter the site name and copy/paste the actual web address into the parameter value (no need to figure out model ids, or anything like that), and the link would show in a collapsible table at the end of the infobox. that would require a certain amount of human (or bot) work to convert - the external link templates would have to have their referents moved into the infobox template. just a thought. --Ludwigs2 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In practice, it organizes the information nicely. Given that we have these articles, there will inevitably be some publicity aspects, & this helps keep it under control. DGG (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (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:Neo-Stalinism in 21st century 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 discussion was delete mostly for beeing poorly sourced, and hardly sourceable unless a long time passes and/or someone/thing self indentifies as such, thus raising BLP and NPOV issues. A note, as editor, that a possible (re)creation of such template would probably be better named as simply {{Neo-Stalinism}} - Nabla (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neo-Stalinism in 21st century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is pure original research and contravenes the NPOV policies, as well as the BLP policy in case of Johan Bäckman.Óðinn (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is incorrect. Bäckman's classification as a neo-Stalinist is discussed in Stalinism sünnib Soomes uuesti (translation: Stalinism being born again in Finland), for example. Speedy keep.ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might behoove you to review what constitutes a reliable source. Editorials are inadmissible -"opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". Óðinn(talk) 12:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In matters of classifying political opinions, there are very few real facts. It's common practice to instead rely on assessments of people who are regarded as authoritative in making such assessments and opinions. Hence the slogan: Verifiability, not truth.ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, a certain American senator comes to mind. People are perfectly capable of identifying their own political beliefs. Neither Bäckman nor Meri ever publicly confirmed their "neo-Stalinism". And to consider opinions of their political opponents as authoritative is ludicrous. Óðinn (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we are to discard Wikipedia's established policies in favour of your warm and fuzzy feeling?ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I suggest we uphold WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, as your template fails all 4.Óðinn (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template, the usefulness of the template, and the use of the template in a particular instant are all separate issues which you are inappropriately treating as one in order to nominate the template for deletion. It's preposterous to suggest there is no such thing as neo-Stalinism or neo-Fascism per the other discussions here, therefore the template does not fail WP:OR / WP:NPOV / WP:RS--and WP:BLP cannot apply to a template, only in a specific instance of use. PetersV       TALK 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP can absolutely apply to templates. If we were to have {{Paedophiles}} and included Putin in it, based upon the opinion of Litvinutko, you are trying to tell me it wouldn't be a BLP violation? BLP applies everywhere on WP, believe it or not. --Russavia Dialogue 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian sources are very usefull indeed! If I go to the Finnish language version of Google (www.google.fi) and search for Eesti Ekspress – that is for the newspaper Eesti Ekspress – the first link i get is the this: Eestil on fašistlik apartheidivalitsus. Now does this mean we should include Estonia in the {{Apartheid}} template or in the {{Fascism}} template? Or maybe in both? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute delete I am sure that I can find dozens of reliable sources, albeit editorials like the above, which describe certain prominent notable Baltic people as fascists, and make up a {{Fascism in the 21st century}} and add them to it, and according to Digwuren, it would be valid because sources say so. At the risk of violating WP:BEANS, would you like me to do that Digwuren? Delete this blatant WP:BLP violation and admonish Digwuren for his continuation of BLP violations against these figures andcontinuing to treat WP as a battleground. --Russavia Dialogue 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Óðinn, I see you raised the same rhetorical question on Talk:Arnold Meri. Great minds and all that....
You need every one to oppose the great hive mind :-) Óðinn (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Russavia Dialogue 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolute keep. I'm perfectly happy with neo-Stalinism in the 21st century and neo-Nazism in the 21st century, both exist and are worthwhile templates which apply to mounds of published literature covering numerous topics. Whether we personally agree with published literature is not the point, nor, as Russavia continues to believe in their increasingly WP:ALPHABETSOUP-filled apoplectic diatribe (my perception), is this some contest about Baltic Nazis versus Russian Stalinists and whether Balts or Russians can do a better job of smearing each other's nation and ethnic origins.
       Also, indicating a template is not yet in widespread use has no bearing on its usefulness. Whether the template applies to the particular article noted at the outset of the nomination is a separate issue for discussion, and completely unrelated. Conflating article WP:BLP and the template as one issue is completely inappropriate.PetersV       TALK 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     
    P.S. to Petri, if you'd like an article on Russophone allegations of (ethno-fascist, et al.) Baltic government-enforced Russophone aparteid, feel free to have an article stating opinions and facts--you may find the facts of the situation do not match your personal POV. PetersV       TALK 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A regular topic template that should not be deleted unless Category:Neo-Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism are.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Piotrus. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)I'd wait with that one, though, and let it develop. The title of this one is as relevant as {{Fascism in the 21st century}}, but content is another matter.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as long as reliable sources identify these figures/movements as neo-Stalinist, why not have a navigational tool linking them together. Given the phenomenon's (thankfully) small size, it's quite manageable. - BiruitorulTalk 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable source is the sole reason the template was nominated in the first place. So far, I haven't seen any, despite repeated requests. As proponents of the template continuously refuse to provide them, why on Earth would we keep it?Óðinn (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep are you saying there are no such people? That would be very nice, but unfortunately the world is otherwise.DGG (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that inclusion in the templates have thus far been based upon the opinion of editorials (particularly those from Estonia). I can find Russian sources which call numerous Baltic politicians, including presidents and prime ministers, as apartheid-supporting/fascist-loving/neo-nazis. Is such a template then also warranted? Or would that be BLP? Or would it be excluded based upon the "nationality" of the source. None of these entities self-identify as neo-stalinist, but rather, quite funnily, as anti-fascist. So why not create a {{Anti-fascism in the 21st century}} which is basically a double up. Also note the inclusion of Nochnoy Dozor into the template by WP:DIGWUREN, this is blatant POV/Battle-pushing nonsense on his part. There are HUGE BLP and NPOV concerns with this template, and if someone sees fit to create {{Anti-fascism in the 21st century}} --RussaviaDialogue 05:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the template is significantly improved during the discussion. Just before Russavia's edit the template was one single WP:BLPviolation. It had three small Estonia-related organizations and three people: two living and one who died in 2009. All three people are subjects to WP:BLP, all three organizations are very small and they are associated with easily attributable living people. Neither of those people nor any of the organizations self describe themselves as Stalinist or state that Stalin is their hero. Neither of them are even mentioned in the article Neo-Stalinism. Each of them were critical to the current Estonian Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica Party accusing them of deliberate inflaming ethnic tensions, discrimination of language minorities and whitewashing of Estonian SS troops. In turn a few journalists sympathetic to Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica called them Neo-Stalinists. The people and organizations are virtually unknown to anybody who doesnot follow Estonian politics. I think inclusion of those people (and nobody else!) in the template have no real purposes rather that attack their subjects and it is also a grave violation of WP:NPOV (in the articles we have an attributed views on those people in the template we state that the characteristic of those people is a fact) andWP:BLP. The template is also unusable as a navigational template as it certainly does not cover all of the Neo-Stalinism topics (none of them is even mentioned in the main Neo-Stalinism article!) Russavia removed the two living people from template. It is good but simply not enough. It is very difficult to compile usable template Neo-Stalinism_in_21st_century - most of related people are living, the subject is not covered by generally accepted academic publications but rather partisan media opinions, etc. Many people accused to be Stalinists deny this, etc. Thus, I am sceptical that anything useful can be provided on the matter. On the other hand using such a template to attack a subject you do not like is very easy. Still if something useful would be provided until the end of the discussion I would change my vote. There must be:
  1. No BLP violations: all living or recently deceased should be either self-proclaimed Stalinists or be characterized as ones by court decisions or be proved to be one beyond reasonable doubts by numerous neutral academic sources;
  2. No NPOV violations: all entries are backed by several academic sources, there is no significant dissent on those opinions;
  3. The topic is covered: all significant Neo-stalinists of 21st century are covered (otherwise the navigational template is of no much use).
Unless it is done the template is a liability not an asset Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument why to keep neostalinism's article not the specific template! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply silly template, couple of links to articles to these marginal groups. POV fork, not official definition, not useful. Enough with having Wikipedia as a battleground for these freaks stuck in the 1930s and 1980s.. --Pudeo' 11:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POVFORK, BLP violations, agree with Pudeo. --Tocino 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.
I would ordinarily close as no consensus but I think this one should be worked out if possible. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woohookitty, we have two organisations (both of which model themselves as anti-fascist) - both of which are against certain policies in Estonia - then we have some Estonian media calling them neo-stalinist. It should be obvious that it needs to be deleted as per WP:POV. One will also notice that Arnold Meri was included by a nationalist editor -- which if he hadn't just died, would have been an absolute BLP violation - a violation that one is still experiencing on {{Falsification of history}} - yes, that's the name, can one bloody well believe that? If this is kept on the basis of an Estonian media outlet being the source required for placement, then perhaps we should encourage someone to create {{Fascism in the 21st century}} and place Government of Estonia in it, given there are plenty of media outlets which call them fascist. We need to stop such absolute bullshit here on WP. --Russavia Dialogue 08:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say to compare the opinions of people saying to keep this with the opinions of those who "voted" to keep Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda, and one can see that WP:NOTADVOCATE is being overlooked here. --Russavia Dialogue 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POV. Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee has simply been stated as neo-stalinism by a single journalist (according to the article), while the Arnold Meri article does not even discuss neo-stalinism. The branding as neo-stalinism should be based on consensus among all sources, not just by individual journalists who oppose the work of the groups/people in question. Due to the nearness to a few individuals, the template violates WP:BLP because there is not concensus (among secondary sources, nor according to the people themselves) that they are noe-stalinists. Arsenikk (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problems seem to be about when to use it. That;'s an editing question. the solution to it is to bring dubious or borderline or propagandistic instances to general attention via the BLP or NPOV noticeboards. DGG (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to irredeemable issues with POV and original research. 'Neo-Stalinism' is an inherently POV term, and I don't think we have sufficient reliable sources to place either of these articles in that category; one of them doesn't even mention the word 'Stalin' anywhere in the article. This seems more like an effort to insert political POV into Wikipedia than an actually needed template: with only three articles to connect, there's no need for a navigation box anyway. Robofish (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of Raname - Basically there is nothing wrong in having Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee, the Estonian Anti-Fascist Committee, Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group), the Latvian Anti-Fascist Committee, Johan Bäckman, Arnold Meri and maybe even Alexander Dyukov in the same template. I just do not know what the name of the template should be. Anyway, it seems that Anti-Fascism is fast becoming the official state ideology of the Russian Federation. I do not know if these groups have anything to do with it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some things: 1) Can someone explain what kind of article are to be navigated with this template? A category is enough. 2) Right now has two articles. One to a person (in where neostalinism is not discussed) and one more. 3) Including people, organisations and parties in this one would violate NPOV. 4) That a journalist characterises an organisation as neostalinist that doensät mean anything to me. Hundreds of people have been characterised as antisemitic. If you are thinking to add them in a template then we would need 3 pages to include them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin After removal of BLP violations, etc. The template has only one link now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2009 (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/2009_April_18&oldid=1089909062"