Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 April 22)
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22 edit

Template:Census metropolitan areas by size 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 no consensus. Further discussion about a merge should be carried out on the templates' talk pages. delldot ∇. 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Census metropolitan areas by size (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge with template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada OR vice versa. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of caveats: if {{Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada}} is chosen as the merge target, then it needs to be made collapsible in order to minimize the amount of space that it takes up on the city articles, and the merged template will also need to be removed from some of the articles that currently have {{Census metropolitan areas by size}} on them, as the latter template is currently used on more than just the Top 20. To be specific, the merged template would have to come off Barrie, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Greater Sudbury, Kingston, Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, Moncton, Brantford, Thunder Bay, Saint John and Peterborough. I'd also note that while {{Census metropolitan areas by size}} is actually being applied to the individual cities listed, {{Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada}} is being used only on demographic lists, which means they're not currently serving the same purpose. No objection to a merge in principle, as long as we do it for the right reasons and make sure it's cleaned up properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unless the new merged template includes the rest of the CMAs in Canada I wont support the merge, we need to be all inclusive like the current template. Sort of like this perhaps, except with another row on the bottom to include the 3 last ones...and also the province abbreviations added (I got lazy...but you get the idea haha). Stu pendousmat (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:56, 22 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:ProperMinus 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template which is a convoluted way of typing &minus;1. Salix (talk): 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because this template appears to be a misguided solution to a valid concern. It's faster to type the HTML character code, or to enter the character with an Alt-code, than it is to type out this template name. Once you realize that you need a "proper minus", you can just enter it instead. TheFeds 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually, this template was used by the {{temperature}} Celcius/Fahrenheit conversion template I wrote at the same time, so it would use a proper minus sign after it had calculated the temperature. But since that template was rendered obsolete by the {{convert}} template, I guess this one is pretty useless too now. --Mythril (talk) 07:08, 25 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:Inland waterway under restoration 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inland waterway under restoration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't need a template for this, just like we don't need templates to tell our readers that a bridge, a building or a road is currently under restoration. The article should mention that instead, and that's it. I dunno about Category:Inland waterways under restoration, but a category can always be added without a template, anyhow. Conti|✉ 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not the sort of information that needs to be highlighted with an article template. Robofish (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 22:28, 26 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:Ongoing strike 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing strike (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. There aren't that many articles about strikes out there, and those are rarely "rapidly" changing in the sense of a current event. In the very few cases there is a need for a template, Template:Current will do the trick. Conti|✉ 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Garion96 (talk) 22:28, 26 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:Proposed engine design 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Proposed engine design (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and way too specific to be ever used usefully. Conti|✉ 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems entirely unnecessary. Why is this something that particularly needs to be highlighted with a template? Robofish (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Garion96 (talk) 22:27, 26 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:Current bill 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in one article right now, so it can just as well be merged/redirected to Template:Current. Bills are rarely a current event by our standards, anyhow, so I doubt this will ever see much more use than on one or two articles at a time. --Conti|✉ 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see no reason to assume there will not be more articles. DGG (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's your basis for that assumption? Do you have any examples from the past about such articles being heavily edited? --Conti|✉ 10:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pointless template. Garion96 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to the ambiguity of 'legislation currently being considered'. In most legislatures, plenty of bills are introduced which stand no chance of ever becoming law, but are nonetheless technically 'under consideration' for many months or years before they are withdrawn. The difficulty of explaining exactly what makes a particular bill 'current' is the main reason we should delete this template. Robofish (talk) 03:21, 26 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:English sources 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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unfortunate template in that it casts doubt on and belittles the addition of reliable sources. The template already states, correctly, that en:Wikipedia "accepts sources in any language", so why question perfectly good references with slapping a large banner on top of the article? (cf WP:AGF) Furthermore, in most cases, it is highly unlikely that a better, or even equal, source exists in English, making this template effectively useless. Punkmorten (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. English Wikipedia does accept sources in any language, but we also absolutely prefer English-language sources. It can be perfectly appropriate to add this tag if the sources genuinely need work, especially if there's a worry that the foreign-language sources are being used to hide other problems with the article. If some particular use of the template is wrong, remove it; there's no need to delete the template itself. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This banner, that is often the first thing a reader will read when coming to an article, with glaring yellow colors warns that the article is fully within the policies of Wikipedia. I did a few looks at articles that had it tagged, and they were often fully referenced. Some notable and verifiable events and objects just do not have English sources available, or the English sources do not offer the depth that foreign-language material has. The banner is very unfortunate for the project, and violates not only Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Such banners are often tagged by unexperienced users and people who have little involvement in the writing of the article, and who will very rarely have an understanding of the source material at hand, and are not able to determine whether or not sufficient sources are available in English, or if also foreign-language sources need to be used. Arsenikk (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom & Arsenikk. Policy-compliant articles do not require cleanup tags. If you can't read the foreign language sources in an article, then you should assume good faith rather than making assumptions or guesses. If you can read the sources and they are dubious, then there are more specific and appropriate templates to use. PC78 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotes systematic bias by disparaging articles about subjects which are notable but have received little attention in the anglophone world. Fortunately for editors who are not fluent in the more than five thousand natural languages in current use, translation software for the most commonly used languages is readily available. While such software does currently have the disadvantage of sometimes producing bizarre results, it is usually able to render intelligible output. Erik9 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template leads to continual misinterpretations of policy, which is that we use the best sources, DGG (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wp:v: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." -- Jeandré, 2009-04-23t11:30z
    • A nice quote, but it simply isn't pertinent here. Where in the above does it prohibit the use of non-English source material? PC78 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't prohibit the use of non-English sources, but it requires that readers be able to verify that the information is referenced to a reliable source, is notable, and isn't libel. As ek iets skryf wat lesers in die Engelse Wikipedia nie kan verifieër nie, is die onus op my wat die inligting byvoeg of terug sit om lesers van bronne te verskaf wat hulle kan gebruif om die inligting te verifieër. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-24t15:33z
        • It doesn't require that all readers be able check the material, or naturally we would insist on English-only sources, which we don't. There is no inherant problem in using non-English sources, so it is inappropriate to use a template which casts doubt on sources that are most likely perfectly fine. If there are legitmate concerns with the use of any sources then there are more constructive ways of dealing with them, rather than just blindly tagging articles with a template which essentially says "This article may or may not have a problem". PC78 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • With the nonstop libel we have to deal with at m:OTRS, it's useful to have templates that we can use to challenge info not covered by any given English sources. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t12:22z
            • All templates essentially say this article may or may not have a problem. If they don't, remove the template and explain why. Hohum (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No they don't, that's absurd. Cleanup templates generally highlight specific concerns which should be dealt with. Non-English sources are acceptable per policy, so use of this template is simply inappropriate. PC78 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is a specific concern about verifiability that should be dealt with. Acceptable is not the same as preferred. Hohum (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - encourages users to not accept good faith. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
encourages users to desire widespread verifiability. Hohum (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIAS, unnecessary tagging of articles about non-Anglophone topics. --Jmundo 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Garion96 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Such a template could make it seem that we are biased to only accepting English sources and that a source in any other language is irrelevant. Nohomers48 (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the template specifically says "Wikipedia accepts sources in any language". Hohum (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This template uses neutral language to advise editors of the undeniable fact that non english sources make it difficult for members of the english wikipedia to verify their contents. Calling for its deletion instead of trying to form consensus on wording is far too extreme IMO. Most of the arguments against the template appear to ignore its current wording anyway
It is also of serious concern to me that this issue hasn't been put before a wider audience. In its current state (linked from articles with a large proportion of non-english editors) it will likely skew the volume of comments to their point of view, instead of reflecting wider consensus.

Hohum (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of the obvious at best. Of course it's difficult for individual users to verify an article if they can't read the language of the sources, but as we accept non-English sources it's a non-issue. If you can't read the sources you should assume good faith. If they're OK then they don't need replacing. If they're no good then they should be dealt with by more appropriate means. At best a notice like this should go on a talk page, but I think even that is being generous. Under what circumstances do you think use of this template would be appropriate? PC78 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad grammar is obvious, yet we have a template for that, and for many other obvious problems. We accept bad grammar, but we prefer to fix it. Until it is fixed, we note it with a template.
Verifiability WP:V is a policy, good faith WP:AGF is a guideline. The articles on the english wikipedia that I have used this template on have almost entirely relied on foreign language sources that very few can verify. Marking such articles with templates is as reasonable as marking many other valid problems. Hohum (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but as I'm tired of saying, there is no policy violation in the use of non-English sources. The template assumes that a) the sources are no good, and b) that English-language alternatives exist, neither of which is necessarily (nor even likely) to be true. Cleanup templates highlight issues that need to be fixed; this isn't one of them. PC78 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm not tired of saying: The template doesn't assume the sources are no good, it points out that they are difficult to verify. It also doesn't say that english alternatives exist - it asks for them to be looked for. Read what it actually says. Sources that are difficult to verify are a problem. Hohum (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It implies that the sources are no good by asking people to look for alternatives -- how can you not see that? There is no requirement for such sources to be replaced. If you wish to challenge a non-English source then do so on the article's talk page, not on the article itself with a vague template that is contrary to existing policy. PC78 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> It doesn't ask for them to be replaced. The template isn't contrary to policy, but you have previously attempted to say it's against the AGF guideline. Hohum (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With appropriate use this should not create a problem. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I'm really on leave until the summer, but I had to drop by to give my vote on this. This template gives the faulty impression that non-English sources are less reliable that sources in other languages. We're people from all around the world here, there will always be people available to verify the sources used. Either way, this flies in the face of WP:AGF. Also, it looks horrible in the articles, labelling perfectly good articles as somehow problematic. Delete, delete, delete. Manxruler (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where, exactly, in the wording does it give the impression that non-english sources are less reliable? It specifically says they are acceptable, but difficult to verify. Again, verifiability is a policy, assume good faith is a guideline. Hohum (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-English sources is not a "problem" that must be fixed. If an English source of equal quality can be found, that is a good thing, but citing non-English sources is not a violation of any policy or guideline. Replacing a source with an English one isn't an improvement which we should seek by cluttering up the talkpage (or even worse: the top of the article itself) with a maintenance template. Use such templates for things which really need fixing (and even then, use them sparingly). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current template doesn't ask for foreign sources to be replaced.
A lot of these comments don't appear to take into consideration the actual wording of the template, and want to treat this issue differently to other article problems. I wonder if the noses of multiple-language editors are being put out of joint because they feel they are being discriminated against somehow? I certainly value their work, but I feel there is a real verifiability issue here. Hohum (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of WP:AGF from yourself wouldn't go amiss at this point. We're all perfectly capable of making up our own minds about this template, whether we agree with you or not. If the foreign sources don't need to be replaced, then it is inapproprite to highlight a non-issue with a cleanup template. PC78 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to find insult in statements where there is none, so who isn't assuming good faith here? Again, foreign sources are accepted, but they are not preferred. The template doesn't say they should be replaced, it asks for english ones to be added. Read the actual message.Hohum (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it; have you? The template casts doubt on sources by its mere presence, and that is unacceptable for something that is well within policy. If you wish to challenge any non-English sources in an article, then challenge them as you would any other dubious source. PC78 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read it, why do keep saying it asks for non-english sources to be replaced? It doesn't. It notes a lack of english sources, and asks some to be added. I challenge sources, if required, after verifying; by reading them. How would you propose anyone challenges sources that they can't read? Hohum (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing semantics does not improve the quality of your argument. The template asks for English sources to be added, which implies that existing non-English sources are no good, and that is untrue. English sources are preferred, nothing more, nothing less. As should be pretty clear from my above comments, I would propose that someone does not challenge sources they can't read and instead assumes good faith. Why do you have a problem with that? PC78 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm one of many editors who usually use non-English source when contributing to Wikipedia and I have some thought as following:
  • Although English sources are huge, I sometime can not find a English source for my contributing, particularly History of Vietnam which isn't a interested topic of English-language historians and scholars.
  • Usage of non-English sources is a great addition to English Wikipedia, it make the number of subjects in English Wikipedia even larger than in English-language sources (for expample, if we forbided all non-Eng sources, we wouldn't have article of Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures). Moreover, we have FA that used non-Eng sources such as Tanks in the Spanish Army.
  • On the other hand, if we used too many non-Eng source, it would be unfair for readers and editors who want to check the article's accuracy.
Therefore, I think that we might keep this template but we only use it as a talk page template instead of a maintaining template. If we could use it that way, it could satisfy (not 100%) both WP:V and WP:AGF.--Amore Mio (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the problem but this is not the solution for a number of reasons already stated above (assume good faith, lack of [as good] English sources, etc.). I don't know for sure how to solve doubts, that are perfectly understandable, about non-English sources but I'd suggest a few: contact some editor you trust that understands the language (feel free to contact me for any Portuguese source - and also Spanish, French, Italian, though you'll probably fnd better ones for those); contact a WikiProject that certainly understands the language; maybe, just maybe, create a WikiProject for checking those... a kind of meeting point for editors of several languages to help in that? - Nabla (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the complaints here appear to be caused by the feeling that this template is questioning the good faith of people who have added non-english sources (even though the wording of the message doesn't do this). What if the template was called something more like "Add more english sources", and the message reflected the wording in WP:NONENG and WP:V more clearly? I'm less sure about it moving to the talk page, almost all of the other templates that highlight problems with articles appear on the article page. Putting it at the start of the References/Notes section would be less glaring, yet still noticeable to editors.Hohum (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maintenance templates are to alert editors to an issue which needs improvement, and which can be improved. In principle, when someone adds a tag, the hope is that the tag will at some point be removed when the issue is fixed. Hence, in order to justify a maintenance template it needs to A) Address a substantial problem and B) Represent a problem which can be fixed so that the tag can be removed. I feel that this template fails on both levels. Since exclusive use of non-English sources is not a violation of any policy, guideline, or manual of style, it is not a "problem", like, say, the presence of original research or uncited statements. Second, many if not most of the sources citing non-English sources do so for subjects which are non-English in nature, and for which there is no English source which can reference statements in parts or all of the article. Putting up a tag requesting English sources, when no such sources exist, constructs an insolvable "problem". A tag should request something which is doable, not something which is impossible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except WP:V specifically says english sources are preferred, and you are presupposing that finding them is impossible in order to make your argument. Also, the existing template can be removed by consensus on the talk page if editors feel that there really are no english sources and the existing non-english ones are the best available. Hohum (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom, Arsenikk, Erik9 and others. It is true that English sources are prefereable, but we should not ignore that many relevant subjects are not covered by anglophone sources. Having this template puts to those subjects a bias they don't deserve. --Checco (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What harm or bias is there in pointing out that adding english sources would improve relevant articles? While the good of adding them is evident. Hohum (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia would lost a huge amount of info if an exclusive use of English sources becomes mandatory; there are thousands of articles which need foreign language sources to achieve a comprehensive picture and understanding of the topic.--Darius (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the template said that, I'd agree, however it clearly doesn't ask for the exclusive use of english only sources. It'd be great if people actually read what it does say; to add english sources. Hohum (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Sorry, but I see it merely as a tongue-in-cheek excuse to gravely severe Wikipedia's links to the opportunities of languages other than English. Behemoth (talk) 03:46, 6 May 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:Nonkilling 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 Deleted per author request under CSD G7 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This very peculiar category exists solely in the mind of one person, a Glenn D. Paige, who has a web site pushing his personal philosophy. It is not a useful grouping for Wikipedia as a whole and seems to be part of a large set of vanity changes made by a fan, if not Paige himself. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised by the hostility of TruthIIPower in relation to nonkilling. Comments as: "This very peculiar category exists solely in the mind of one person, a Glenn D. Paige"; "You should also not write hagiographies about marginally important people"; "This template is being shoved down our throats", seem to lack the necessary respect you appeal to arguing for the deletion of the template. The term "nonkilling" has entries in the following reference works: "Nonkilling: A New Paradigm" International Encyclopedia of Peace. Oxford University Press, New York (2009); "Nonkilling Political Science" Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, San Diego (2008); "Nonkilling Global Society" Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). EOLSS Publishers, Oxford (2004). The term "non-killing" has also been part of Buddhist ethics for centuries. Its current use has also significant support by hundreds of scholars in the academic world. Please visit http://nonkilling.org/node/7 for a significant list. It has also been introduced in the Nobel Peace Laureates "Charter for a World Without Violence", also dealing with communicative and linguistic violence. Having said this, I do agree the introduction of the topic has probably been done in an inappropriate manner. I agree that it should be deleted from those pages where it's not considered appropriate. Please let me know if I should do this manualy. Thank you and my apologies for the clumsiness.--Cgnk (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- POV slapped on every controversial article, such as Abortion. See also the related CfD Nonkilling.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not useful. akin to a vegetarianism template that linked to bacon and filet mignon. J. Van Meter (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for violation of WP:POV. Tagging all articles in a broad category with a navbox related to a marginal, opposing ism is not encyclpædic. Arsenikk (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topic seems entirely made-up. Whatever404 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably ahead of time. Go ahead. --Cgnk (talk) 14:28, 22 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_22&oldid=1138693235"