Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 25

< May 24	May 26 >

May 25 edit

Template:Infobox GAA championship main 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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GAA championship main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox GAA tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox GAA championship main with Template:Infobox GAA tournament.
Both templates perform the same function. {{Infobox GAA tournament}} is new and unused, while {{Infobox GAA championship main}} has been around for quite a while. {{Infobox GAA tournament}} has extra parameters, and , I think, a better name (similar to other sports - {{Infobox football tournament}}, for example). So I'm proposing the merge in that direction rather than the other way. Either way, the two should be merged with their combined parameters Teester (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the proposed merging. I created Template:Infobox GAA tournament with the intention of improving Template:Infobox GAA tournament but thought the former name would be better. I based it on Template:Infobox GAA tournament and Template:Infobox football tournament. I feel it summarises GAA tournaments more efficiently, thus reflecting better on the level of organisation involved within the GAA. Wishboneash87 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (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:Political neologisms 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political neologisms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The articles to which it links - and, inherently, any articles to which it may link - are almost completely unconnected. Essentially, it's a category for words or phrases that have been coined recently, with 'recently' meaning 'in the last 70 years'. The terms are defined so loosely so as to include frequently- and long-used words, such as Euroscepticism, Political correctness, and Islamism with a series of books about Eurabia (book titles are not neologisms...), santorum (if you haven't heard of it, check it out), and the Infamy Speech - which was made SEVEN DECADES AGO.

Which is basically saying that, without any reliable sources suggesting that these things are connected, or any definitive list of 'political neologisms', the template cannot be WP:NPOV. And thus should be deleted. It ought to be a category, whereby an article's inclusion can be established on an article-by-article basis with reliable sources saying that that particular word is a neologism. But it's not a template. Bastin 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Useful navigational tool. Of interest to researchers of both politics, and linguistics. Please see also lots of similar templates, at Category:Politics and government templates and Category:Language templates. -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, you said this when I raised the issue on the talkpage... and didn't provide any evidence from reliable sources. My statement above is that you'll never find any that support in reliable sources for santorum to be discussed in the same forum as Eurabia and Remix culture. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a really bad argument - particularly when you haven't even pointed to any examples (I don't see why I should dig through useful templates to find something useless to prove your illegitimate argument). Also, you should declare your interest as the creator of the template. Bastin 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I created the template. And yes, it is discussed in reliable sources. Many of them. See the article. Your comment in reference to a specific entry from this template, seems to be advocating more about a particular article, than the template itself. -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fine as a category, which it was before. --JN 466 00:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be a category. Difficult not to misuse. →Stani Stani 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We have lots of navigation templates less useful but I personally prefer categories to endless lumps of templates. My keep is in opposition to the obvious whitewashing attempt by the two above - who appear to be tag teaming anything related to the Santorum (neologism) article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Stop assuming bad faith, SchmuckyTheCat; I came to this discussion due to Cirt's notice. If you accuse me of tag-teaming or some other offense again, I'll take it up on the appropriate notice board, where you have spent many a lovely day. →Stani Stani 04:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you carry out your threat against SchmuckyTheCat, yours can be the latest in a noble tradition of complaints against him that have backfired against the complainants. The rapid-fire stub, split, template removal, and template deletion attempts that have plagued santorum and related pages for the past few days, always featuring the same cast of characters, is ample evidence of tag-teaming in itself. Since links have surfaced to discussions on Wikipedia Review and on the Wikien-l list about a concurrent anti-Cirt and anti-santorum campaign, the evidence of bad-faith behavior has been overwhelming. You have already marked your intentions as more ideological than encyclopedic, but gladly, you have also declared your intention to retire yourself from this public relations push. Perhaps you should stick to this promise. Quigley (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor in good standing here, and if I participate within the rules, accusations of bad faith can't stick. I have a record of cooperating with even people who I disagree with. As for Wikipedia Review, many editors at Wikipedia, including present and former members of Arbcom, participate in an uncensored discussion of this site's failings. WP:BADSITES was a long time ago. →Stani Stani 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this case on its merits. There may have been some "forum shopping", but to use that as the sole reason for opposing this deletion is as spiteful and ad hominem as the original complaints about "Santorum" were alleged to be. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Difficult to determine what should or should not be included. TFD (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed!--Enos733 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria for an article's inclusion in this template is the same as with any other template or category: that reliable sources describe the article's subject as belonging to such a grouping. The term santorum, whose demotion in Google's search results is the stated goal of the faction campaigning to delete this template, has an excess of sources that attest to its being a neologism that was created and used for political purposes. If you don't think a certain article should be on this template, such as "Infamy Speech", then make the edit that you think is right on the template. TfD is not for cleanup. Quigley (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrong tool for the job. Revert to category, which is right tool for the job. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The connections between the individual terms are so tenuous and the potential number of entries so great that this selection does not work in a template. Keep it as a category. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is my opinion that the template has value as a navigational tool, and I continue to believe that. However, if it is determined that the community consensus is for deletion, I will abide by that and not contest it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I can see where the template could be useful I agree that it the method its being used for doesn't really tie the articles togather. I also agree that a category would be the best approach in this particular case. --Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever it started out to be, it is now a worthless junkpile of terms. Way too long IMO. Student7 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course people want to delete this because of "santorum". That's not a reason not to delete it--it just means that people are finally trying to delete it because it's finally causing enough trouble to get noticed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from being a useful nav tool, it happens to bring together the linked articles in a way that's not so obvious. In fact, the commonality is so subtle that one or two editors above missed it completely. Wikipedia has quite a few templates that bring subjects together that otherwise would be dissociated from each other. So the links being otherwise unconnected is no reason to delete this template. Also, the point about age is compelling, although there really isn't any guide to tell us how old a "new" word must be before it's no longer a neologism. So it's tricky to "weed out by age" the links in this template. Changing this template to a cat rather than taking the time to improve it would be a disservice to the general readers of Wikipedia, who are more apt to open and check out a Navbar than to click on any given cat. Such a move would simply hide the problem rather than deal with it. So rather than delete it or hide it as a cat, improve it. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Way too much irrelevant commentary in this discussion. Please remain focused. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or split this template into well defined groups - Santorum is not even remotely in the same class of words as neologisms used in standard political discourse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've removed many of the articles which don't fit into any reasonable definition of a "Political neologism". More work needed, and Cirt has removed Santorum, so I think this template should be kept and refined. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And edit if appropriate to meet concerns. If the thing is fine as a category, I don't see why having it as a navbox is a problem either. It brings together the articles in a useful and interesting way. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Upon reflection, I agree that this template is a bit too much in breadth of its scope, and might be better off simply maintained as a category. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear unifying principle and hence unlikely to be helpful as a navigation aid. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful as a navigational template, especially with the terms as weakly connected as they are. (It should be a category at best, although I have reservations there, too. It seems to me that the category, if (re)created, should be narrowly defined as "neologisms defining political concepts". But several people defending this template or the inclusion of a particular term in it seem to be using the broader/weaker definition "neologism (defining anything) created for political effect or connected with politics in some other way". Wikipedia has too many categories which are near-random collections of arbitrarily-related stuff, and IMO these are unencyclopedic and not terribly useful. But in any case we should be clear on what the motivation/definition of any replacement category will be.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this form, since it's an arbitrary list of political-sounding things, but I suspect a similar list or lists with more specific criteria on what can be added would be more appropriate. harej 22:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am disappointed to see someone just took out "santorum" because he didn't like it, while leaving it terms like "big government" and "moral clarity" which are not neologisms. This list is a valuable start to ... something ... but it needs better definition. I have no idea whether I could add "Nailin' Paylin" or "Audacity of Hope" or "Jack-booted thugs", just to name some I thought of in a couple of minutes. Maybe you could figure a way to narrow it just to actual neologisms, not catch-phrases, from the 21st century, which are described as such in reliable sources. But even if you go that narrowly ... santorum needs to stay in. Wnt (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that while this is fine as a category, it's too broad a topic for a template. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2011 (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.