Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 25

< May 24	May 26 >

May 25 edit

Template:Jackie Chan Films 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) 04:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackie Chan Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned actor filmography navigational template that fails WP:MOSFILM. It was originally deleted with other actor filmography naviational templates at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 16#Template:Fred Astaire Films. It was recreated and speedily deleted as being recreated, G4, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25#Template:Jackie Chan Films. That deletion was reversed since it was "Nowhere near the same as what was deleted before". Since the original deleter thought consensus might have changed since 2009, I am starting a new discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite restrict to films produced or directed by Jackie Chan. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete duplication of {{Jackie Chan}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of previously deleted template and actor navigation templates are against the MOS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment however, directors and producers do have nav templates. And this person is also a director and a producer. ie {{Steven Spielberg}} , {{Roger Corman}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well be bold and fix it so it's just for the films he directed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can delete this, while I was going to start rewriting this I noticed {{Jackie Chan}} which does all that it needs to do. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember that G4 is for reposts, i.e. when content deleted at TFD is put in anew; it doesn't apply to new pages on the same topics. I tend to agree that this template is a bad idea, but this is the kind of thing that needs this new discussion. Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2014 (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:Common name for 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) 04:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common name for (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions on any pages other than talk pages and a test transclusion on a user page. Also, wording in this inline template is so unique that transcluding {{Hatnote}} would really suffice to create hatnotes with similar wording. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (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:Primitive fishes 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 relisted on 2014 June 8 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 8 June 2014 (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:GoldSrc engine games 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 relisted on 2014 June 9 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:22, 9 June 2014 (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:Source engine games 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 relisted on 2014 June 9 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 9 June 2014 (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:Gamestats 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) 04:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

External link template to a 404ed site which has never been a reliable or comprehensive resource. Can probably be speedied. - hahnch e n 12:17, 25 May 2014 (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:Massacres committed by Zionists 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. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Massacres committed by Zionists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This extreme POV template utilizing terminology straight out of antisemitic/fringe websites is entirely original research as it assumes the political positions of the alleged perpetrators of the massacres. Mind you I'm not aware of any other template of massacres committed by "......" brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NPOV, WP:OR.

Reliable sources do not categorize events such as the Gaza flotilla raid as "Zionist massacres".
Furthermore this templates is not sourced and represents original research.
Note that a massacre means to "deliberately and violently kill a large number of people", while many of the events in this list are, in fact, regarded by most sources as not deliberate. See for example 1996 shelling of Qana.
Finally, "Zionist" is not synonymous with "Israeli". Zionism is a political view which is not held by all Israelis. Alleged massacres performed the Israeli military cannot be neutrally called "Zionist Massacres". Marokwitz (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template makes amalgam between Zionism and Israel, which is a political point of view aiming at delegitimating the status of State of Israel and that does not comply at all with WP:NPoV. More, even replacing "Zionists" by "Israelis" would not be appropriate as it targets a wider group of people than those directly responsible of the events. Something such as "Massacres committed by Irgoun" focusing on the direct perpetrators who revendicated them or "Massacres commited during the 1948 Palestine War" focusing on a period would be more "acceptable" even if the interesest would be discussable. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—for obvious reasons. What is a Zionist massacre anyway? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

@nom: utilizing terminology straight out of antisemitic/fringe websites. That is not a criteria at all. More like OR/POV by you. Not an argument in that.

@Pluto2012: amalgam between Zionism and Israel, which is a political point of view aiming at delegitimating the status of State of Israel. Sounds like you are running away with words. Simply, Israel as a (or the) Zionist state is accurate and correct. And of course the pre-state killings were not Israeli's for timeline reasons only. It is you who is labeling it with POV associations. Not encyclopedic.

@Marokwitz, @Ynhockey: "Zionist (Mm)assacre(s)" -- where does the template say that?

@Marokwitz: massacre means to "deliberately and violently kill a large number of people". Your description is not in Massacre. Any RS for this? Your "violently" would leave out mass poisoning, and a "deliberately" suggests that a shelling could happen by accident. So at least your definition is dubious. I read it to be ad hoc.

@Ynhockey: for obvious reasons - not obvious, empty argument. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covers both pre-Israel and Israeli massacres (Category:Massacres committed by Israel by name does not). Simply, to the point navbox. As I wrote in my comment above, most arguments here (also by nom) are making interpretations that are not in the bare text (that would be OR in TfD). Maybe the wording could use refinement, but that is not a reason for deletion. I have not read or found any wording improvements so far. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete.The scope is not clear at all.Seems to me WP:OR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am undecided. In any case, 'by Zionists' should have read 'under Zionism', as I argue below. I dislike too many categories. I dislike categories other than cultural taxonomies - they bundle up phenomena that might otherwise be subject to distinctions. But most of the arguments so far, beginning with Brewcrwer's, are simply wrong and question-begging. There are numerous problems in many cats, not least the way for several years we have substantial lists (Israeli–Palestinian conflict-related lists) nobody here finds troubling, in which a small group of Gaza-Strip based jihadist/Hamas-linked militant organizations firing mostly lamp-post bombs into the Negev desert are listed as 'Palestinian' (as if the ethnicity had anything to do with it). The usage is not pulled from antisemitic sites, and that accusation is cheap. A scholar of standing, Saleh Abdel Jawad, has written a paper:' Zionist Massacres: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War' in Eyal Benvenisti, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (eds.) Israel and the Palestinian Refugees, Springer 2007 pp.59-127 He details, with a conservative estimate, 68 massacres during 1948 committed by people he calls Zionists, and his work is widely respected for the quality of its research: two of the editors are distinguished Israeli scholars. There is an important distinction between Zionist and Jewish/Israeli, just as there is an important distinction between Islamic and Arab/Palestinian. Which, however, we ignore i.e.List of Islamic terrorist attacks (meaning terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, just as Massacres committed by Zionists (cf.Zionist political violence) are committed in the name, or in the pursuit of the goals of Zionism. I'd prefer not to vote. However, I would be more impressed by input from outside editors, and not editors identified with the I/P area. The only criterion for the former should be, is this kind of cat anomalous, or is it congruent with extra I/P cats (i.e.Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes; Mass killings under Communist regimes; Soviet war crimes (Soviet is on a part with Zionism, both being ideologies); United States war crimes has a cat 'War crimes committed by the United States'. Provisorily, if retained I would suggest these precedents would allow one to modify the cat to read: Massacres committed under Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely with Nishidani on the quality of the above arguments for deletion. They are all essentially bankrupt and not based in policy. It's not "OR" as Shrike says, since that policy can't possibly apply to navboxes. The nominator's arguments rely on the content of the navbox, which are specifically not a reason to delete it, as the contents can be fixed by editing. The rest of the arguments in favor of deleting it are similarly flawed. On the other hand, my instinct is to support deletion of this template because it, like all such wikipedian artifacts in the I/P area, is troll-bait and, even if the subject were delineable (which I think it is, per Nishidani), without constant vigilance it will degenerate into the nonsense it is now. As Markowitz says, e.g., it's not plausible to include Israeli army actions in such a navbox. However, being troll-bait is not a policy based reason for deletion either. There is a serious problem in the I/P area (and probably others) with the use of these templates (and categories as well, since neither requires sourcing). We're not going to solve that problem here, if it's even solvable. However, there is at least a guideline which suggests that this template should be deleted, and that is WP:NAVBOX. See the five criteria for the existence of a navbox? This meets exactly none of them. Until there's an article on the subject, and sources suggest that one could be written, there should not be a navbox. Until the articles that might go in that hypothetical navbox have some relationship to one another beyond the presences of the navbox, there should not be a navbox. And so on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nyttend, Marokwitz and alf laylah wa laylah. Like him/her, my instinctive reaction was to delete, but saw no strong arguments for deletion, hence my indecision. There are no 'obvious' reasons here, but the navbox one now is, as is Nyttend's close reasoning below. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because this corresponds well to the WP:OC#NARROW standards for categories. You might as well have "massacres committed by socialists", "massacres committed by royalists", etc.; Zionism is a political ideology that happens to overlap with religion, but it's not a religious ideology (you might as well call Arthur Balfour a Zionist because of the Balfour Declaration, and he was a Christian), and the position of Zionism has nothing to do with mass murders or non-murder massacres. And what would you do if a person (1) were a Zionist at one time, (2) renounced it later in life, and (3) committed a massacre after renouncing it? Not to mention the issue of whether an incident is a massacre or not! In other words, Zionism and massacre-commission are pretty much unrelated, and whether we include this incident or that is very subjective. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nyttend's strong point to WP:OC#NARROW (among other things, disingenuously conflates two independent concepts, political ideology and state action) and noting heavy use of WP:POV+WP:OR that does not correspond with any reliable sources, and in many cases no mention of the concept by sources used for the articles in the navbox. Moreover, as per talk, it does not meet the criteria for WP:NAVBOX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.67.81 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2014 (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:Newark Bears roster 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) 04:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newark Bears roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct team has no need for a current roster Spanneraol (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2014 (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.