Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27

edit

Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus is that this template violates WP:NDA and should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NDA, this template should not exist. It's a disclaimer to assuage possible hurt feelings cultural offense or something similar, and we don't do that on Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - [EDIT] This is a legal disclaimer in Australia for the benefit of an ancient cultures/ancient Australian cultures (specifically for the dead from their cultures) but, per WP:PBUH, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. (Just as a word of advice, please don't belittle the importance of cultures tens of thousands years old by oversimplifying the argument to 'hurt feelings'. It really doesn't sit well with neutrality and cultural sensitivity which should be respected according to the spirit of the project.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)--Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain at this time; I am running an RFC on this topic, and would not wish my vote here to influence any outcome on that matter. Dane|Geld 23:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaneGeld: The RfC you've started is not well qualified, and is on a template page that would have very few watchers. I'd recommend that you find a better forum for the more generic RfC you've started, as well as elaborate on the policies and guidelines you're invoking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, @Iryna Harpy:. Despite being on WP near on 18 months, I've never done an RFC. I read the basic guidelines which said to start it on a Talk page of what you're requesting comment on, and to keep the question as neutral as possible, so those reading it can't guess your opinion. It was as bare as possible because I didn't want my opinion on the topic to influence it. Dane|Geld 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've certainly understood your RfC to be in good faith. The problem is that you are asking for editors to comment on the broader concept of disclaimers, but have appended the RfC to a very specific template. "No disclaimers" is already a policy, therefore, in essence, there is no RfC question unless you wish to overturn the policy (which isn't what you are attempting to do). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. I get you now. The reason I appended it to that specific template is because it was seeing it on the article about Gurrumul, that brought it to my attention. I tried to copy it to the Simple English wikipedia, where it was removed from his article. When I informed them that the English Wikipedia were using it, the administrator who removed it informed me it was new, and hadn't even received consensus for use.
    The idea of the RFC was to verify the thoughts on the use of Cultural templates (like the one it was attached to) and see whether they were acceptable and appropriate. If I worded it wrongly, or without clarity, I apologise. Dane|Geld 23:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not "censorship" as the material in question is of course still retained in the article. It's also not a "legal disclaimer" as publishing this sort of content is not and never has been illegal in Australia or anywhere else. The "hurt feelings" argument is a particularly callow remark and should be withdrawn. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I must say that I'm leaning towards your argument to 'keep', Lankiveil. The grounds are quite boorish, and WP:IAR applies to any specific 'disclaimers'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Iryna Harpy, both for the nice words and for keeping an open mind. I don't see it as any more of a "disclaimer" than is Template:Current or Template:Recent death. We can have a valid discussion of course about how long a template such as this ought to stay on the article, or about the exact wording to be used, but this template can serve a valid purpose to some of our more vulnerable readers, especially given that Wikipedia's coverage of this person now differs significantly from what the media is reporting. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    @Lankiveil: I was too quick on the draw, having decided that I should keep personal feelings on the use of the template out of it. It actually occurred to me that we use such 'disclaimers' all over the place for current affairs, etc. (as per the templates you've pointed out) after I'd !voted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big difference between a "This is a current event, so the info in the article may change rapidly" and "We've altered the content of this article in order to avoid offense". The former is perfectly acceptable, and the latter is not acceptable per WP:NOTCENSORED (as you stated). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed... which is why I haven't changed my !vote. Disclaimer templates of the calibre we use on Wikipedia are inclined towards WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. The variant we're discussing is used as a long-term template for cultural reasons, which is why I invoked WP:PBUH in my 'delete' argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihonjoe: But we're not "censoring" or "altering" the article content at all, it still contains everything that it did previously did. Your argument is a complete red herring. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    @Lankiveil: There are no herrings involved, red or otherwise. If you look at the history of the article, it has everything in it still because I reverted it to have what it had before the template was applied. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The template has nothing to do with the deletions though, you're conflating two quite separate issues. If anything, a side benefit of this template might be that it makes our position on removing such things clearer, and will remove the amount of work that needs to be done around that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    @Lankiveil: I'm not saying the template has anything directly to do with the content removals (at least not directly). I'm not conflating anything. If anything, the template should be made very generic, so it can be used for any similar circumstances. I don't think we should be creating templates for dealing with every cultural situation we run across as that would get out of hand quickly. I was merely commenting that the only reason the article still had all of the content was because I had reverted the edits that had removed it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reality is that whenever there is a death of someone with a traditional Aboriginal Australian cultural background, people will try to remove the image and change the name. This at least is a proactive step to avoid that. I also see the similarities to Template:Current or Template:Recent death. The template is not permanent, it can be removed after a period of time when the traditional mourning period ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneymau (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be fine if the template was modified to match the other recent events templates. There's no reason to have it look different. Perhaps something like Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus/sandbox would work. It's pretty much the same thing, but not the unsual color. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be amenable to the change per your sandbox. There's no need to diverge from the standard template layout. The most important aspect of this use of this template is, however, that it isn't retained for a protracted period of time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC) [EDIT] Striking through my support for the compromise template as it is still a clear breach of NDA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creator of the template here. This sounds like a good idea, and if it wasn't for my inexperience causing confusion about how to create a template, I would have done this. I'm glad that we seem to see the value in placing a temporary warning before the article. If anyone wants to change the wording or add a date parameter, please feel free. Neegzistuoja (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—Provides a relevant option for people observing respect for subjects of articles.--Carwil (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword or Delete As currently worded, this seems to be in violation of WP:No disclaimers in articles and should be deleted (it also reminds me of the controversy over whether the article Muhammad should contain images and honorifics). But if Boneymau is correct in stating that people come to these articles and remove names and photos to try to make them comply with their cultural practices, I could see keeping it if it is reworded to make it more clear that such removals are not acceptable here rather than the current wording which just warns them that names and photos might be present. I could also see it being placed as an edit notice (again, like the article Muhammad) rather than being present on the view presented to readers. I'll leave actual rewording to others, as I don't have any ideas for wording that seems likely to be culturally sensitive enough. Anomie⚔ 19:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is in violation of WP:No disclaimers in articles. It is the responsibility of the person wishing to practice avoidance to not view the article, and it should be expected that the name will remain in our page. It's a good idea, but it's not our role to put up warnings like this. Perhaps we could make a talk page template instead saying not to change it? Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 20:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Talk page or Editnotice. The template is clearly contrary to WP:NDA. Other editors have mentioned that NDA allows exceptions, eg {{recent death}}, but that template serves a completely different purpose - to "alert the reader that the article content may be subject to a flux of ... changes ..." This is completely different in scope and and intent to a disclaimer that says "the reader may be offended". If there is a real problem with editors repeatedly trying to edit the article to comply with Indigenous customs (contrary to Wikipedia's policies) – and I'm not sure that there is – then a template on the Talk page, or an {{Editnotice}} would be more appropriate. We have precedents for this, eg on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Sex. As others have suggested, such a template could be date-stamped for ease of removal by bot after an appropriate time. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:No disclaimers in articles makes an exception for current event and temporal templates that are likely to coincide with high levels of activity (i.e. culturally concerned individuals removing full name and images, which must be undone to prevent censorship, as was the case with Yunupingu). Should the wording perhaps change to make it clear that this is a recent deaths template more so than a disclaimer? I'm thinking:
      "This article is experiencing high levels of activity because it is about an Aboriginal Australian person who has recently died. Those who practise avoidance of naming the dead are advised that this article may include the full name, voice, images, and/or footage of this person, which should not be removed from the article because Wikipedia is not censored." Thoughts? Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with putting the standard {{recent death}} on the article, but note that it says "article may change as news reports change", not "... as well-meaning editors try to make the article culturally appropriate, contrary to Wikipedia's policies". Advice to editors about Wikipedia policies belongs on the Talk page or Editnotice, not visible on the article page. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer includes the following: "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures." Since that is one of the five official Wikipedia disclaimer pages, can this be mentioned or linked at the start of a relevant article? Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of WP:NDA is that individual articles should not have disclaimers at the top. (All pages have a link at the bottom to the general disclaimer.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I agree with Lankiveil about the focus should be on amending the disclaimer's wording and how long it should be kept. This disclaimer is not censorship at all as the content remains unchanged. This is a mainstream disclaimer in Australia used by media outlets, by government organisations, and by Indigenous Australians. This disclaimer only supports the content remaining unchanged as many users and non-users are likely to delete the full name and images of recently dead Indigenous Australians (as can be seen in the edit history of Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. As such this disclaimer is a good mechanism to keep content from being continuously deleted and to provide a mainstream and respectful disclaimer for. This is not about hurt feelings or censorship.--Jacarandacounsel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between Wikipedia and mainstream media outlets, government organizations, and so on is that the latter typically cannot be edited by users. In those places, a disclaimer that it "may contain" content is sufficient. But here the editors who are offended by it could take the current "may contain" wording as implying "that should be fixed", doing nothing to prevent the problem of said editors trying to censor the article in line with their cultural beliefs, unless perhaps Australian English interprets such wording differently from American English. Further, the placement of the disclaimer on the article itself rather than as an edit notice violates our own WP:No disclaimers in articles guideline. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The WP:No disclaimers in articles guideline is not a policy and is negotiable given the possible exceptions including Template:Recent death. The contention over WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant given that the addition of a disclaimer is specifically antithetical to deleting content. This debate should be about the content and scope of the proposed disclaimer to find a compromise for consensus. This disclaimer is firstly a useful mechanism to prevent the deletion of content from both users and non-users (the status quo of continuously reverting edits is sub-optimal -- see the edit history of [[[Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu]] who most recently died, which is why we are having this discussion) and secondly is a non-radical form of respect that is certainly within the spirit of Wikipedia:Readers first. It is also worthwhile to note that several non-English Wikipedia projects do allow certain disclaimers which the WP:No disclaimers in articles guideline precludes (e.g., de:Vorlage:Gesundheitshinweis, pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico, and it:Categoria:Template disclaimer). --Jacarandacounsel (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. First, you already !voted. You shouldn't begin another comment with a bolded !vote, even if it is indented. Second, I didn't say it's a policy (Ok, I did in an earlier edit, but that was corrected long before your reply). Third, just because something is a guideline instead of a policy doesn't mean you should ignore it just because you feel like it, decent reasoning is still necessary. Fourth, Template:Recent death is a warning to the reader that the contents of the article will be changing quickly and may be unreliable and/or outdated, not a disclaimer prohibited by WP:NDA as this template is. Fifth, the template as it currently exists does not actually tell anyone not to change the article, it just warns them that they may be offended. Sixth, what other projects might do is not by itself an argument that we should or should not do the same. Anomie⚔ 22:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As we are discussing a potential exception to WP:NDA, I have included a neutral invite at WP:VPP and on the Centralized discussion template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 'Not Censored' mob has been long used to back up some very weird inclusions - and the rather naive universalist 'one size fits all' approach of content and material, has seen at stages loss of editors, due to the total intransigence of the 'not censored' against 'cultural sensitivities' arguments. Jacarandacounsel has fortunately taken the discussion out of this endless issue - and given a context well worth considering - and I support the argument put forward JarrahTree 07:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. If you don't like something on Wikipedia, it's not our job to forewarn you. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR keep. NDA as a guideline has long outlived its usefulness. It handicaps our ability to serve as a compendium of human knowledge for all of the English-reading world. If you look at the reasoning given in NDA, it reflects a willingness to put the preferences of editors ahead of the needs of our readers. I agree with the longstanding consensus not to censor articles, but disclaimers are not censorship, and indeed our petty refusal to allow disclaimers taints that sound policy by association, making it seem to the casual reader that in that regard, too, we refuse to consider their needs and preferences. We build this encyclopedia for others, not as an abstract academic exercise. I know that the closing admin may be tempted to disregard this !vote, since I might appear to be acknowledging that policy isn't on my side. But NDA is a guideline, and IAR is a pillar. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. NDA, as applied in this context, hurts Wikipedia, and thus policy demands it not be applied. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per Jacarandacounsel and PinkAmpersand. In the context of articles referring to Australian figures, the audience is going to be mostly Australian, and if a significant percentage of potential readers require the disclaimer to access articles it's only right that it should be provided. The only other alternatives would be to either remove the information (violating No Censorship), or to have a situation where a significant number of readers simply can't access biographies on Wikipedia in case the subject had recently died. This is a very different situation from that which WP:NDA is intended to address. If you discard this banner, you're putting certain groups of readers at a disadvantage by creating a barrier to free information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasechun tashunka (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reword as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing to do with censorship - but change template towards the style at Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus/sandbox per above. Also, most readers of articles about Aboriginal Australians are probably going to be at least from Australia, and per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Readers first#Our audience, the page should be written for this audience, so I believe this template is appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  18:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The more I think on it, the more I understand it to be an IAR issue. The issue is a complex one however, at the heart of it, it is not about religious or personal moral objections that are being pandered to. As a parallel, articles and categories surrounding the subject of Jewishness allow for the fact of ethnicity, ergo individuals who are atheists who are Jews are categorised as 'Jewish atheists', or if their mother is Jewish, they are recognised as being Jewish. Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders are an ethnicity (that is, indigenous peoples are of ethnicities tens of thousands of years old), ergo this the issue is one of an ancient cultural identity. I believe that taking NDA to such a literal level is antithetical to the principles of the project. Another parallel is that of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES where consensus for the use of an image of a highly specific and identifiably unique lifestyle and appearance of a very small ethnic group has been used and is maintained as an exception to the rule. Where there are appropriate generic policies, and there are always going to be a handful of exceptions to the rules. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see a single way these disclaimers improve wikipedia. If people follow avoidance, it's on them to follow and it's not our job to provide prompts. There's no difference between an 'ancient cultural identitys beliefs and religious ones. Your parallel to Judaism actually undermines your argument - it shows that this belief is by no means held by all Aboriginal Australians, and that this is a case of a religious-type belief,(even if it is practiced by members of other religions, etc.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Although I agree that exceptions can and should be made to WP:NDA, I do not agree that an exception should be made here. Wikipedia is a global project that caters to an international audience, and the fundamental issue is that as a result of having such a diverse readership, it is inevitable that some content that we publish may unintentionally offend some readers – the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED is that we cannot remove material offensive to some at the expense of our broader interest in creating an internationally-catered encyclopedia. This is a sentiment which I'm sure we all agree on.
    I think there's a natural intuition in cases where we know beforehand that some content may offend a significant group of users, we want to forewarn these users through a disclaimer. The issue with this approach is actually the same as the fundamental issue which it intends to address: the diversity of our readership. We include articles which relate to so many different cultures and groups of people, each with their own values and views, that it is difficult to compare and say which groups' objections deserve disclaimers and which do not – this is a main reason why our guideline is to avoid disclaimers. For example, one issue that is seen fairly frequently at WP:OTRS is objections to depictions of Muhammad. We do not currently include disclaimers for depictions of Muhammad, but if a reader were to email OTRS and ask, "Why is there a disclaimer for Aboriginal Australians and not one for Muslims who object to depictions of Muhammad?", I'm not sure I could provide a very good answer. There's no clear line separating which issues are worth a disclaimer in an article, and which issues aren't – the least problematic approach, however, is to avoid disclaimers in articles almost entirely.
    Some point out that the disclaimer is intended to be temporary, but others have pointed out that avoidance of naming the dead can extend "anywhere from 12 months to several years". Currently, {{recent death}} is one of the few disclaimers granted an exception to WP:NDA, and it is to be removed once the high rate of editing following a death subsides – usually not more than a few days or even hours. As a result, even if it is temporary, it is still quite long-term and would represent an unprecedented deviation to our normal practice for disclaimers. Mz7 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PBUH (et al) has already been discussed in this thread. Firstly, we are not talking about a religion with hundreds of millions of adherents across multiple ethnicities around the world: we're talking about what can only be understood to be a miniscule "ethnic group" (as per my observation directly above your vote). It is not about a 'significant' pressure group, but about where WP:COMMONSENSE lines should be drawn. How many articles do you envisage that it has ever featured on, or will feature on (and for a proscribed period of time)? IAR exists for a reason. It's existence is not for lawyering, righting great wrongs, or any form of advocacy, but for genuine cases where abiding by the letter of the law is inappropriate for the circumstances. Worrying that this will open up the sluice gates for submitting to other pressure groups is not a relevant argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the contrary, Irina, I believe it is a quite relevant argument. If the purpose of this disclaimer is merely to warn people not to edit the article to change the name, we could perhaps do that via hidden text or on the talk page. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • IAR does exist for a reason, and I agree with your interpretation of it here. However, I am not trying to wiki-lawyer you, nor am I trying to apply the "letter of the law" in the absence of any other reasoning. Although it seems like common sense to you that Wikipedia should include a disclaimer in articles to appease a "miniscule ethnic group" while at the same time avoiding disclaimers for those "significant pressure groups", to me, that seems counterintuitive. It creates an imbalance in our application of disclaimers in articles that we cannot readily explain beyond the fact that the disclaimer would only apply to a handful of articles. We have one disclaimer, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which tells readers that some of Wikipedia's content may be objectionable, as is unavoidable in a project with a diverse readership. We simply don't need any more disclaimers that cater to every single "miniscule ethnic group" with an objection out there. I don't envision that this will open up a "sluice gate" and suddenly everybody will be petitioning for a disclaimer, but what I do feel is that this would set a precedent that others might follow later, so I advise caution. Is more disclaimers really what we want in Wikipedia? Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Australian media, government institutions, etc, routinely provide similar notes. We should extend the same important courtesy to Indigenous Australian editors and readers. The offensive deletion rationale at the top of this discussion reflects poorly on that editor. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick-D, responding to you as most recent supporter, could you clarify your position for me? Specifically, I'd like to know which groups you do/don't consider worthy of this courtesy. Muslims who object to images of Muhammad? Christians and Jews who object to spelling out God in full? Scientologists who consider information about Xenu to be secret? And how about me and my 100 cult-friends who have divine-revelation that images of bridges are forbidden? Are you proposing that all religious beliefs should be respected equally, or are you proposing that Wikipedia should decide which religious beliefs are worthy of courtesy and which are not? Alsee (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From the tone of your comments, I presume that you are not aware of these issues, or how they are handled in Australia. For an example of the practices of mainstream Australian media organisations, please see the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's policy on respecting Indigenous Australians' bereavement practices here or the Australian Government's recommendations on the subject here - the later website also provides links to the policies which Australian journalists' professional bodies recommend that their members follow. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick-D if this were a disclaimer template for Muhammad images, do you think I would even bother opening links on how Muhammad images are handled in Saudi Arabia? Nope. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. I don't understand which of the endless religions/beliefs you consider worthy (or unworthy) of equal respect and equal courtesy. I would like to understand if you have any coherent position for templates of this type. Or are you literally saying Australian-aboriginal-religion is the one True Religion deserving unique respect and courtesy? Alsee (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick-D, do you also think that Wikipedia should follow the ABC's policy and on any article "Where content is likely to cause ... offence ... use ... classification labels or other warnings or advice"? Do you think that Wikipedia should follow the Australian Government's recommendations and put a warning on every article about a dead indigenous person that "this article may contain images of deceased persons"? If so, we might as well delete WP:NDA; if not, why is "recently dead" any different? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we should keep this template given that it's in line with standard provisions used in the Australian media (even the tabloid media often uses these kinds of disclaimers). The other things you're asking me aren't relevant to this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "The other things you're asking me aren't relevant to this discussion" – Correct. The Australian Govt guidelines and the ABC's guidelines are not relevant to this discussion. What matters here are Wikipedia's guidelines. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I am shocked and appalled that people are trying to single out a favored religion for preferential treatment. This is directly contrary to WP:No disclaimers in articles. There is a dang good reason for that guideline. There is a strong consensus that we don't put this kind disclaimer on articles containing images of Muhammad. We don't put disclaimers on articles that fully spell out the name "God". We don't put disclaimers on Scientology articles for containing "secret" details of the religion. We don't put disclaimers on articles with images of nudity or women-without-burkahs. We do not, and cannot, add disclaimers for every random religious belief. Wikipedia can't start picking "approved" religions/beliefs are going to be privileged with disclaimers plastered on random articles. Wikipedia doesn't have a religion, and no religion makes up more than about 1/3 of the world population. Any reader should already expect that the majority of the world doesn't follow their religion.
    The only support argument that has any semblance of validity is to discourage people from disruptively editing the article. That is a disingenuous argument here. When people are disruptively editing an article, such as trying to remove images of Muhammad, we use edit notices, talk page notices, and/or hidden comments. No one has offered any rationale why Australian aboriginal religion should be treated any differently than Islam, Christianity, Scientology, or this week's latest cult. None of them get disclaimers, and we certainly can't get in the business of deciding which religious belief are/are-not worthy of special respect. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsee: Please note that Australian Indigenous peoples are not a religion. They are the most ancient contiguous ethnic group in the world by tens of millennia. The difference between "religion" and "ethnicity" has been discussed at length above, therefore the parallel is a non-starter. This doesn't affect the principle of 'no disclaimers', but comparing apples to oranges seems to be a basic theme running through arguments for deletion by editors who are from other parts of the planet and don't seem to comprehend the full ramifications of cultural sensitivity as opposed to causing offence to religious groups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2017

(UTC)

  • There is very little difference between 'cultural sensitivity' and concessions to religious groups. It's still a cultural custom, and those of the Aboriginal Australians - their age is not really relevant - are not more worthy of respect than religious customs such as the issue with Muhammad. Their customs should not be given special respect over other groups' customs.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hi Iryna Harpy. I want to start by saying I'm an experienced closer. When I came across a 21-10 RFC that had been mobbed by Greeks, and the minority side had the backing of policy and guideline, that got a consensus against a more than 2-to-1 majority. The only reason this TFD wasn't a blatant SNOW-delete is because the first half of the discussion got mobbed by Australians. I checked. Once this discussion was posted for wider input, that participation-bias started getting buried under firm deletes.
    If you want to call this "cultural" rather than "religious" issue, fine, I don't care. I'm not going to debate what is or isn't religion. All religion is cultural. We certainly do understand the "ramifications of cultural sensitivity as opposed to causing offence". Four hundred and fifty thousand people signed a petition to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia. People have been murdered over such images, and credible threats of violence have been made against us. We told them NO. Hundreds of millions of people object to our explicit images and coverage of human sexuality, high schools have either threatened-to-block or actually-blocked Wikipedia, major U.S./international news networks have run crusades against us, and the UK tried to censor us. Not only did we tell them NO, we left the entire population of England locked behind an edit-block. When people are literally being murdered over offensive content, when major news networks run crusades against us over offensive content, when the entire population of England gets blocked over offensive content, this aboriginal-issue is utterly trivial. Yep, people are offended. If we removed offensive content, the entire encyclopedia would be blank. If we put disclaimers, every page would have a stupid message at the top advertising the wacky cultural beliefs of whatever groups were offended by that particular page. Wikipedia has a policy of being brutally-neutral. If 100 of my fellow cult members have divine revelation that images of bridges are blasphemous, Wikipedia will not have a disclaimer at the top of every bridge-article advertising my cult's beliefs. Wikipedia is not censored, and not-censored pages don't have disclaimers. Yes, various people will feel offended by various things. We know. Some people get offended to the point of committing murder. Alsee (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsee: (and also addressing Yellow Diamond) I'm not challenging the 'brutally neutral' sensibilities of Wikipedia, and agree that we either adhere to policy or don't (noting that mine was the first !vote, and it remains at 'delete'). I know you're a good closer, but you also know that being mobbed by people who don't like decisions is (unfortunately) par for the course, and it's irrelevant where any editor gets mobbed from. Any editor who sticks to their guns in making intellectual decisions over emotional ones gets poked by the sharp end of the stick on a regular basis. IAR, however, is something I seldom argue for unless the issue is a particularly complex one, and I've felt compelled to play at devil's advocate in this instance. How do you both feel about the alternative suggested by the nom here with only the qualifier of, "This article is about an Aboriginal Australian person who has recently died."? Still leaning too much towards being a disclaimer? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. If it says "Those who practice .... are advised that this article may include ...", then it's a disclaimer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Iryna Harpy sorry, I presumed from your comment that you were on the 'keep' side. My use of the word "mobbed" was also unfortunately more loaded than I intended. In more neutral terms, I was just trying to say that early participation was not an accurate reflection of general community consensus. Regarding your suggestion "This article is about an Aboriginal Australian person who has recently died", can you imagine a template saying This article is about an American person of foreign ancestry who has recently died? The answer basically comes down to why would we do that? As far as I can tell, the only purpose for the template you suggested would be to to carry invisible-implied-disclaimer-text for people who know why you put it there. That's just be a stealth disclaimer trying to slip past WP:NDA. The template would be utterly useless and baffling for anyone who didn't know your intended invisible-text. Alsee (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsee and Od Mishehu: Thanks for confirming what I now understand to be a good faith attempt by the nom to find a compromise on the template. The deletion discussion developed extremely quickly the moment it was nominated, and Nihonjoe must certainly have felt under pressure to find a method of accommodating a version of the template. Some early responses on this thread are geared towards the rewording and, for the sake of keeping it clear for the closer (i.e., it certainly looks like SNOW), I think this early compromise should be struck as a possibility. However it is parsed, both sentences are clear breaches of NDA and should be disregarded as an alternative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alsee—I would suggest that your flippant comparison—"me and my 100 cult-friends who have divine-revelation that images of bridges are forbidden"—is evidence of how a substantial chunk of the Wikipedia community thinks of religions as an obnoxious special interest that deserves inconvenience and disrespect. Typically there's a rule or guideline to rely on, but I don't see consistency: for example, we are so adamantly anti-censorship, but forbid including religion in infoboxes of anyone except clergy. To take a step back, this faction of the community sees itself as owning the sensibility of the encyclopedia, as an irreligious space where religious beliefs are an anomaly, rather than the majority experience of humankind. (I don't say this from a deeply religious viewpoint myself.) Not surprisingly, most people expect their own cultural and religious viewpoints to inform how they are viewed on an encyclopedia, and for that presentation to recognize their own sensibilities as a relevant part of being a reader of the text. While Wikipedia is one of the most creatively open spaces when it comes to scripts and languages; it constantly reminds people of the diversity of such differences in its coverage of foreign subjects. But when it comes to religion, it attempts to maintain closure and distance. In the long run, I don't think that's healthy for the encyclopedia and the maximal involvement of all human communities in sharing their knowledge through it.--Carwil (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Carwil, my flippant comparison successfully served its purpose. Neutrality is non negotiable. You do not get to decide which religions are more legitimate or are granted preferential treatment over others. That is disrespect.
    The community decided that religion should be addressed in article text rather than the infobox. It is hardly reasonable to compare that to censorship. Alsee (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It took re-reading this a couple times to realize that you're saying that I prefer actual religions over the made-up no-bridge-pictures religion. (I think.) I'm certainly not proposing that we disregard deeply held sensibilities on the basis of religion, nor that we avoid some kind of acknowledgement of aniconism on Islam pages. For that matter, if a new religion opposed pictures being taken of bridges, it would hardly be relevant to most bridges, but it sure would be relevant to a page on that religion, their most sacred bridge (assuming they have one), and whether we plaster a photo of a bridge in the middle of that page. It's not very convincing to argue to me that this notice can't be permitted because it would be inconsistent with not permitting another than I also think would be fine.
  • The point is that if you make exceptions to a rule, you set a precedent, and then the precedent swallows the rule. Soon WP will have spoiler alerts, trigger warnings for nudity and gore, warnings for aniconism and blasphemy, and the fact that PBUH is listed after so and so's names. THAT is what MUST be avoided. This is an encyclopedia, and you will get information on the topic you look up, not warnings about the information. It is impossible to draw lines, and so we don't. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: infoboxes and religion. How is prohibiting religious affiliation from the infobox not censorship? The community, as is clearly felt in each of these discussions, is frequently hostile to religion and religious views. It isn't comfortable with them. Its editors trivialize them on talk pages. And then it won't allow biographical profiles of people with deep religious affiliations relevant to their notability (e.g., Gerry Adams) to have those affiliations treated as major characteristics of their profile.--Carwil (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. We shouldn't single out any ethnic group for preferential treatment. feminist 09:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a disclaimer for an article, which we don't do per WP:NDA. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am really shocked that this exists on WP, considering the fact that it directly goes against core WP policies. As mentioned many times, it is a disclaimer, which WP does not do, and it is a form of censorship, which we do not do. Every page is covered by a general disclaimer, EVERY page. And as WP policy states, "The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits." I can't understand how or why people are supporting this when it is 100% specifically disavowed in core WP policy. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CODI, and WP:NDA. Most of the "keep" !votes are based on policies of Australian media outlets; however, WP:TOU says that WMF projects are governed under the laws of the State of California and the USA. KMF (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Two reasons: one, shows that the information may not be reliable as it is a recent death, and two, makes sure that those who practice the things mentioned in the template don't remove the name and such. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first is covered by {{recent death}}, which is unrelated to the issues being discussed here. (In fact, it's listed in the lead of NDA as an example of of Current event and temporal templates, which is one of the exceptions to NDA.) As to the second, why not add such a disclaimer to Muhamad to prevent removal of images there? Why not to articles on human anatomy to prevent removal of problematic words or images there? Why not on articles about fiction, to prevent the removal of spoilers? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand the rationale for the template and its intent, and I respect many of the editors arguing for its inclusion. However, it IS a disclaimer. Not only is it a disclaimer, it is a particularly narrow disclaimer regarding a specific cultural practice. It has no place in a global encyclopedia. Further, I suspect those practising traditional Australian aboriginal mourning customs would be very unlikely to search out articles about the recently deceased because they would understand that they would most likely find culturally inappropriate content. Finally: Has there been anyone actually practicing this custom who has been offended by a Wikipedia article, or are we trying to "fix" a problem that doesn't actually exist on behalf of people who take their own pragmatic steps to avoid it anyway? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA and past consensus regarding Muhammad images. Replace with {{recent death}} to alert readers, and a standardized editnotice is probably a good idea too. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. We never put disclaimers directly at the top of articles. Those who want the guideline changed are welcome to seek that, but as it stands, this cannot coexist with the guideline. ~ Rob13Talk 03:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NDA. It's simply impossible for us to write an encyclopaedia that conforms to all the cultural sensitivities of a global readership, and if we can't do that we certainly shouldn't start picking and choosing which groups we will make exceptions for. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA and Alsee and Rob. If we do this for Australians, then we need to do it for Muslims and images of their prophet. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NDA. SkyWarrior 17:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Now I'll make my views known. KEEP per WP:IAR. Please remember that NDA is only a guideline, which specifies that "occasional exceptions" may apply and it should be treated with common sense. If we apply NDA as if it were policy, then we would have no disclaimers at all, since by definition, Template:Recent Death is in itself, a disclaimer. The only 5 disclaimers we should be using, are the 5 basic ones defined in NDA - Content, Legal, General, Medical and Risk. All others should go. Where you make exceptions, you leave holes. Dane|Geld 19:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DaneGeld:Except that the issue here is the Content Disclaimer. People of certain background (in this case, Australians) find certain content (in this case, the "the full name, voice, images, and/or footage" of a person who recently died) to be objectionable, and we warn them that this articvle contains that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a violation of WP:NDA. Alsee outlines almost exactly my thoughts in their original !vote (if you replace "religion" with "group of people", as I understand Indigenous Australians are an ethnic group rather than a religious one): in particular, our policies and general disclaimer suitably outline that Wikipedia is completely uncensored, and if the template is meant to provide information to editors then this can be better done in an editnotice, hidden comment or talk page notice. (For what it's worth, while {{Recent death}} serves a different purpose, I'm not too happy about it or the rest of the current event templates either, so the arguments that this template is similar to those is WP:OSE to me.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per all the arguments already provided. -Yupik (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Esoteric trigger warning, an example of the creeping Kumbayaism of society that alienates more than it assuages... Clear violation of the guideline WP:NODISCLAIMERSINARTICLES. Carrite (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like many of those above (well, maybe not the guy immediately above), I understand the various reasons for the template's creation, but I'm concerned about the proliferation of notices for other taboos. I think that, even if it's not made explicit at that page, this is one of the fundamental points behind the "no disclaimers in articles" policy. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. Consistency is vital on rules like this, and none of the rationales for an exception are especially convincing. Layzner (Talk) 22:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NDA. An exception would create a precedent that must be avoided. Rentier (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a social scientist, I can understand where the sentiment for the Keep !votes are coming from. Cultures around the world have customs regarding their dead, and giving them new names is not exactly unique to the Aboriginal Australians (traditionally, similar practices were common in East Asia). However, apart from WP:NDA, the template appears to run afoul of WP:NPOV. Simply put: why make a special template specifically for one specific ethnic group? Wikipedia is supposed to neutral, (in theory) not favoring any particular group or idea. Allowing concessions for one single group, but not for others, runs contrary to our guidelines. Sure, WP:IAR exists, but there's also WP:WIARM, which essentially states that "breaking" the rules must be for a cause that will ultimately be beneficial to the encyclopedia. I can't see this template being an example of that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ping to Nyttend and Neegzistuoja. You appear to have mistakenly placed your !votes in the comments section. You may want to move them up here to the main section. Alsee (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • T2 speedy delete. Unlike a simple {{recent death}} tag, which is an ordinary cleanup/article-may-have-issues template along the lines of {{cleanup}}, this is a disclaimer template intended to be used in articles, and "disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles" is the first example given in the T2 criterion. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confession time: I was unaware of WP:NDA at the time of creating this template. I agree with the apparent consensus that my template breaches this guideline.
    Alsee mentioned the initial mob of Australians voting Keep, which is understandable given that virtually all Australian websites and media sources include something like this disclaimer. There's a fair amount of pressure in this country to make some statement, however minor, respecting the wishes of an ancient culture that our non-indigenous descendants all but decimated. In the context of a global website, this is reasonably no more important than the pushes for religious or sexual disclaimers or censorship as discussed, but I don't see it as any less important. That warrants equal treatment under Wikipedian law, I guess.
    Look, I'm not entirely convinced that NDA is a necessary policy; adding small disclaimers to articles that readers or editors find to be culturally objectionable doesn't amount to censorship, and is uniquely possible for an online encyclopedia, but I concede that the status quo is easily the least problematic option. Neegzistuoja (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's just roll over and let the big boys tickle our tummies. Er, no. Are we really going to use a guideline to get we want, over a POLICY that says we can ignore the guideline? Dane|Geld 19:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What policy is that? Professional encyclopedias don't provide content disclaimers (can you imagine Britannica using such a disclaimer if they updated a biography really quickly after its subject's death?), and including one neither improves Wikipedia nor is some form of useful maintenance; as such, WP:IAR doesn't apply. What other policy tells us to ignore both the no-disclaimers guideline and the speedy-deletion policy, which explicitly permits the speedy deletion of content-disclaimer templates? Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides IAR, which I still contend, applies in this circumstance - you also have WP:5P5, which is one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia;
"Wikipedia has no firm rules - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." I believe that speaks volumes in itself, the fact that the principles and the spirit matter MORE than the literal wording. Dane|Geld 17:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your logic, then, rules and guidelines should not be followed unless there is case by case consensus? That defeats the point of having guidelines. IAR and 5P5 are for special circumstances: mainly, in circumstances where ignoring the rule will IMPROVE wikipedia. How does thsi template IMPROVE wikipedia? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me turn the tables on you, El Cid. How does Template:Recent Death improve Wikipedia? Isn't it an article specific disclaimer? What about Template:Merging to, which contains a disclaimer that the article "may be outdated", like it does here? If this template gets deleted, plenty more will go on the chopping board, that I promise you. Dane|Geld 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just be careful you don't cross the line into WP:POINT. Anomie⚔ 18:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia, Anomie. What I intend to do is quite simply sort out things which breach NDA and have them reworded or removed. We have 5 disclaimers, why do we need anymore? I will of course ask for consensus, as to strength of feeling, and make sure that the request is in accordance with policy. Disruptive, I'm most definitely not! Dane|Geld 19:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • BIG difference between a trigger warning and a quality of content disclaimer. Recent death=this info may not be up to date, may be incorrect for this short period of time; Aboriginal template= If you believe that x,y,z should not be in the article, we warn you x,y,z may be included in the article. Recent death improves WP by not allowing for false rumors to be spread. This does not do that. In any case, please step off your soap box, you are starting to sound really dramatic and preachy. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
edit

By analogy, would anyone support the introduction of this template into articles related to Islam? :

 

This article is about a figure sacred in Islam. Those who practise Aniconism are advised that this article may include the full name, voice, images and/or footage of sacred figures within Islam.

‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It mostly applies to Monotheistic faiths, such as Judaism, as is mentioned in our own article - so specifically picking Islam is a bit of a needle in the side, but still, if it's appropriate to introduce, I would support it. Dane|Geld 20:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) Islam is the only religion which in modern times practices aniconism to any real extent; and b) your views are directly against established WP practice. Where do you suggest we draw the line regarding disclaimers? Should we have disclaimers for nudity or profanity? That certainly offends a lot of people. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you basically planted a minefield for someone to walk into. If they said "no" to introducing that template, it would provide ammunition against the one nominated. If they say "yes", it's against Wikipedia practice. There are owls in the swamp. Dane|Geld 21:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an analogy, is it that hard to grasp what I was getting at..? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes. "He who laughs last, doesn't get the joke." Care to explain it? Dane|Geld 00:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main analogies being discussed here are images of Muhammad, WP:PBUH, and Template:Recent deaths. I've !voted above, but want to comment on the similarities and differences for each and a couple more.

  1. This template seems to apply to a rare, and perhaps unique situation. While images are often sources of controversy, there are few cases where reading and writing names themselves are problematic (although WP:GENDERID is another such situation, although the guideline is silent about whether to use so-called "deadnames"). This poses a special challenge for a text based encyclopedia; how we respond to it speaks to how we treat all persons and cultures, and has obvious implications for the inclusiveness of both the community and the encyclopedia.
  2. Wikipedia includes images of Muhammad. The proposed template would signal that images and names of (recently) dead Aboriginal Australian are included on Wikipedia. On Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, we find an explanation of this inclusion, and well as advice on Help:Options to not see an image. Moreover, considerable debate has gone into creating an introductory section that doesn't include an image, but instead a calligraphic representation. Some supporters of that choice see non-respect for religion-related reasons, but others clearly factored that in: e.g., "if this is how Mohamed is presented in most places and by the community in question, why not?" (see the RfC on the matter). I back the position that "the community in question" is entitled to some consideration regarding the least astonishing ways of encountering a feature of their culture, without censoring other information. Moreover, I would happily support a template on Muhammad that puts the information currently on the talk page on the article.
  3. We have template:Censor, which both explains that Wikipedia isn't censored, and offers: "For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image."
  4. WP:PBUH reflects that the voice of the encyclopedia should not be making religious declarations, because that would be POV. On the other hand, we do have Names and titles of Muhammad. IMHO, we could be place such things more prominently (perhaps as an infobox entry) on articles like Muhammad, 14th Dalai Lama, etc. In any case, there is strong precedent for including in the article formal titles, forms of address, and honorifics for people within their culture. If the cultural practice is to not name the person, there is also the option of stating that not naming the recently dead applies to them.
  5. It is precisely one role of an encyclopedia (of many) to explain someone's cultural milieu refers to them, and what expectations may existed around others referring to them. Doing so does not imply any POV on Wikipedia's part. For example, "The King is called the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" at King of Saudi Arabia.
  6. The "recent deaths" template advises readers (about information in flux) and editors (about avoiding hasty edits and respecting Wikipedia protocols). There are reasons here to advise editors about respecting Wikipedia by not blanking names or images, as well as to advise the most likely readership that someone may have died recently, and therefore they might want to apply their own post-death cultural practices, or respect those of others, should they so choose.--Carwil (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to these claims:
  1. You're right about trans-gender people as being problematic text to some people. For some readers, the use of the name Bradley Manning would be seen as offensive, fo others calling this person Chelsea Manning and using female pronouns would be; we ignore both in the articles.
  2. As to placing a warning on the Muhammad article, this would open up many requests for similar warnings; it shouldn't be done. Whrere problems are known to exist, we have methods for handling them behind the reader's back, such as talk page notices, edit notices, inline HTML comments, warning users, blocking users, and protecting pages.
  3. Yes, we do have {{Censor}}, and we place it only on the talk page - invisible to the reader.
  4. Yes, we do mention honorifics and alternative names in an NPOV way. We have Names and titles of Muhammad, one of many parts of the coverage of Muhammad. If any nicknames are used by Australians to avoid saying the name of a recently deceased person, include that in an NPOV way in the article. This doesn't exclude the person's real, lifetime name from the article.
  5. Yes, but we wouldn't refer to him by this title, we sould simply mention that it is one of his titles.
  6. {{Recent deaths}} is intended to ensure the readers understand the level of accuracy of the article. As to warning editors, see my comment at #2.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point outthat several places in the Muhammad article, we have the following wiki-comment - invisible to the reader:
<!------------
PLEASE NOTE:
The consensus to include images of Muhammad emerged after extensive months-long discussions and efforts on both sides to balance multiple competing interests. Please do not remove or reposition these images because you feel they are against your religion. Please do not add more images or reposition the current ones to prove a point. To avoid pointless revert-warring, blocking and page protection, please discuss any prospective changes on the talk page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.
------------->
The same article has an edit notice about the images, has a talk page notice, and is semi-protected. This, also, is invisible to the reader. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's mind-boggling to me that we have several note to editors, but not to readers, explaining how readers may disable seeing images they don't wish to see. It's almost as if we want to preserve the illusion of choice for readers but deny it in practice. How in the world do we explain this, beyond bureaucratic conformity to the NDA guideline?--Carwil (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I respectfully withdraw from this conversation and contact over this template. I have not only been warned by El Cid that I'm breaching WP:POINT, I've seperately been cautioned for unconstructive editing by the same editor, although I can't see where anything was reverted (and yes, I have asked). It's clear to me that Wikipedia's rules and policies are best and most appropriately used by those who obviously understand them (and have been here longer) and that best use is made of them when it suits others, to get what they want. Call this unconstructive editing if you wish. I don't care anymore. Dane|Geld 23:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I certainly don't envy the person who gets to close this discussion. There's a lot to review and process. Good luck, whoever you are. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nihonjoe I enjoy closing, and I enjoy examining the closing process. Admitting my personal strong delete viewpoint, I think this will be an easy close. It's a long read but the bickering largely boils down to a single theme. I currently see a raw count of 28-to-13. More than 2-to-1 is a fairly solid consensus, unless some unusual factor supports the minority. The main special factor here is that one side has clear guideline support, and the other side is calling to IAR-ignore that guideline. That factor happens to heavily favor the majority. Another factor is the strong shift in discussion. Early discussion was almost evenly split. However wider participation, and consideration of the early arguments, led to a nearly unanimous shift to delete. This also happens to favor the majority. A final point is that no-consensus would be an atrociously bad outcome here. The template would still exist, but if anyone tries to put it on an article the template will just be removed per the guideline. A no-consensus here would provide zero support for someone edit-warring to restore it. Alsee (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2017 (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).

Template:Family tree of House Arryn and similar

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 August 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 5 August 2017 (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).

Template:Sharif

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in template:Nawaz Sharif Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Shantara diagram

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Sectoral Contribution to GDP Growth

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Seasons in Australian soccer

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and it's not clear that we need it since there are already succession links in the infoboxes in 2008–09 in Australian soccer and Category:Seasons in Australian soccer with all the seasons. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Season list 2

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Yugoslavia 1980 Summer Olympics squad (men's handball)

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused 6th place squad template. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Year in country category/parent ?/*

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).

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused. there are better ways to do this now that we have LUA and wikidata (or even better, just store the parent information in the template call directly). Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:HighDefMediaComparison

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).

The result of the discussion was Redirect to the section where the information was merged. The history in the redirect page will preserve the attribution history as requested. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 2008, no foreseeable use, no reason to keep historically Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Page was protected with log message No longer used in mainspace. Marked as historical to preserve GFDL and page history. DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! by inactive admin User:RyanGerbil10. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Brora Rangers F.C.

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No navigational benefit, contains only three links and, of those, the link to to the team's ground redirects to the team article. No scope for expansion either. Jellyman (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:2016 Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles QF

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have generic tennis templates that can be used and should not create new ones for editions of specific tournaments. Wolbo (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:2017 Bank of the West Classic – Singles QF

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have generic tennis templates that can be used and should not create new ones for editions of specific tournaments. Wolbo (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:2017 BB&T Atlanta Open – Singles QF

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have generic tennis templates that can be used and should not create new ones for editions of specific tournaments. Wolbo (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Gender-neutral

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, so keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotes neologisms. Can be substed, then deleted. KMF (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. Was and may still be useful and does no harm. "Promotes" is a bit tendentious; I would agree with a wording like "facilitates [the use of certain] neologisms". Since this template is only used in talk space, I see nothing wrong with that. To my knowledge there is no policy against neologisms in talk space. But maybe policies have changed, in which case I'd agree with subst+del. It may also make sense to check who used it; if it turns out that it was hardly used by others than me, then I'd agree with subst+del, too. — Sebastian 02:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with talk space templates that facilitate the legibility of particular expressions. However, I think it's better if this is moved to Template:Spivak pronoun or something similar, as these are far from being the only gender neutral pronouns in use. – Uanfala 12:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "Spivak pronoun" would have been a better name in the first place. But changing it now would affect several hundred pages; not sure if that's worth it. — Sebastian 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I now recall that the name already changed once when the template was new; probably after a discussion, but I don't think anyone thought of the name "Spivak pronoun" then. — Sebastian 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that TfD regulars might have a trick up their sleeve to replace all instances of the template. But even without that, the template can still be moved to a new title, with the old one remaining as a redirect: this won't change existing transclusions. – Uanfala 09:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of user-space use of the template in ways that contribute to gender inclusion on Wikipedia.--Carwil (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 208 transclusions (although probably not a valid reason for keeping), but is used and if people wish to use it in their talk pages, then it is useful to them. However, (and while I'm not an expert on this subject) - is there a problem with contrast and accessibility with the pale font colour for the "th"s in the template?  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Adequate use, enough transclusions, important to keep, existing title is better per WP:PRIMARY use of term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 18:18, July 31, 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm apparently in the minority here, but I don't understand what purpose it serves. Can't it simply be manually typed on userpages? ie I like to be called e or whatever it is, with a link to Spivak pronouns? I mean, the template shows up as just a single word, and it doesn't even mention what its significance is. I feel like there is a way easier way to handle the issue. And it obviously won't be used in talk pages for articles, so the only significance is userpages, and there is a far easier way to handle it. There isn't necessarily harm in keeping it, but it just seems superfluous, no matter if 1 or 400000 people use it ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:02, 4 August 2017 (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).

Template:Famines in India

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 August 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 5 August 2017 (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).

Template:Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Entertainment News Program

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent of {{Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Musical Performance in a Talk Show/Morning Program}} that we should delete these Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:06, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:List of Great powers by date

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 August 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 5 August 2017 (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).

Template:Tram in Algeria

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis"

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 August 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 5 August 2017 (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).

Template:Kosovo (UNMIK)

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:01, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:PD-audio

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to {{PD-old-100}} FASTILY 08:23, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Karthi

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates must not include an actor's film roles. If this template aspires to be like that of Kamal Haasan or Leonardo DiCaprio, it has to include his directing, producing or writing credits. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: out of curiosity, is there a policy or guideline for this rule? Or if there's consensus, where might this be found?  Seagull123  Φ  19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seagull123, yes. WP:NAVBOX reads, "Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others." --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_27&oldid=1143416384"