Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

edit


Template:Plan B (duo)

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plan B (duo) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless as only one album and no singles articles on this template. Only one single has on an article and the use of this template for navigation is not needed. Erick (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2012 (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:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost all countries that were under Axis occupation do not have template about the collaborationism on Wikipedia (I found only Denmark). BoDu (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The name is inherently selective / POV and pejorative. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every template that exists is selective. Sources on the subject have deemed collaboration an important enough topic that they have written extensively about it in reliable university published books and indeed some of them deal solely on it. Inserting individuals, organizations, groups, etc. who collaborated with the Axis side is not "pejorative" and is done according to what these reliable sources say. We are not here to pick sides and delete sourced templates that we personally dislike. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @North8000 We are here to summarize reliable secondary sources, and not to decide on our own what is "pejorative". One may disagree on a personal level, but simply by virtue of the fact that the template is thoroughly sourced, it is neither "pejorative" nor "POV". In other words, if acclaimed scholars affirm that that a state or organization or person collaborated (with the Axis), not only is conveying that information not "pejorative" - its what we're here to do.
    • @BoDu. That's not any kind of an argument for deleting sourced content. Yugoslavia was a country where collaboration with the occupation powers was an extremely complex phenomenon, and I dare say more widespread than in any other country in all occupied Europe (not counting Vichy France perhaps, though they were neutral). -- Director (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collaborationism in Yugoslavia is not more notable than collaborationism in France, Holland, Belgium, Greece etc. Collaborationism in Yugoslavia renders 8,730 hits on Google Books. Collaborationism in France 126,000. Collaborationism in Holland9,020. Collaborationism in Belgium 11,900. Collaborationism in Greece 12,200 etc. BoDu (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is the latest in BoDu's failed attempts to remove Mihailovic from the template in spite of referenced information. BoDu's entire argument rests on WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its a thoroughly sourced template, and carefully worded to avoid bias. In my personal opinion, BoDu is not at all concerned with fairness or whether the template is "pejorative". This is simply the latest in a series of his WP:FORUMSHOPPING attempts to remove mention of the ethnic Serbian Chetnik movement and its leaders from a template covering collaboration (BoDu joins us from Serbia). After being stopped in his aggressive edit-war, it became apparent that the user has no sources. Having been caught quoting false references [1], he's now trying to delete the whole template (on WP:ANI, WP:DRN [2], WP:TFD, admin talkpages, you name it). -- Director (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the reliable published sources used in the articles that fall within this template make the clear point that in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2 (which is what we are talking about), collaboration was a highly significant issue. Therefore this template is significant/notable in its context. The only policy argument that has been mentioned (briefly) above in support of deletion is that of NPOV. NPOV requires that this template represents fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I am not aware of a single reliable source that suggests any of the people or organisations in this template didn't collaborate with the Axis at some point during the war. Some of them also resisted the Axis as some point, and that has its own template which can be (and has been) applied to those people/organisations that the reliable sources indicate it should apply to. My understanding from a close reading of the texts I personally own (Roberts, Milazzo, Tomasevich 1975 and 2001, Pavlowitch and others) is that these sources do not reveal any bias in respect of their views on the collaboration of those currently on this template. There are also several other people and organisations that should be on this template but currently are not. Therefore, the template is not POV, and should be retained because it reflected the significant views published by reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and removal from this category as RfD / AfD is not a means of dispute resolution. Having assisted with an uninvolved attempt at dispute resolution / 3O on this subject I noted that there is a heated argument on the talk page that has degraded to hostility.
This is not the appropriate location to resolve such hostility, nor is it's deletion or even discussion for deletion warranted as no formal dispute resolution has been examined beyond irrational degradation of communication on the talk page. I suggest all editors involved perhaps take a step back and allow uninvolved parties to take over on this matter, or if they can remain rational and cool headed pursue dispute resolution formally.
It is not appropriate when the project, or an article, suffers due to the dispute of parties on it's direction. If the quality of the article and it's accuracy is truly the agenda, then this advice is obviously the way to go. However given how aggressive the argument on the talk page looks as of today, I have a feeling that the article or the projects best interests are not even part of the equation. :/ BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging by the current state of the template, I'd be tempted to say Delete, since it appears to be used for some pov-pushing purposes, and some cases are controversial (while others are not). But I'd say the better option would be to rename and recompose into a template about the whole World War II context in Yugoslavia, without any labels. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the cases included are "controversial". And noone is being "judged" as a "collaborator". The template template does not use any such labels, but merely mentions prominent persons involved in the conflict who the sources state have cooperated with the Axis occupation. -- Director (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Draža Mihailović case is very controversial : I think everybody knows this, except Direktor, or at least he pretends not to. Putting him next to Ante Pavelić is simply absurd. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not "controversial" (at least as far as the sources are concerned) that Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis. What is controversial is the view different sources take of Mihailović on the whole. Your argument is, in essence, an attempt to delete mention of Mihailović having collaborated - disguised as an appeal to "neutrality" with regard to the overall assessment of Mihailovic. Despite what you may or may not claim, it is patently obvious that the template does nothing other than mention persons who engaged in collaboration, and does NOT offer any kind of overall view on Mihailovic. -- Director (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. Alternatively, rename and refocus to World War II in Yugoslavia. I raised concerns about this template ages ago at Template_talk:Yugoslav_Axis_collaborationism/Archive_1 and since gave up arguing, but there is a strong POV-pushing contingent that wants to emphasize that the Chetniks/royalists were totally Nazi-hugging traitors. Now. To be sure, there is an element of truth to this, and DIREKTOR has a pile of sources that will tell you exactly how evil Mihailovic is, etc. However, it is unquestionably - unquestionably! - true that Mihailovic at the very least *courted* the Allies and that the Chetniks performed *some* actions against the Nazis. There's also Operation Halyard where the Chetniks directly aided downed American airmen. It is a respectable position to say that this is all smokescreen, Mihailovic really favored the Nazis or at least thought they were his best bet, and so on. So DIREKTOR's sources and the communist-run trials after the war have their place. However, it is *also* a respectable position that the Chetniks were on the Allied side, but didn't get Allied aid, took whatever aid they could get (which included from the Nazis sometimes), and had they defeated the Partisans in the civil war, would have turned their firepower more fully on the Nazis. Wikipedia should not blanket assume which position is correct. The Chetniks position in WWII is complex; even if counted as ultimately favoring the Nazis (a harsh assessment, but one I agree with!), they should not be implied to be in the same league as the Ustaše, which is what this template does. Mihailovic was a guerilla in the mountains, not a Nazi puppet in the capital protected by German troops. The Chetniks indubitably focused most of their energy on defeating the Partisans, which is a tragedy, but that doesn't qualify them as collaborators.
Again, the Chetniks do not lend themselves to easy categorization, which this template tries to do. Were the Chinese communists Japanese-loving traitors for attacking the Chinese Nationalists? Were the Chinese Nationalists Japan-loving traitors for attacking Mao's communists? There totally were informal truces at times to, say, let the Japanese go beat up some communists... yet a "Chinese Axis collaborationism" article that includes all sides of the war would be crazy. SnowFire (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so you're suggesting we get rid of the resistance template too? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "resistance template" is a silly counter-template created by FkpCascais explicitly for the purpose of deleting this template. And I will repeat again: we already have a general template that lists the main factions of the war. It does not go into detail regarding the very large phenomenon that is WWII collaboration in Yugoslavia, and I cannot see how we could possibly convey the information from one template in the other. In fact, even if we were to try and do that, the already-huge general template would I think finally become completely unwieldy and inelegant. -- Director (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DIREKTOR on this - go ahead and delete the "resistance" template as well, or merge it into a combined "Factions in Yugoslavia in WWII" template or something. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire, your analogies betray a lack of familiarity with the subject. Since you've elected to go deeper into the content dispute, please allow me to retort. It is not the fact that the Chetniks fought the communists that accounts for their activities being called "collaboration" - in fact had they actually done only that and nothing else, it would be the communists who could be called "traitors". However the fact of the matter is that they actively collaborated with the Axis powers. By "actively" I mean they concluded alliances with them. Numerous alliances. Were supplied by them. Held territory in their name. Fought for the Axis in major offensives. Etc. etc.
Now I won't go on further, since there's enough Chetnik collaboration to fill entire articles, I do however have to object at your dismissal of the "pile of sources". They are not "my" sources, I did not by any means bring even the majority of them up, and I must point out that the general consensus is that they're a collection of the best and most acclaimed publications available on this (relatively obscure) subject.
As for who's "side" the Chetniks were on, and the complexity of their situation, it can be explained in a sentence. The Chetniks were ideologically opposed to the Axis, and were "de jure" a resistance movement, but de facto collaborated with the Axis occupation authorities. Hence, after an exhaustive discussion and sources research, by consensus they are listed in the pro-Axis "side" in the Yugoslav Front infobox. Their resistance activities have been described as "marginal" (Milazzo p.182). However, that is not at all the point of this template. I emphasize again: the template only mentions persons and organizations who the sources (unanimously!) describe as having collaborated with the Axis. That is its purpose, and that is all the information it conveys. I do not for one second buy into the claim that the template somehow "brings forth judgement" upon the factions listed therein. In any case, it does no more or less than depict what the sources state. -- Director (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's agreement between us on the rough facts (although I believe you overstate the unanimity of historians - as Jean-Jacques Georges already noted, you seem to assume that all sources with a positive view of Mihailovic don't count), but I still emphatically disagree about this template. Remember, I actually trudged down to a university library to read up on this, and yes, the sources you referenced did cast Mihailovic in a bad light on many factors, and they are solid sources.
Let's be precise in our terms. There's basically two possible senses of "collaborate." One is "worked with the Axis at some point." Indisputably true the Chetniks did this, but uncomfortably true for lots of forces, see my China in WWII example. (Not to mention that communists all over Europe were oddly passive while Hitler was allied with the USSR...) The other is "full on Nazi puppet." So Petain, Quisling, etc. Many readers will assume the latter meaning in a template like this, and most non-Chetnik entities on the list *were* outright Nazi puppets. And you agree that the royalists weren't just Nazi puppets. So to claim it's not prejudicial to list them there next to the Ustase... I mean, come on.
I actually like your sentence. "The Chetniks were ideologically opposed to the Axis, and were "de jure" a resistance movement, but de facto collaborated with the Axis occupation authorities." And you agree that they performed "marginal" acts of resistance. I think it is *perfectly obvious* that such an entity does not qualify as a "collaborator." They were performing "marginal" acts of resistance! They were a de jure resistance movement! The Americans wanted to favor them, and were only dissuaded by the British (who'd been influenced by a communist spy's reports)! These aren't ignorable details, these facts completely upend the case for including them in a "collaborationism" template, which should be reserved - if used at all - for de jure collaborationist movements (even if, weirdly enough, a de jure collaborator were somehow de facto resistance!). Maybe we should switch analogies. Pretty much everyone agrees that during the Cold War, Libya was a Western ally under the monarchy, and a Communist ally under Gaddafi. (See the reverse for, say, Indonesia which went East -> West after a coup in the 60s). But de jure, both Libya & Indonesia were members of the Non-aligned movement. In no way should they be stuck on a "Warsaw Pact members" template, because, um, they weren't part of the Warsaw Pact. I don't know. It seems utterly obvious to me that templates should stick to de jure, especially when just how much the Chetniks were Axis collaborators is a messy topic shot through with speculation. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your Unaligned Movement and Warsaw Pact analogies don't take us anywhere. I don't agree with Direktor's de facto/de jure formulation either. Mihailovic himself wanted to resist but his concept of resistance was to wait until the Allies landed. Otherwise he essentially did nothing very much, with the aim of saving his arms and people for the fight when it came. Of course it never did, and because the Partisans did resist and because he opposed their aims, he was forced into a situation where he had to fight them in order to have any chance of restoring the status quo ante. To fight them he needed arms, so he got them from the only source available, the Axis. The Partisans also got their arms from the Axis, but instead of making agreements to work with the Acis, they got them by killing Axis troops and taking them. The Chetniks were not homogenous, but the vast majority of them were formally auxiliaries of the Italians or Germans at one point or another. That makes them collaborators. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire, please forgive me, but as Peacemaker points out above, the more you talk the more you betray a lack of understanding of the subject. I won't go into that anymore however.
@"I believe you overstate the unanimity of historians - as Jean-Jacques Georges already noted, you seem to assume that all sources with a positive view of Mihailovic don't count." - That is simply not true, and I must say I find the comment offensive. I'm sure you "believe" that, as you say, but I think only because you've been convinced. Can you provide a single solitary example of me disregarding sources, in support of your blatant accusations of bias? The fact of the matter is, the sources are basically all in agreement. They only differ (slightly!) in their overall assessment of Draza Mihailovic himself - and the template does not offer any overall assessment. I emphasize once more: the sources are not in conflict with regard to the fact that he did specifically engage in direct collaboration with the occupation authorities. In fact here is, just for example, an excerpt with Mihailovic admitting this in his own words:

"The high point of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis powers was reached during the Battle of the Neretva in the winter of 1943, which was the final phase of Fall Weiss or, in Yugoslav terminology, the Fourth Enemy Offensive. (Tomasevich I p.232)... In the final phase, the Battle of the Neretva River, the total number of Chetnik auxiliaries and other Chetnik formations closely working together with the Italians was between 12,000 and 15,000 men. (p.236)... Apparently to make sure that the crucial operation on the Neretva would be carried out successfully, and also to be present at the scene of the kill, Mihailović himself moved from Montenegro to Kalinovik where he joined Ostojić, who had up to this point been in command of operations in Herzegovina. On March 9 Mihailović wrote to Colonel Stanišić: 'I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Branko Ostojić, Mihailović's Chief of Operations]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected...' (p.241)"

Noone is disregarding or de-emphasizing any sources - that is an empty rhetorical claim. When asked to bring forth sources that are supposedly being "disreagrded" the claimants universally go quiet. I will repeat myself again. Resistance is a different subject from collaboration. These do not "cancel each-other out". The subject of the template is collaboration. Even had the Chetniks been ten times more active and useful to the Allied cause, because of the fact they also collaborated, we still would have no basis from removing them from a template that attempts to summarize movements that did engage in collaboration.
And finally: this is all a content dispute - not an argument for deleting the template. All the objections against this template seem to be based around the Chetniks, their reputation, and the misguided idea that this template "renders judgement" upon them, simply by listing them as having engaged in collaboration (which they indisputably did, and not in a small way). One gets the impression that if the Chetniks were removed from the template, we would have nothing to talk about. The inescapable conclusion is that this deletion is centred around removing a perceived "stain" on the Chetniks image. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) @Peacemaker: Fair enough.
@Direktor: Give me a break. Of course this template passes judgment. Nazi collaborators are deservedly scorned... which is why Wikipedia should be *extremely careful* passing that label around. Readers are welcome to read the article and see the murky & complex bloodbath that was Yugoslavia in WWII, and also read about the dark side of the Chetniks. Nobody should be reduced to this label though unless it is obviously appropriate. Think of "collaboration" as the equivalent of "terrorism", a word specifically called out in WP:WTA. People hate terrorists, but there are zillions of organizations that have carried out "terrorism" at some point who obviously shouldn't just be called blanket terrorists, because that carries a strong negative POV to be used carefully, not indiscriminately.
As for the "content dispute" parts, you are either ignoring or not understanding my point. We obviously have some disagreements on what counts as the current historical consensus of the facts. Fine. Putting that aside and using strictly your interpretation of the facts... this is still a terrible template. Yes, the Chetniks engaged in small-c acts of collaboration. Nobody is disputing that. However, the idea that even if they were ten times more effective in fighting the Nazis, they still deserve to be here? What? If any act of cooperation with the Nazis qualifies you for the template, then this template is stupid and useless, exactly the same as a "Terrorists" template that includes every army that ever did anything vaguely terroristic (so, uh, all of them). The Partisans should probably join the template too, then, since I recall reading somewhere (no, I don't recall the source) that there was a low-level dealings & arms purchases from Italy in the war in Croatia. But adding the Partisans for this is obviously ridiculous. Any standard that might include them should be reconsidered!
Additionally, your attitude that any disagreement is obviously caused by ignorance is aggravating. Let me state it again: even accepting your view of the Chetniks entirely, I still think this template is problematic. This isn't something that can be changed by more research, this is standard WP:Neutral Point of View. You want to use a very weak standard for collaborationism as terms of entry for this template that sticks both conflicted cases like the Chetniks and Nazi puppet states like the Ustase right next to one another. However, there is no way to indicate this weak standard in the template, and instead a reader with a little bit of knowledge is left to conclude that all the listed cases are roughly equal for a *very* charged topic. You've already stated that the Chetniks were de jure a resistance movement. They just weren't the same animal as the Nazi puppet governments they are placed next to, even if de facto they aided the Axis.
I'd be happy to talk about sources & historical methodology elsewhere so that you don't claim people are getting "quiet" on sourcing, but not here, because see above, it's a distraction. Let's just assume you are correct about the facts for now. This template is still bad and should be deleted or refactored. SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not "give you a break". "Nazi collaborators" may be scorned, but this is certainly no reason to avoid mentioning "Nazi collaboration". Wikipedia follows sources, and does not pander to popular sentiment. This template merely mentions those organizations and individuals that did, unquestionably, collaborate with the Axis (not necessarily the Nazis in Yugoslavia's case). It simply does not offer an overall assessment of the Chetnik role in the fighting (such as, for example, the consensus infobox on the Yugoslav Front article). That is a blatant, patently obvious fact. All that the template conveys is the (entirely undisputed and sourced) fact that the Chetniks did, in fact, collaborate. The proposition that elaborating on their collaboration activities depicts the Chetniks in a negative light - is of course accurate, since its a "negative" aspect of their WWII activities. It is precisely because of this that pro-Chetnik partisans wish it to be deleted at all costs - even at the cost of eliminating the whole damn template as collateral damage.
In short, the template only addresses the collaboration activities of the Chetniks, i.e. that aspect of their involvement in WWII. It does not assess or judge all aspects of the movement, nor provide information on the overall role of the Chetniks. That proposition is absurd, and is simply the latest argument fabricated by the "pro-Chetnik side" of the long-standing dispute for the sole purpose of "protecting" the Chetniks' image from the negative aspects of their activities. Or in other words: "let's mention Chetnik collaboration as sparingly as possible". Anyone who took the time to review Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism can see that's what all this is about.
And finally, even if you were right, and you are most certainly not, it would still not be appropriate to delete the whole template. I request that you please clearly distinguish between mentioning that the Chetniks collaborated - and describing their activities overall by referring to them as "collaborators". It is an important distinction that immediately reveals the straw man (or rather "straw template") BoDu and JJG are bashing. -- Director (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not a straw man. That is exactly the problem. I already talked about big c vs. small c collaboration above, which is precisely the distinction this template blurs. Look, you've already said you don't like the "Resistance in Yugoslavia" template. Your argument could be maintained exactly for sticking the Chetniks on a template called "Resistance in Yugoslavia" whose only criteria is that the group helped the Allies somehow, somewhere. They performed acts of resistance, but we're not calling them 'resistance' anywhere, so therefore it's okay? Isn't it obvious that such a resistance template is POV-pushing, and is trying to surround the Chetniks with a halo of other groups that resisted more effectively? Would the Chetniks still qualify for such a template even if their contributions to the Axis were ten times as blatant? Apparently so, by such a legalistic template. The collaborationism template is the same way, sticking the Chetniks right next to Nazi puppet governments. The Chetniks don't belong on either template. Templates that deal with hot-button issues need to step carefully or just not exist; something like a "Ku Klux Klan members" template for US politics that made no distinction between lifetime Klan members, ambivalent people of uncertain allegiance, and people who hated the Klan but happened to be in it briefly during their childhood would have the same problems.
As for refactoring vs. deletion, well, there's renaming the template to "Nazi puppet governments in Yugoslavia" and removing the Chetniks. But you'd hate that solution even more, and it would have the effect of whitewashing the Chetniks somewhat. So nah, either delete or make part of a general Yugoslavia in WWII template, it's the only solution that doesn't have Wikipedia casting judgments down, intentionally or not. If we need a huge template, then we need a huge template. SnowFire (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the template is inherently POV as the term collaborator is loaded. It's a complex issues, and the template is unnecessarily reductionist. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "collaborator" is not used in the template. Only the issue of the person of Draza Mihailovic can conceivably be viewed as "complex", and its not worth deleting content over. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template uses "Collaborationism" and "Collaborationist" instead. It also includes the Chetnik movement, not just Mihailovic. SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Chetnik movement collaborated or not is not a "complex" issue in any way. -- Director (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
find me a reliable published source that says the Chetniks didn't collaborate. There is a lot of talk about POV here, but no rubber on the road, no business end of the argument. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's not the problem. The Chetniks mostly collaborated, but also engaged in limited resistance, and as we have discussed before, the Chetnik were never truly unified or consistent in their activities. The template does not allow for any grey, it's a black stamp only, and I believe it does render judgment. This is a problem with templates in general. I personally think the best solution would be to rename the template to something like "Resistance and Collaboration in Yugoslavia", per JJG's suggestion. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are imperfect in general, that's true. Deleting them, however, is obviously not the solution. Please propose a renaming or re-purposing on the talkpage and we can discuss the matter appropriately. Indeed, I'm puzzled as to why you and JJG profess that you do not want to delete the template, and yet start your posts here with the word "Delete!". -- Director (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, in this discussion, which is only about whether to keep it as it is or delete it, I favor deleting it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you would support deleting the entire template over what could be solved by a content modification (on two or three entries thereof)? -- Director (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2012 (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:UK-LEG ext

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK-LEG ext (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken, and redundant to UK-LEG Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2012 (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:Thai name

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, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thai name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No evidence that their is such a practice in English texts. No doubt that this is what is done in Thai, but rather dubious if this is a widespread --and widely acknowledged-- practice in English. Living or dead persons, are normally referred to by their last name in Wikipedia. "Properly" is a pointless phrase in this context. Mootros (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Mootros (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention this in the MOS, too. It is already practice in articles on Thai persons, because editors who have started these articles and are familiar with Thai naming customs have used this practice instinctively. (It is really weird for someone acquainted with Thai naming practice to read a person referred to only by their last name.) It is the same thing as with Icelandic names, for which we have the Template:Icelandic name as well.
Some references for the use of first names when referring to Thai people: "When possible, address Thais by military, professional, or academic title + first name." (Mary Murray Bosrock: Asian business customs & manners, 2007); "Among the Thai, the first element is usually the given name and it has precedence in identifying persons over the second element which is the surname. The usual form for a general in the Thai army, for example, is the title of general followed by the given name — not the surname, as in the west." (Paula Kay Byers: Asian American genealogical sourcebook, 1995); "...the average Thai, who is still addressed for the most part by his first name only. A person named Sulaksana Patibatsarakich, for example, would be called simply Sulaksana or Nai (Mr.) Sulaksana; ..." (Valentin Chu: Thailand today, a visit to modern Siam, 1968); "A surname, or family name, is never used alone even in the most formal situations..." (Shōichi Iwasaki, Inkapiromu Puriyā Horie: A Reference Grammar Of Thai, 2005)
In English-language literature on Thailand topics and Thai people, you will always read it this way, even in the book titles, e.g. "Thaksin: the business of politics in Thailand" (not: "Shinawatra: the business of politics in Thailand"); "Divided over Thaksin: Thailand's coup and problematic transition" (not: "Divided over Shinawatra..."); "The Thaksinization of Thailand" (not: "The Shinawatrization")
More evidence for this practice in English-language texts: "Mr. Thaksin left the country...", "Mr. Thaksin is back at the center of Thai politics...", "Ms. Yingluck, a businesswoman with no political experience" (New York Times, Aug. 16, 2011); "Well, I just want to extend my congratulations to Prime Minister Yingluck for her leadership." (Speech by President Obama, Nov. 19, 2011); "...government spokeswoman Titima Chaisang told reporters, adding that Yingluck had asked her deputy to chair a cabinet meeting in her place." (The Telegraph, 29 Nov 2011); "Abhisit was backed by 249 parliamentarians..." (The Guardian, 19 March 2011); "Thai opposition seeks impeachment of Prime Minister Abhisit" (The Guardian, 24 May 2010); "The Constitutional Court stripped Samak from office on Tuesday" (The Australian, Sep 11 2008); "The airport siege ends after a Thai court disbands Mr. Somchai's People Power Party for alleged vote-buying" (WSJ, July 3, 2011). Is this enough to convince you? --RJFF (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to add a corresponding mention in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Subsequent use to avoid misconceptions and disputes in the future? --RJFF (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether anecdotal evidence would justify this template. Yes some English language newspapers follow this conventions for some politicians, but it seems far fetched to state that there is such a "proper" way in English. I'd say, on a case by case base might be the way forward but not a template. Mootros (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Reference Grammar Of Thai, "the average Thai", Asian business customs & manners... That is exactly the problem: The "the average Thai" does not speak English; she speaks Thai. The references are about Thai language or social context in Thailand or Asia. Living or dead persons, are normally referred to by their last name (if not the full name) in EN.Wikipedia. However, I have no problem that some articles may not do this because source texts might not do this either. If this template is to have a future, than it needs to be based on an entry in the MOS. Hence the case should be made there. Mootros (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Pawyilee has a point that this is the actual convention in Thai, Mootros is also correct in pointing out that our naming and style guidelines follow current practice rather than being normative and there does not appear to be any real evidence that English-language sources use this convention at present. Have a look at The Guardian's style guideline: they special-case Thaksin Shinawatra, but have no specific rule for Thai names in general. This may, and indeed quite possibly will, change in time, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to lead the way here. We follow language trends rather than leading the way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see anyone give any references of any English text of a Thai being refereed to by family name only, with the possible exception of the naturalized American citizen Joe Gordon (disambiguation), sometimes called Mr. Wichaikhammat. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I thought I had already shown that it is actual practice in English-language texts to follow Thai naming convention. These examples are not anecdotal, but rather representative. But I agree that this should be discussed at MOS and I will propose it there. --RJFF (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lerpong Wichaikhamma is the best example. It is purely anecdotal. Is Wichaikhamma not a Thai name? Or shall there be an additional rule for Thai names, depending on nationality? It's a slippery slope and would lead to a rule that still ends in a complex case by case base. Mootros (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Thai names. --RJFF (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment. Mootros (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Refactored thread a bit.) --Paul_012 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The template was first created back in 2008 when it said something like "This is a Thai name. A is the given name, B is the surname." It was deprecated and deleted because, unlike Chinese names, the arrangement was not confusing for readers familiar with the Western convention and such information was deemed unnecessary. Though this new iteration is somewhat different, its objective seems to be to inform editors rather than readers, which is not the proper use of a hat note template. In most cases, I don't think readers need to be told this information in a hat note, although I do note that Ratchanok Inthanon was a recent subject of name order confusion. Since others have noted their concern about giving prescriptions for proper use, perhaps having the old template format just telling the reader which name is which in confusing cases would suffice. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For editors, <!-- Comment --> functions both as an inline or hatnote. I believe article hatnotes have evolved into conveniences for mobile readers, to let them know immediately if they've arrived where they want to be, or need to go to one of the handy-dandy articles write before their eyes. Accordingly, I withdraw my support for a Thai name hatnote in favor of an editorial comment along the lines of <!-- Thai names normally appear by given name after first mention of full name and titles.-->. Come to think of it, sticking with the same short name while noting name changes would be a great help to readers of pre-20C Thai & Lao subjects where many principles undergo name changes after every battle — and be a pain in the "but" for editors.--Pawyilee (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_6&oldid=1138535872"