Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

edit

Template:Wikipedia

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 Keep. Frivolous nomination. Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template should be deleted because it's a huge self reference that should be avoided at all costs. [April Fools!] wL<speak·check> 18:22, 1 April 2015 (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:Violence against Muslims 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. As per WP:CLN, navigational templates, categories and lists are—generally—thought to be complementary, and no explanation has been given as to why this wouldn't be the case in this instance. Furthermore, the prospect of vandalism is not considered to be a valid deletion criterion; this is part of our deletion policy. Persistent vandalism is dealt with WP:PP. Keep !votes refer to the immediate navigational usefuleness of the template, which hasn't been disputed. That all leaves us with the apparent veracity of the template's items, a point made by Kautilya3, and Abecedare's concern (echoed by Ghatus) with regard to what he considers to be the trivialisation of a complicated matter. There is a rough, tacit consensus that the template should only list major incidents, as those are defined in the parent article; therefore, the title can be amended accordingly. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Violence against Muslims in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary template, best served as a category. Using it paints entire article in one color. Not based on research, but hand picked. There is a useful category Anti-Muslim violence in India which serves the purpose in a more appropriate manner. AmritasyaPutraT 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A category or some "list of" page is better suited. The template is a kind of "navbox" with a personal selection of related pages, but no obvious NPOV or anything else "encyclopedic". It's just an ordinary spam attack, create lots of "WhatLinksHere" for a set of pages with minimal effort. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be..anyone, the selection is not "personal," it is based on coverage in the main article, which is a thoroughly sourced article; as such, it reflects the "high points," if such a term is appropriate, of anti-Muslim violence portrayed in the sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also tweaked the indentation; revert if problematic. I still don't get what you're saying. The main article is a valid one, just as the subsidiaries are; why would I want to substitute a template? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment six pages transclude the template, an attacker (vandal or spammer) could hit six pages by modifying the template. Watchlists for the articles won't show this kind of attack. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not doing something because it becomes easy to vandalize is a poor deletion rationale, in my opinion. This is true for any navbox used anywhere; yet navboxes exist, and are useful, and vandalism is spotted and dealt with soon enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, let's just agree to disagree, I'm also no fan of "big" navboxes at the bottom of dozens of pages, because I'm too often in the position to remove red links or links to new pages at an "original crackpot theory" level, undetected for days or weeks. I stumbled over this debate here while I had fun with the April 1st nomination of {{Wikipedia}} above. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is far broader than the template, seeing as it includes specific riots that were a part of larger incidents, as well as committees, and such things. It collects the notable incidents in a larger pattern that is well sourced and documented at the main article; "Violence against Muslims in India." Note; next sentence added later Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains this well; the use of one navigational system does not preclude the use of another. The supposed overlap here is between a category and a navbox, and as such most of the reasons for deletion presented here are not grounded in the guidelines. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is no different from the already existing category which is present in the articles. Other 'templates (of category)' like "Violence against pqr" can be made and it will only reduce the readability of these article. --AmritasyaPutraT 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is far more general, it connects, or should connect, any related incident and topic. The category is currently majorly under-populated. The template is specific; it links the major incidents, which are linked together by sources. Brass, for instance; Brass, Paul. "Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide in Contemporary India: From Partition to the Present". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not sure why a separate category is necessary - it seems like "Violence against Muslims in India" = "Anti-Muslim violence in India" --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplication and redundancy in wikipedia should be minimal. Gaidinliu (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete per nominator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC) not permitted to vote here as per sanctions.[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate template . -sarvajna (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly fine template supporting the well-written article Violence against Muslims in India. I suggest that the template be limited to the incidents listed in the article so that the two are coherent. The users asking for Deletion don't seem to distinguish between a category and a template. A template is meant to support quick navigation, and there is nothing wrong with it duplicating a category either in whole or in part. There are plenty of such templates on Wikipedia. An example is template:Sangh Parivar and category:Sangh Parivar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is a useful navigational tool that provides easy access to the main articles about anti-Muslim massacres in India. It is not a complete list of the events, but a list of the articles that we have on wiki, this is exactly the reason it is useful, since it helps the read know which related events are covered and access them easily. The deletion rationale seems vague to the point of IDONTLIKEIT. I see that Yogesh is back on the Hindutva team. When did your topic ban expire? The template as well as the article that it supports and for which it serves as a navigational tool, has been attacked by Yogesh and Sarvajna before in a POV campaign (or should we say POVgrom?) against articles describing Indias long an unpleasant story of communal violence targeting religious minorities. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 takes people to ANI and other such forums blaming people of canvassing among other such things and he ends up doing this [1]. Well the dirty mouth of Maunus is back with words like POVgrom, what else to say. -sarvajna (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, honestly it is hilarious to see you of all people complaining about canvassing. Especially in a discussion where every pro-hindutva editor magically materialize out of the wood work to strike a blow for the motherland. I am sure no, off-line coordination went into that. At least Vanamonde notified me publicly, after seeing me discussing about including this template at Talk:Nellie Massacre. If you dont like being accused of participating in POVgroms, then don't participate in them. BTW. I am pretty sure I just invented that word, so how can it already be dirty if it is entirely new?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is notifying UNINVOLVED editors. Maunus involved himself in the fracas over this template on the Nellie massacre page. I notified him only after that. Go read the policy before making any accusations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and make all kind of excuses you want -sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well Maunus having known you (not personally though), you generally use dirty language. I would be surprised if someone tells me that you have reformed. Also in your note below may be you can add something about yourself as well. -sarvajna (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always use language appropriate for the occasion. As for your insinuation, I have not been subject to any sanctions regarding my India related edits, and my Indian politics and history related editing makes up a very small portion of my general editing making it very hard to claim that I am an SPA. It is true that most of my India related edits have consisted in curbing the efforts to make hindutva POV universal in our coverage of Indian politics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You disappoint me Maunus, I thought you would delve more into the SPA thing and also speak about your NPA thing, thats ok. -sarvajna (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back up your insinuations with evidence. Yes I have called you unflattering epithets, and I probably will do so again. I have however never been sanctioned, warned or reprimanded for doing so. And your unsubstantiated insinuation that I have is itself a personal attack. Why you have never been sanctioned for your POV editing is a mystery to me. And I am not the first or only person to tell you this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you were never blocked for bad language or making personal attacks? About using "unflattering epithets", I have rarely reported anyone, you can enjoy my magnanimity. ( Have a good day, I can give you links for your NPA block if you need )-sarvajna (talk 19:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you are right, I was blocked on may 17th 2013 for calling you an admin a eunuch[2]. It was worth it.20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)·maunus · snunɐɯ·
(edit conflict)Well you are almost right about the words but wrong about the person, you called some other admin a eunuch or a son of eunuch. By making that comment you proved me right about your dirty mouth, just be careful you were blocked one and can be blocked again. -sarvajna (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have fulfilled your request for providing evidence of my own past wrongdoings I shall depart, and leave this mess to the closing, admin. But let me sign off by paraphrasing The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) and say you are skating on thin ice Sarvajna.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check your diffs again Maunus, also I never really got to know why I was on a thin ice, now that you have pingged the admin may be he can tell me now [3] .-sarvajna (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Several editors voting keep here are POV SPA, at least one of whom have previously been topic banned for tendentious editing in the topic area of this AfD. [EDIT: in fact per Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Users_subject_to_restrictions Yogesh Khandke is still topic banned from making any edits related to the topic of "colonialism and Indian history broadly construed", this of course means that participating in this discussion is a violation of his topic ban, since the template concerns Indian history - and furthermore the specific aspect of Indian history that he was topic banned for editing tendentitoisly. I will allow Yogesh the chance to strike his vote here, to avoid me having to file an arbitration enforcement request against him.]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if commenting on this subject is against topic ban, I apologise and kindly excuse me, and disregard my vote, I voted as I assumed this discussion was about form and not substance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful navigation aid for someone interested in incidents of violence against muslims in India. Clearly meets the purpose of navigational templates. --regentspark (comment) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we go by the logic of navigational template, we will also end-up with Violence against Hindus, Violence against Sikhs category-turned-into-template and added to these articles and will have two three templates and categories for the same purpose on several articles. It is a list of articles, and exactly what the category does now. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can write articles about ten major episodes of anti-hindu or anti-sikh violence then of course it will make sense to have a template to navigate between them. There is no rule that for every template dedicated to indian muslims another must be made for hindus. Templates serve navigational purposes between series of articles on similar topics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you see this edit and this edit, it explains the pov of this template. And the same article is in Category:Violence_against_Hindus as well, because in the riot Hindus were also murdered. And we have plenty of mass killing and genocide of innocent hindu children and women by muslims in India: 1998 Wandhama massacre, 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre, Godhra train burning, Dabgarwad massacre, and many more. And they are all listed appropriately in the category. Do you say we duplicate that category into a template? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a distinction between separatist action and general community based violence. What you would need to do first is to create an article that shows the same pattern of widespread community based violence against Hindus in India as the Anti Muslim article does against muslims. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
discussion went into WP:OSE
They are "Violence against Hindus" -- If not remove that category? You want to add a label to some of these public brutal murder of innocent women and children by muslims as 'separatist action' -- that is a separate discussion and a straw-man here. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your chutzpah - bringing up violence against hindus and then labeling any other off-topic stuff as 'a straw-man'! Sticking to the subject matter at hand, the template under discussion is a useful navigational aid and should be retained. No men (or women) of straw required. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we all love the word chutzpah lately RP?. AP has a point, also IMO this will set a very bad trend. Someone said above that this template should have those article under a particular article, so any article with a list will have a new template now. How difficult it is to add the articles in a category and then navigate? -sarvajna (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since AmritasyaPutra is actively expanding the already existing template:Violence against Hindus, [4], I hope he will abandon this nonsensical line of argument. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am the one who is abusing other editors or making arbitrary unsubstantiated accusation of SPA. Check this TfD discussion also. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya, I don't think you're seeing the genius of this argument. AP wants to have his cake and eat it too. There shouldn't be an "arbitrary" template collecting violence against Muslims; but if there is to be, then there will jolly well be a far far larger, poorly sourced and more arbitrary template about Hindus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OSE. Nominate that also for deletion, I would prefer both disappear. --AmritasyaPutraT 04:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know that "other stuff exists" is an invalid argument, how can you not know that "other stuff doesn't exist", "other stuff would have to exist", "oops, other stuff exists, but I still dont' like it" are all equally invalid? Only a warped mind can make all of these arguments simultaneously. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2015 (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:Vanderbilt University alumni box

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanderbilt University alumni box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template with no discernible purpose B (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2015 (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:Bill Conti

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bill Conti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2015 (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/2015_April_1&oldid=1138533885"