Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 7 June 2012

June 6

Template:Non-free Philippines government

Template:Non-free Philippines government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to two discussions on Commons, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov, this template is wrong. Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Both commons discussions are rather short and come to unverified conclusions. The reality is we don't know what the Philippines law means and won't until we get some caselaw.©Geni 12:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fighters in UFC templates

Template:Heavyweight Fighters in UFC 2009 Undisputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Heavyweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Light Heavyweight Fighters in UFC 2009 Undisputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Light Heavyweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lightweight Fighters in UFC 2009 Undisputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lightweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Middleweight Fighters in UFC 2009 Undisputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Middleweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Welterweight Fighters in UFC 2009 Undisputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Welterweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use templates which should be simply merged with the article and deleted (the Undisputed 3 templates were deleted here). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kashmir separatist movement

Template:Kashmir separatist movement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

How the previous was closed as no consensus is beyond me. This template is purely political and will never be neutral, the majority of articles in it have nothing to do with kashmiri seperatists or freedom movements. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and close Re-nominating a template just hours after it gets closed in a discussion where the result was quite clear. This nomination is really nothing other than blatant WP:POV-pushing and demonstration of the fact that the nominator simply can't digest the result of the TfD. The template was edited while at TfD, leaving no further concerns. It is also a disregard of the opinions of various users that have been given already on this debate. Yet again, the nominator fails to provide a cohesive argument of how the template is "purely political" and not neutral, or how the "majority of articles in it have nothing to do with kashmiri seperatists or freedom movements". This nomination qualifies as nothing more than a WP:POINT. Mar4d (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • of course, you failed to mention that the closing statement said "Feel free to renominate it if you still feel it should be deleted". I would say this is an invitation to start a new discussion. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about what? Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Clear POV. Used for pure propaganda. Most of the organizations are terrorist groups, but it shows them as organizations fighting for freedom. No idea what does the Human rights abuses and Operations sections has to do with this. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 09:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What POV and propaganda? Also, what terrorist groups? Mar4d (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell why ISI activities are not included? Also the Operations section is a clear copy-paste from Template:Kashmir conflict. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 09:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

ISI activities are only alleged, not a fact. If you still don't understand the process, what doesn't exist won't come by deleting what does... this is a content dispute that belongs to talk page... deleting the template would just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Vibhijain: you are incorrect, the Template:Kashmir conflict was created after this template. Mar4d (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, most of the human abuse cases are also alleged. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And again, they are attributed as such while the there's no such article about ISI (if there is and is not following npov rather stating things as facts without inline denials, that should be nominated for deletion too). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: This template was just kept, nothing has changed that warrants a deletion now; vide the arguments given on last deletion debate. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As I said in the original discussion, any template that focuses on a single point of view on an issue is by definition non-neutral and should be deleted per criteria #4. The reader is better served by the Kashmir conflict template which helps our readers navigate through the situation in Kashmir in a neutral way. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - the previous closure was a bad one. This should be deleted per criteria 4. There are many things that are just alleged and at the end, not at all neutral. Things included are irrelevant. There is a section Human rights abuse which has nothing to do with the freedom moment. Rape and human right abuse not at all help the viewers if they want to read about separation. Human right abuse section should "completely" be removed and few other things. Also key figures section is incomplete and more names should be added or completely removed. Unless this things are done, it is a not at all neutral. →TSU  19:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So you are of the opinion that you can nominate the template as many times as you'd like till you get a consensus for deletion if you are of the opinion that the closure was bad? Please see WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate it. I think that you first of all need to read it. The previous closure was a bad one because it should have been re-listed and in past similar things have happened at Afds where I m very active that an afd gets hastily closed as "NC" and then it gets re-nominated or closure gets reverted. I m not just saying a strong delete, nor I m against the previous closure (I just stated my view) but this template is clearly not neutral. →TSU  21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what WP:POINT says, that's what I meant if you would renominate a template an unlimited number of times (that is disruption to make the point). Well, when there's no consensus, that means it is a default keep. Many RFCs and AFDs are closed as such. That is mostly helpful as it is taken as basis for reaching consensus for further issues at talkpage discussions. Not that, the previous debate went to waste just because there was no consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I m not the nominator. →TSU  21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Just commented on your views. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - not contributing in any useful way to the coverage of the issue here. --Rvd4life (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:TFD#REASONS#4 agree with User:TheSpecialUser this is a POV template. the template uses Incidents of Rape of poor souls and Human right abuses as a freedom separatist movement. These have nothing to do with the so called Seperatist movement. Portrayl of Incident of Rapes as supporting the freedom movement is POV of an extreme degree. The terrorist organisations had been removed now to save the template from deletion but will be added again as soon as the discussion is closed. The see also section cherry picks articles to make a point for separatist movement. I have no idea how the Pakistani army operations are portrayed as separatist movement. I also agree with Regentspark that Kashmir conflict template which already exists presents articles in a neutral way. As for the accusation of WP:POINT above, In my opinion the last tfd Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_29#Template:Jammu_and_Kashmir_freedom_movement should not have been closed with no consensus but actually relisted for a better consensus, as it was not re-listed it was nominated again.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep And how the hell is a collection of relevant links POV? And how the hell does deleting fix anything. This should be fixed by editing, and if you think POV stuff will get back in here, WATCHLIST THE DAMN PAGE AND FIX IT WHEN IT HAPPENS. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If this template can never be neutral, we bette delete any templates about the politics of abortion, or about South Ossetia's separatist movement, or about Azawad. If this template can't be neutral, I can't see how those can be. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Watch out for the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, kthxbai. CRRaysHead90 | 08:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're citing that incorrectly. This is about precedence and general consensus/trend. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but what is the value of a template which links to known criminals such as the ISI operative Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai and attempts to legitimise them? --Rvd4life (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing: {{trout}} to the nominator. If you had a problem with the close, that's what deletion review is for. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Not again! Just fix the POV issues if there are any. I'd say invite neutral editors for comments. Pakistani and Indian editors will definitely have POV issues on topics like these.Samar (Talk . Contributions) 08:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Clear POV pushing...I don't understand how Human Right Abuses form part of a so-called Separatist Movement

• Operation Bison and(or) Operation Grand Slam etc.. refer to Indo-Pakistani wars..not Separatist movements...
• How do you explain Pro-Pakistan Sentiment in Pakistan's link with Separatist movement??
• As the nominator already says...this can never become a NPOV template with such Pakistan-POV links in it.I assume the writers' of this template couldn't find any many links related to the so-called Separatist movement..hence..info about the alleged abuses in J&K are added here.What explanation can you give for that? ƬheⱾtrikeҾagle 10:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It surely is a content issue as evident from most of the delete comments (Why is this mentioned?, Why is that mentioned?), and it can be addressed by discussion at relevant page instead of deleting it. And most of the the editors who !voted delete didn't even discuss this content issue with the creator of this template and some even reverted any attempts that were made to address the issues raised proving it a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. --SMS 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and edit - As others have already mentioned, an attempt should first be made to fix the POV issues before nomination for deletion. As it is currently set up, the template has a strong bias.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An unbiased template already exists at Template:Kashmir conflict. --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That one is separately justified and has a different purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Different purpose" I agree with. The different purpose is "neutrality"! :) --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you and every one else is confusing the two things. The movement is separatist and contention, true... and every POV they have might not be neutral to you.. but that's what the articles are about. A template for navigation of all those articles about the separatist movement is not a POV template because it actually is about the same movement and how all their articles are related. The movement itself is POV, not the articles about them. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- This nomination states "(a) This template is purely political and will never be neutral; (b) the majority of articles in it have nothing to do with kashmiri seperatists or freedom movements."

WRT point (a) -- I don't believe there is any topic that can not be covered from a neutral point of view when good faith contributors make enough effort. Are there times when the effort required is too great? Maybe, sometimes, particularly when some of the involved parties can't or won't compromise. But I am very disturbed when it looks like individuals jump immediately to deletion, without making a sincere effort to try discussion first.

WRT point (b) -- If a navigation template seems to include articles on topics that don't fit withing its scope surely deletion should be a last resort? Surely discussing removing the off-topic articles, or changing the scope of the template should be tried first? Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Keep alphabetized

Template:Keep alphabetized (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

transcludes {{null}}, so it is unclear why this is necessary. if there is a need to alphabetize a list, we have {{alphabetize}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If unclear ask the author? Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

So, what is the purpose? Plastikspork _―Œ 01:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The template is a signal to agents to keep a list alphabetiɀed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

which agents and why are they changing the order of lists? it doesn't look like it is working since Glossary of scientific naming#General terms is currently tagged but not currently alphabetized. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 04:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Agents" here is a synonym for "bots". I don't think we have any bots actually using it at present. Theoretically useful, but it's a deeply trivial task that humans do easily enough anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

if there are no bots using it, then why do we need it? seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox movie quote

Template:Infobox movie quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs an infobox. The detail that this infobox contains will always be included in its entirety in the lead of articles which transclude it; furthermore, it places undue weight on one particular source (the American Film Institute), making it arguably US-centric. Fixing that probably isn't worth the effort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, inclusion on that list is notable. Just make some changes to make its purpose more clear. Change the title at the top to AFI's 100 years 100 movie quotes to make it more clear that that's what it is. Possibly rename the template to AFIquote or similar as well. And, no, list of other movies that use it will not always be in the first line of the articles, nor will list of parodies of the quote (this template should have a spot for that). Also, we probably want to restrict it to articles about quotes and not put it on articles about movies. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you've actually addressed the rationale behind deletion. I'm not saying that quotes aren't notable because they aren't on the AFI Top 100: I'm saying that this is not a reason for their articles to need infoboxes which do nothing but repeat the most basic facts about the subject that might be included in the first two sentences of the article. The infobox is pointless duplication here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't the whole point of an infobox to summarize basic facts? I mean, sure, a movie quote doesn't have nearly as many stats as a city, but having an infobox is formatted differently than prose, and it makes it easier for someone to see this basic info. That said, I imagine this template could be improved by adding more info, such as the year of movie's release. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Infoboxes are intended to provide at-a-glance comparative information in an easily digestible format where otherwise it would require digging through an article. Where there is a paucity of such comparative information available an infobox is not required, and merely duplicates information unnecessarily. A film's release date is not directly pertinent to a given quote, and adding such trivia to an infobox on such articles would merely waste more space rather than help our readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep rams81 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 03:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1898

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1898 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template with no applicable links. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In conjunction with this template I would like to recommend combining all of the below templates for Pre-1907 Aviation accidents and incidents into one template. Most of the templates previous to 1907 either didn't have anything or only have 1 or 2 links. Here is a list of the ones I recommend combining.

1. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1819
2. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1824
3. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1848
4. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1874
5. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1875
6. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1896
7. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1897
8. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1898
9. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1899
10. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900
11. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1901
12. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1902
13. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1903
14. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1904
15. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1905
16. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1906
17. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1907

Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to suggest that all 18xx templates be combined into one, and 1900-1909 be combined into another template. This would divide them into the commonly recognized divisions of 1800s and 1900s-decade. (alternately, 19th century 1801-1900 and the oughts 1901-1910) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thats a great idea. Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Combine per nominator. A split post-1900 can be considered should it prove necessary in he fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)