Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Template:Country data Chhattisgarh[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. Per WP:CSD#T2 and NFCC is policy, therefore no flag template can ever contain a non-free image. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Chhattisgarh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template incorporating nonfree image, facilitating the use of the nonfree image in articles without specific NFCC rationale. Violates WP:NFCC #s 9 and 10c. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 29 May 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:Rdir[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) 03:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't work; recently created; no point in having it around. I suppose it could be substituted, but really what's the point? — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to regard these as test edits, or else ones made by an editor unfamiliar with the existing redirect code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 29 May 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:Adam-Jacob[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 move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adam-Jacob (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is far too cumbersome to be a navbox or sidebar, so it will never be used on many articles—presently, it's just one. Suggest subst: and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Augen. Do we really need a table of fictional lifespans in any article? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 29 May 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:Queen's Award for Enterprise[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) 03:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queen's Award for Enterprise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Massive (35K) navigation template with more than 500 redlinks, and even so it is still incomplete. Only used on two articles (Queen's Awards for Enterprise) and 2 Entertain), it links together articles based on a minor aspect, the winning of one minor award presented to about 100 companies per year (expanding the 2000s section gives an idea of the scale of this). Winners include rather unconnected entities like the University of Nottingham, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and Land Rover: the navigational template adds little to nothing to such articles, and when completed would be immense (apparently some 5,815 awards have been given so far since 1966). Fram (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scraping the entire list from the award's website is arguably copyvio anyway, seeing as it's a creative work. Considering its serious scope problems as well, I'd get rid of this ASAP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, too many redlinks. if we really need this list, then have it in a list article. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 31 May 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:AS Aïn M'lila seasons[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) 03:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AS Aïn M'lila seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has only one link, which is red, and has only one transclusion. Dianna (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with User:Diannaa, perhaps the author of the template was not aware of see also section. And the Red link serves in no way to keep this template --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Diannaa. Maybe the author can be asked to give a statement on whether he/she intends to further work on that template before it is deleted. JCAla (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been lying this way since 2010 per its history no evidence of future work and good enough reason to delete--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:03, 29 May 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:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement[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, the template has been renamed and revised during the discussion. Feel free to renominate it if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV template which class designated terrorist groups in kashmir freedom groups Darkness Shines (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: this template recently appeared on many articles I watchlist and was relevant to them. The only part of this template that could be disputed or called a POV is the militant organizations' section with the rest of the template listing the articles related to the movement and its history. This makes it a talkpage discussion or content dispute and not a deletion discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redo, this is nothing more than unadulterated POV, the title is POV, you have "rape" included but nothing from the ISI activities is included etc. —SpacemanSpiff 04:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, I'm in agreement with RegentsPark on this, when we have a correctly titled template -- {{Kashmir conflict}} -- all that needs to be done is to include all aspects of the conflict within that. There's no reason to create this or any of the other sillies that RP is listed out. These are crystal clear violations of #4 and it's quite evident from the template talk page that this is the intention. —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TFD#REASONS#4 agree with User:SpacemanSpiff this is an unadulterated & severe POV. the template glorifies organizations that have been declared terrorist organisations around the world as Freedom fighters [1]. The rape and unrest added in the section2 have been written in the template as perpetrated by the state. Neither are these state perpetrated nor have there anything to do with the so called freedom movement or rather Seperatist movement. support deletion --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While its present state may violate POV rules, that deletion reason only applies to templates that can't fix it thru editing. (Something like "George W Bush is an idiot" would be a non-fixable POV situation). In this case, we can fix the POV issues, and maybe retitle to separatist movement instead of deleting. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fact that even after renaming the template still has several Universally Declared terrorist organisations under the banner Freedom movement and Portrayl of Incident of Rapes as supporting the freedom movement is POV of an extreme degree. so its better put away with this template--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no. Human rights abuses are actually a fundamentally important topic in the context of the Kashmir seperatist/freedom movement. Those links are entirely relevant to the template. And perhaps you could elaborate what movements you are referring to here; not all of them are "universally" declared such. I believe you are exaggerating. Mar4d (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • putting terrorist orgs and incidents of rape of poor souls as links under freedom movement ? this speaks all for me. I guess I ll will stop at this and not support attempts to make this TfD a WP:SOUP --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above delete comments further prove why this is a content dispute. I don't see articles getting deleted because a user thinks it is not NPOV.. they go to the talk page not TFD. TFD is not for clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this actually justifies deletion of this wp:POV template see WP:TFD#REASONS if you are not aware--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you're wrong. The template itself is not a POV. See my comment. The only issue that seems to be is the list of militants - and actually those are attributed here as militants and not as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" both of which are weasel words (WP:TERRORIST). As for so called activities for ISI, stating them would be POV itself as Pakistan denies such support. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I have a COI? And that is a catagory that will be going to deletion as well, Jem, as freedom fighters? Talk about pushing a POV. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see my added comment below) Clear non-neutral perspective on the situation in Kashmir that violates TFD reason 4 (see DBigXray's point above). Templates should be neutral navigation tools and should not be used to further a pov agenda. --regentspark (comment) 11:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if people could explain how the template does not meet WP:NPOV. Have you seen other nationalism templates? A template is a collection of links on a topic. There's nothing different about this one. Mar4d (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've asked here as well as on the talk page, the use of the word "freedom" is a clear non-neutral (about as clear as it gets). view of the situation in Kashmir (which our own article describes as a conflict). The inclusion of Jammu is also possibly non-neutral since the Kashmir conflict is largely confined to Kashmir. Note that our own article on the situation is named Kashmir conflict. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur from the above that your issue is with the title. In that case, the template could be renamed (such as Kashmiri separatist movement). Would you be willing to reconsider your !vote, if that were to be the case? Also, have you taken notice of the recent expansion and changes (in regards to improvement) that the template has recently undergone? Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now learn that we already have a template on the conflict itself (Template:Kashmir conflict). A template that reframes the conflict solely in terms of freedom or separatism is definitely non-neutral. Templates should not be used to further a pov agenda and this, regrettably, appears to have been created solely for that purpose. There is nothing in this template that cannot be included under in the Kashmir conflict template. --regentspark (comment) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable separatist movements have such templates, Indian independence movement and Pakistan Movement have templates separate from any of the conflict templates. Simply listing articles under a template can't possibly be a POV... after all there's been no discrimination in updating the list. If you think other articles are covered in the scope of the separatist movement template, then add them there. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. I have already indicated what I think here. The point is that you can't slice and dice things to suit a particular point of view. What are we going to have next - Template:Pakistani involvement in Jammu and Kashmir, Template:ISI and Jammu and Kashmir, Tempate:Tourism and the Jammu and Kashmir conflict, Template:Economic issues in the Jammu and Kashmir conflict, Template:TopGun's wikipedia edits and the Kashmir conflict and what have you. I should sure hope not. The purpose of a template is to provide a mechanism for navigation that is contextually complete, not to pull out one point of view and present that to the reader. Doing that is the very definition of a non-neutral point of view and goes completely against the principles of an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it is slicing like that... none of your examples are about a separatist movement. Separatist movements are notable (either in negative or positive way) and it is evident that this one has a load of articles which are listed on the template. The template itself is a mere tool of navigation. The POV objections in general seem to be on why those articles are grouped; well ofcourse they are related to each other. We should actually have an article for this.... Kashmir separatist movement which covers both the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and the political struggle. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Semi od) 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. This template fits that bill perfectly, in my opinion. But, let's see how this plays out. --regentspark (comment) 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All problems with this template are fixed by editing (and retitling if necessary), not deletion. Template:Pedophilia was nominated for similar reasons and has been reworked and greatly improved to fix its issues, and we can do the same here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:HEY is usually cited for articles, I think that applies to anything about content. Once improved the discussion about deletion becomes moot. Just another reason why this was supposed to be a talk page discussion. You don't just delete things that you don't like. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As already said above that all concerns mentioned above are fixable and some of them already fixed. This is more a content dispute rather than deletion issue and I don't see how pointing to old revisions really make it deletable. --SMS Talk 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify and Keep: Remove or modify the POV issues and keep the template. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 17:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the template has been expanded significantly by Smsarmad after it was created. Either way, all links on the template are entirely relevant. Mar4d (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, after all Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba are so into freedom are they not. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still biased. The template is supposedly about the separatists but under "human rights abuses" it refers only to articles about actual or alleged abuses by members of Indian paramilitary troops. If the template is about the separatists, it needs to refer articles about the separatist's human rights abuses. Some of the separatists groups are terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba killing and terrorizing hundreds of civilians over the years. As of now the template looks like a political toolbox for a certain pov on the Kashmir conflict. JCAla (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly wrong. The article you mentioned covers abuses from all. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. I am not talking about the main article. I am talking about the articles listed in that template under the category "human rights abuses". Clarified my above statement. JCAla (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update that list per WP:VOLUNTEER. I see that you haven't even tried updating. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template is supposed to be informative with links related to Kashmiri seperatist movement, including political parties, resistance groups etc. I overall find this very informative and useful for navigation in related articles. This is why it should be kept. Emirati Icon (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even as seperatist movement this is highly POV, how exactaly do terrorist groups set up by Pakistans ISI to fight a proxy war = seperatist movements? They are not seperatist, they do their masters bidding, which is J&K being a part of Pakistan. How does human rights abuses by terrorists = seperatist movements? Or the ethnic cleansing ongoing by these same Pakistani backed terrorists? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 31 May 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_May_29&oldid=1139197622"