Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 15

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. 1ne^Talk 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Maoririder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The current consensus seems to be that we generally don't have custom block templates for specific problem users. For instance, {{WoW}}, {{Pelican}}, and {{Johnny the Vandal}} were all removed. [1] [2] [3] Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant (I think) to {{Sockpuppet}}. Gracenotes^T § 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. –Pomte 01:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant. Acalamari 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for custom block templates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vagish (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. It is impractical to delete something that even those who want it deleted admit will be re-created in good faith and will be useful at that time. WP:AGF that someone will keep this up to date, and we save someone some time a few months down the line if no one does. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007 NL Wild Card Standings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's the beginning of the year and were worrying about the Wild Card? I mean come on, the last place team could win. This does not need to be a template until late August or early September. No one cares about the wild card race right now. Hornberry 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree. Also, including the point stated above, who is going to keep this updated and updated correctly? Only one person has updated it (the creator) and that person seems to have given up on it already (despite already making it unorganized). Ctaduran 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No point and its not practical this early in the season. ---CWY2190^TC 01:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete templates should not be used as article content. Resolute 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Interesting that the MLB articles seem to make great use of templates for content. Is this depreciated? Please note that 37 of the first 49 templates on this list are templates, mostly game logs, that are transcluded throught the Wikiproject. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete What is the point of putting the wild card standings in an article anyway? Even if this were the end of the season I do not see why people would turn to Wikipedia for the wild card standings. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: I was actually the first person to suggest this template for deletion, but my lack of knowledge on how to propose a template for deletion prevented me from getting this up a day sooner. Anyway, this template serves no purpose two weeks into the season. Plus, it would be a major pain to update the standings for what is essentially a 13-team division. Division standings are alright since the division title is what all teams are aiming for from the start of the season. I don't think the wild card standings are at all necessary at least until a team has clinched the division, which isn't likely gonna happen until we get into September. And still then, there needs to be some restrictions as to how many teams to list. There is no way that we're gonna have an enormous template with the standings of 13 NL teams if only one of them will get the wild card, anyway. Sorry if I gave a long description here, but I'm already here and I don't want to create a separate discussion on the talk page. --Ksy92003 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This will probably get recreated in about 4 months anyways. Just let it sit there and don't transclude if ou don't want it on the pages. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per the other deletes. Acalamari 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The two people who originally suggested deletion say that this template will be recreated later in the year. It is not a good idea to delete something that will be brought back later. Fbdave 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The season just started, and anything could happen. Eisen8388 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you sugegsting that there might not be a wild card this year? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's no harm in maintaining Wild Card standings early. This WILL be recreated again, and if people are willing to maintain it accurately that entire time, there is no harm in people checking the standings now.matt91486 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep — anthony^[review] 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:ASIN (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Advertising, link to a commercial website, no relevancy. In my opinion we don't need a linkage to Amazon, a comercial project. The ASIN will be gone, if the item isn't available anymore at Amazon and therfore such a link is worthless. Please delete and remove those links from articles. --213.155.224.232 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's not only a commercial website pointing. As a matter of fact ASIN become a standard international reference. Not necessary Amazon has the item for sale. Nevertheless they continue keeping a great deal of information about the article -which is always useful- with a stable reference.--Florenus 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's the wish of the Amazon managers to make it a standard. We don't need to help them. --213.155.224.232 17:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. What about linking all films to their IMDb, which is an Amazon site? And any other sites which make a lot of money off its visitors, such as MySpace? At Clerical fascism, there's a book there linked by its ASIN. It doesn't seem to have an ISBN. It does have an OCLC, which lists only 2 Canadian libraries with the book. The Amazon link is that much more useful for anyone interested in obtaining it. But of course, they could just google the book title. Some references are listed with only an ASIN. If this template is deleted, someone should check the bot's edit history so they can perhaps be identified by other numbers. –Pomte 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go (LOC) --213.155.224.232 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep we have an IMDB template, which is a commercial website, and it's widely used. Amazon is a useful review website. 70.51.10.203 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ASIN is used as an ID of last resort, and having a template helps keep track of those items that use ASIN. Also Amazon do maintain pages for unavailable items. Please replace ASINs with with ISBNs or OCLC where pssible, but don't kill the template, or remove links willy-nilly. Rich Farmbrough, 08:42 17 April 2007 (GMT).
• Keep per Rich deniz^T_C 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's too useful. --87.12.133.133 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rich. --- RockMFR 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Rich makes the case. SchmuckyTheCat 03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful in a number of cases. However, the talk page should suggest not using this if an ISBN is available instead. DES ^(talk) 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Rich said it. 1ne 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is very useful. ~~ Vagish ^{T C}_VPS 09:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A use of the ASIN template is a reference of last resort, when no other online source of book details is available. Keeping the ASIN template is a way of keeping track of these uses, via 'What links here.' It is true that books can be searched via author and title if no ASIN is available, but there are sometimes mistakes in the author or title, and any link to an online source of book details allows these to be corrected. Removing such a link is like removing a reference from an article. EdJohnston 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Casualties of the PKK conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This "template" is a raw list of all terrorist attacks ascribed to the PKK, each with a link to a Turkish newspaper article as a source. For this purpose, it uses the special <timeline> feature, combined with hundreds of footnotes. Since it overtaxes the capacities of those software features, it is extremely unwieldy, unreadable, and it considerably slows down loading of the page. Moreover, it is used only on a single page (Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict), it is a constant attractor of POV edit warring, but above all, it is inherently unencyclopedic and its sourcing is dubious. Why unencyclopedic? A crucial part of what it means to be an encyclopedia, as opposed to a research paper, is that we offer our readers digested, condensed, summarised information. Not raw data listings. If we want to give our readers the information of how many attacks were made when, this should be presented in a decently readable, tabulated summary form. Why dubious sourcing? This may come as a surprise for a template that has 214 (!) footnotes, but the issue is not the sourcing of each individual entry, the issue is the guarantee that this listing is complete and representative. The collection of these data points is either OR, or (more likely) it is derived from some unnamed, very possibly non-reliable, source. (I haven't seen that source, but in fact if this template really reproduces such a data listing, there might even be a copyvio problem, but that's only an aside.)

Delete and do not recreate simply by moving the same information into the corresponding article. That article has issues too, but they will have to be tackled separately.

Note: There is currently an ongoing POV debate about the scope of the template itself and its article, and corresponding renaming proposals. The issue is whether it should remain restricted to attacks perpretated by the PKK, or also list attacks and victims on the other side. This deletion proposal is totally independent from that debate, and I would urge not to discuss that issue here.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. says "inherently unencyclopedic", as a tool it fits to category of EasyTimelines [EasyTimeline], also Help:EasyTimeline syntax. Easy Timelines are graphical way to represent basic concepts of the issues regarding the articles. They are formed in the template space and are integral part of the main articles. Some examples Template:Timeline of the Roman Kingdom, Template:Timeline of the Roman Republic, and A MUST SEE one Template:Timeline of the Roman Empire. says "how many attacks were made when, this should be presented in a decently readable, tabulated summary form" which the History of the Kurdistan Workers Party period by period gives basic activities and Effects of the Kurdistan Workers Party summarized the data in tubular form. Existance of these information is not a valid argument to get rid of this tool. says "listing is complete and representative" there are many articles which are not complete and representative. We have featured article process to bring these articles into better quality, and as far as I now there is no group process designed to eliminate already developed sources. I can continue generating very viable opposition to every argument in the request to delete, however the history of the process (how many times it was asked to be deleted and how many times it was asked to be renamed) shows that this process is not related with the item (template) in question, but ideologically charged. Thanks.--OttomanReference 05:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

---Survey---

• Delete - The template is not easy to read, has biased information (nearly all the sources are anti-PKK or Turkish sided media groups) and does not comply WP:NPOV standards. Ozgurgerilla 02:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  Those sources are within WP:NPOV and WP:A standards. -- Cat ^chi? 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  It's so not, it's biases includes; favoring the interests or views of a particular nation, bias in favor of or against a particular political party, and some of those sources can even be proven to be racist against the Kurds in their history. Hurriyet's decription is:

  Hürriyet ("Liberty") is a secular centrist, nationalist high-circulation broadsheet daily Turkish newspaper.

  Both sources that are widely used for the template, Milliyet and Hurriyet, are described as nationalist. A source has to fully meet WP:NPOV standards, if not oppositional source's shall be presented to balance the contents WP:NPOV. Özgūr ^{T C} 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "NPOV" - NPOV doesn't mean pretending as if PKK is not considered a terrorist organization by the whole wide world: Wikipedia reflects info, doesn't create it, right? Baristarim 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As I have stated before, I do not oppose the information contained in this template per se. However, I have a number of reasons for supporting FPs nomination.
  1. The template relies on news article clippings from this site ("pkk gercegi" means something like "the real PKK" — suggesting at least some kind of alterior motive — this isn't a simple news archive). The news clippings are in Turkish, from Turkish newspapers. While this might be acceptable for a number of references (we don't mandate English), I think that having over 200 references in Turkish in a template is counter-productive and not helpful to our readers (aside from the obvious neutrality issues).
  2. The template is unreadable. It is very difficult to read the text (a1, a2, etc.) — increasing the font size in the browser does not increase the size of the text in the template. This is a liability for accessibility, and makes the page more difficult to navigate.
  3. The information is duplicated. All of the information in this table can be read on the page Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in text form.
  4. The information is one-sided. The template has no mention of the context surrounding the attacks. For a few examples: the institution of the 'village guard' policy, the banning of the Kurdish language, evacuations of villages, etc. — if an analogy may be made, imagine a template {{Casualties of the IRA conflict}}, which listed only IRA attacks and victims, and not internment, instances of police brutality, loyalist murders etc. Or alternatively {{Timeline of Turkish human rights abuses}}, which only mentioned human rights abuses by the Turkish state and government forces, not mentioning the context in which these abuses were made -- civil war, supporting women's rights etc.

That is about it for now. - Francis Tyers · 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• You mean "one-sided" like List of ETA attacks and List of ASALA attacks? It depends on whom you are siding with I suppose.. Baristarim 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  List of ETA attacks is almost completely unsourced. Also, not quite the same as there was never any guerilla war between ETA and the Spanish government. The same goes for ASALA I think. A more appropriate example would be List of attacks by the LTTE (which doesn't exist) or List of attacks by the FARC (which doesn't exist), or List of attacks by the EZLN (which doesn't exist). - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  See Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE (ooh, that WTA again). I checked EZLN, it does not mention them being designated as terrorist. FARC is designated as narcoterrorist. ASALA attacked government's representatives in foreign countries, hence the government. ETA example shows that in the list, we might not even need references, they killed 478 military or police according to the article (civilian casualties are less, 339, though a quite big number). We are doing better here, giving references. Also, most attacks on our list has civilian casualties. deniz^T_C 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  The LTTE article is even worse than the PKK article! - Francis Tyers · 10:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  Must agree, the article title contains not only terrorist, the evil (not the organisation, I won't dare, the word itself), but also attributed. But, the people who died weren't Turkish or Kurdish. Let's not forget Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. Oops, they are considered as terrorist organization by only 32 states. deniz^T_C 12:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• if this is only to be used in casualties article, we can just move the contents there and delete it, but if keeping this is not against some template rules, I'm for keeping this one, so that we won't need to reinsert everything if we want to use it somewhere else. We can improve it, for readability, etc, but there are so many attacks (more than 200), aesthetics should not be a most important factor here, imo, in our decisions. Where is pkkgercegi (Truth of PKK) used? I only see popular newspapers like Hurriyet or Milliyet. BBC and other foreign media orgs report them when the British people,etc. are involved. It's a "picture" to have a general idea, we also see some other events on this "picture". The casualties article can list the "context surrounding the article". The clashes between Turkish security forces and PKK, PKK attacks, Turkish sec forces' attacks, can be marked with different colors, instead of current color scheme. The regional events can be deleted, they don't seem to be relevant here, operation provide conmfort can be moved down to events. APOCU'S part can be removed this is about casualties, not history of PKK. Afterwards, the template can be made wider and a bit taller (after removing regional events) deniz^T_C

Look at the links for where 'pkkgercegi' is used. - Francis Tyers · 03:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Do you think they can be intentionally misrepresenting the news on those newpapers? I made some changes, though not much to the content. Somebody with a small monitor might need to check the template and see whether it is too wide now. deniz^T_C 04:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Aside from all those paranoia about "those Turkish-sided media", let's remember that PKK is considered a terrorist organization by nearly every country. Let's not beat around the bush. I also feel that there is something weird going on, with Francis requesting a move (which is under way) yesterday by saying "I am not in favor of deletion". I am sorry guys, but there is an article at List of ETA attacks. And stop this witchhunt, pkkgercegi is a legitimate title for a terrorist organization, and this habit of considering all Turkish sources as unreliable and discarding them is bordering on racism, I am sorry to say. Anyways, I have really my mind set on creating an article at List of PKK attacks akin to ETA and ASALA ones. Baristarim 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As explained in the second par. OttomanReference 05:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• I informed the users who voted on the survey on the talk page (only the ones who haven't voted here, yet) (Step 3 of TFD). Also, I put notes on Wikiproject Kurdistan and Turkey. Please inform more people if you want to. deniz^T_C 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; this template (especially the center portion of the chart) is unreadable gibberish. Any important information should be included in articles themselves as the editors see fit. Furthermore, templates in general are supposed to be short selections of information that are commonly re-used. When you've got 215 citations, that's a clue that a template is not the most appropriate vehicle. I take no position on the purported POV issues since I have not looked into them. I'm voting delete on stylistic grounds alone. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very very strong delete This page is unencyclopedicly detailed and is of absolutely no use to any reader whatsoever unless they are doing a research project, in which case they will have far better sources to use than wikipedia. Seems like an attempt to smear the group in question. -- infinity0 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Francis said it all: 1)Non-WP:RS 2)Unreadable (WP:MOS) 3)Duplicated (WP:FORK) 4)One-sided (WP:UNDUE). NikoSilver 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep:Must.^{T C} 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a vote. You need to provide a reason. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Create a png/svg. This can be better expressed as an image. Or, convert it to a format like List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. -- Cat ^chi? 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Might be interesting original research that could even be referenced if it were on an external site, but in this form and as a template it is useless and unreadable. The only adequate reaction to this diagram is "wow, that's so confusing and there are so many sources which I unfortunately cannot read, so there must have been a terrifying lot of PKK attacks" which is exactly not allowing the reader to form an opinion based on facts but rather enforces a particular POV. — ^PDD 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Still unreadable (MOS), unnecessary (used in only one article), original research (if this is a complete/nearly complete list of incidents, there should be a single refernce for this). --jergen 07:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as category This seems more like a category. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Replace by a better one I tried to make a few changes, they weren't that good, I hope someone 'more talented' will do something about this. It should be a graph of attacks, we won't probably need references here, or maybe be one or two references. Graphs, tables are not OR. I don't understand how this template can be a category. I am going to create a subpage and copy the template there(commented out), so that we can keep the information, if someone needs it. deniz^T_C 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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.