Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 28 March 2 >

Contents

[edit] March 1

[edit] Template:Wikipediasisteritalian

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. IronGargoyle 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Was used only on Main Page alternative (Italian-style), and the standard {{WikipediaSister}} works fine there and is more up to date. the wub "?!" 18:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, since it is redundant and less accurate. GracenotesT § 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. John Reaves (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears to just be a spoof of the one displayed half way down the main Page, there seems no need for a duplicate.Tellyaddict 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is useless - it is just a replica of the one on the main page. -- Wenli 04:04, 3 March 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 page.

[edit] More templates deprecated by S-rail and S-line

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 all. IronGargoyle 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that those who frequent TFD remember vividly such discussions as this one, this one, and this one. Therefore, I am pleased to present more templates deprecated by Template:S-rail and Template:S-line for railroad succession:

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom and precedent established by previous TfD discussions. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for consensus established at previous discussions and the reasons that continue to be true. Could be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G6, by a stretch. GracenotesT § 22:48, 1 March 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 page.

[edit] Template:User no fair use

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 userfy per WP:GUS. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it's such a good idea to have users campaign against existing policies or guidelines on their userpage. It sounds rather divisive. >Radiant< 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Userfy - I don't think it violates WP:CIVIL or is intended to be disruptive. Expressing an opinion on Wikipedia policy seems legitimate, but it belongs in userspace. —Dgiest c 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy. I find the opinion expressed in this template rather unfortunate (as the removal of all fair-use images would reduce the quality of the encyclopedia), but I don't think it's particularly disruptive. It expresses an opinion on a matter, but does not call for disruption by saying "Removes all fair use images!" However, as noted above, it belongs in userpace. -- Black Falcon 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy; I'll take it as the creator. Of course I disagree with Black Falcon, since I believe the removal of all fair-use images could only improve the quality of the encyclopedia, as well as increasing its credibility. —Angr 17:50, 1 March 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 page.

[edit] Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

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 no consensus, leaning towards keep. Please remember that POV can often be re-written and thus should only be a reason for deletion in extreme cases. Changes made during discussion illustrate this I think. IronGargoyle 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I renominate again this template for deletion after my withdrawal due to several template nominations at once. Here again, I state that the template is really prone to POV issue (criterion #4) because of oversimplification fitted in the small box. It cannot be solved by a simple edit as has been demonstrated by several reversions to the current state. More specifically:

  1. False association of the Links with: section to the three countries at the bottom of the template. It simply gives general readers of Wikipedia terrorist attack articles an impression that the countries listed there have relation to the attack.
  2. The selection of three countries is really POV. If the template editor is really honest about the link, why is there no link to countries like Spain (Madrid bombing), to England (London bombings), etc.?
  3. If this template serves as a navigational template, then there is already a much better template for this specific issue with a better description to avoid false association: {{War on Terrorism}}.

Important note: This nomination is not intended as precedent setting, and results of this should have no bearing on other campaign boxes. It's requested that this discussion be limited to this box, its contents, presentation and usage.
--— Indon (reply) — 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - as the nominator — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but should be restructured, perhaps as a longer/larger/more inclusive horizontal box at the bottom of articles. Smee 15:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment: the {{War on Terrorism}} has served the purpose you mentioned much better, and most of the link there are Al-Q attacks. So I think there's no need to restructured. — Indon (reply) — 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete:. Gross over-simplifications. Furthermore, short-hand naming convention is awful, ie 'London', 'Madrid'. Merbabu 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Chechnya/Russia links to an article on war crimes and terrorism in the second Chechnyian war. The Indonesian link to terrorism in indonesia has a false attribution of all JI activities to Al-Q yet JI formed 20 years before Al-Q, The Iraq link is to a list events done specifically by AL-Q which should be part of this box. The use of country names is also implying that these countries are the same as Afghanistan, why isnt there any links to events in Afghanistan. Gnangarra 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. [after edit conflict] Oversimplification and dumbing-down of connections between sometimes unrelated attacks. To group them all as Al-Qaeda instigated and part of the 'Al-Qaeda terror campaign' is at least misleading the reader. From my reading of it, there is no evidence at stage that Sinai 2004 and 2006 Dahab were A-Q. And as for describing the Saudi bombings as '1st Khobar' and '2nd Khobar' presumably for compactness is just ghastly. And what has Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism got to do with A-Q? Some Terrorism in Indonesia is admittedly A-Q related but some isn't - ie independence struggles. —Moondyne 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. (a) This box is far smaller and less obtrusive than the War on Terrorism template, and it serves a different purpose. (b) I think the attacks in Indonesia and Iraq are very much related as part of a larger set of 21st century Islamic terrorist attacks. Just because they're not 100% directly attributed to al-Qaeda doesnt mean they're not relevant or related. In any case, if you really don't like those there, you can remove them without deleting the entire template. (c) The London and Madrid attacks which you said were absent have been added. LordAmeth 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A better term is I can suggest is 'Islamist' terror attacks, not 'Islamic'. Merbabu 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. Sorry about that. A mere oversight, I assure you. LordAmeth 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment its hard to say which attacks are al-Qaeda related and which aren't. To fix this problem people are suggesting renaming the templates to Islamist terror attacks. This is a very slippery slope, since Islamist attacks overlap with regional conflicts such as the Chechen wars, Arab-Israeli conflicts, Islamic-Christian conflicts in Indonesia, etc. Are we going to include each of the 100's of Palestinian suicide bombings? Trying to distill all these subtilities down into these little infoboxs is impossible. (Caniago 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I oppose the existence of any template titled "Islamist terrorist attacks", "Christian terrorist attacks", or "Buddhist terrorist attacks". This ascribes religious motives to terrorist attacks, where such an assumption can usually not be substantiated. -- Black Falcon 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed - and it gets back to the 'slippery slope' User:Caniago is talking about.
  • Comment on (c) - I didn't say that London and Madrid attacks are absent, but the link to terrorism in England and terorism in Spain are absent, and those are just examples of how POV the template can be. — Indon (reply) — 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In response to your criticms. First, the "links with" section simply can and should be be removed (it implies links between al-Qaeda and the governments of Iraq, Indonesia, and Russia (or the regional Chechen government) that do not exist or between al-Qaeda and other distinct terrorist groups). Second, the Madrid and London bombings may be justifiably excluded as they were not perpetrated by al-Qaeda itself, but al-Qaeda inspired groups. Third, the {{War on Terrorism}} template, though well-structured, uses a highly controversial and US-centric title. It is not a good replacement for this template. -- Black Falcon 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: THe 'links with' section is in my opinion the worst part. Perhaps there can at least be some agreement on its removal or major modification. I made an attempt to change for example 'Indonesia' to 'in Indonesia' but it was changed back almost immediately. Perhaps another suggestion could be made. Merbabu 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe in editing to improve content, not deleting useful navigational elements. If there are changes, they should be made to the template. Don't make hasty TfD requests. --Petercorless 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: please read the history as how POV the editor is and how POV the template can be. I would've stop my nomination after my withdrawal if the editor didn't insist his POV section. Thus, I believe deleting is better and use the other more better presentation template. — Indon (reply) — 08:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you indeed believe the editor to be POV (I've not checked the edit history so as not to bias my comment; thus I don't know whom we're writing about) and thus violating WP:NPOV, you may take the issue to WP:RFC, WP:Mediation, and/or WP:Arbitration. The deletion of the template itself, if it can be fixed, is not necessary. -- Black Falcon 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have any history/contacts/disputes with editors in question, so no need to go for dispute resolutions. I just want to show you that this small box is highly prone to POV issue. If you believe the presentation is not good enough, then please improve it to avoid false accusations and false associations, and make sure that it won't happen again. Otherwise, it is better to be deleted. — Indon (reply) — 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's just a chronological list of notable attacks --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, it's not the chronological list (where is the date?), but your POV section below and worst now you have added Phillipines into a country related with Al-Q attacks. — Indon (reply) — 08:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is chronological in that it begins at the earliest attack and the rest are serially listed in chronological order. It is not explicitly or verbosely listing the dates. This is common for milhist infoboxes for campaigns. --Petercorless 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Absolutely. The problem is the setup of the template, not the content. Fix it, don't nominate it for deletion! └Jared┘┌talk┐  22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: read again the nomination. The problem is not simply fixing it. Somebody has tried to fix the POV issue, alas it has been reverted to the POV one. Deleting it is much better because there is already much better presentation template to avoid POV and false association. — Indon (reply) — 08:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote): In principle, there is a useful idea behind the template, but there is really no consensus as to how cohesive Al Qaeda is or to what degree it is involved in each incident. "Campaign" certainly seems like too strong a word. The 'War on Terror' is a US political slogan which is not directly related to terrorism. Peter Grey 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a list of the major notable attacks of Al Qaeda and it should be kept.Top Gun 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment read again the nomination notes. It's not the Al-Q attacks are in question, but the POV issue it brings and with the worst Links section. — Indon (reply) — 08:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added it. -- Black Falcon 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In explanation, the first WTC attack was committed before most people ever heard the term Al Qaeda. However, it is now mentioned. Good catch. --Petercorless 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is in the Al-Q article(thats how I found it), its in excusable for it be over looked, if I had thrown PAL343 in 1994 then maybe being over looked would be reasonable. This is just another example of why the box has and will continue to have POV problems that cant be resloved hence its reason for deletion. Gnangarra 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, THe creator has now added Philippines. That links section is the worst. Can we at least first get agreement to modify or remove that section. POV guilt by association. Serious dumbing down of complex and uncertain issues. Merbabu 01:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Support. I fully support the removal of the "Links with" section. Firstly, it's unexplained and can be misconstrued as implying that al-Qaeda has links with the government of Indonesia, for instance. Secondly, it is a template on al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, not the al-Qaeda organization itself. Links between terror groups are relevant to templates about such groups, but not to templates about the attacks perpetrated by such groups. -- Black Falcon 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: if kept, this template needs to be ruthlessly trimmed of anything that doesn't actually have material supporting a connection to al-Qaeda in the article itself; at the moment, there's at least one bombing linked whose article states that "there is no strong link to al-Qaeda in the blasts". Kirill Lokshin
  • Agreed. If the template remains, we need to have links to only attacks where there are provable Al Qaeda associations. However, there might be an "Also see" for other unproven terrorist attacks, or other Islamist attacks. Though that is something to be discussed more in the talk page for the template. Not part of TfD. --Petercorless 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Now you're back to the same problem again. By puting "links to", "links with", "see also", "see more", "further", or anything to suggest readers to click unrelated or even worst that you said unproven terrorist attack or other Islamist attacks (heck I hate that!), it is a false association and clearly proves how POV this template can be. — Indon (reply) — 11:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This ridiculous infobox not only tries to assert many attacks are al-Qaeda without any evidence, it also tries to make a connection with other unrelated attacks in different regions around the world. (Caniago 06:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete as with previous points (not answered) re terrorism in indonesia trying to simplify something that is more complicated SatuSuro 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the closure test, effectively. There is theoretically no end to the growth of this userbox, and the links of some of the attacks to the "Al-Qaeda terror campaign" as opposed to local or other causes of terrorism means there are elements that may fail WP:ATT. I agree with others regarding the countries at the bottom, although that isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion (should be cleaned up if kept though) Orderinchaos78 12:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: that is the case with many infoboxes on our military history pages, considering many conflicts are still ongoing. It does not mean we need to not put infoboxes on those pages. --Petercorless 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to Petercorless, read again the nomination that there is no bearing to other campaignboxes or "your" military infoboxes. — Indon (reply) — 11:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Links with" removed. I favour keeping the template overall, but was bold and removed the "links with" section. In addition to being highly controversial, it seems to imply that al-Qaeda has links with those governments. Also, it is not necessary to have in an infobox that lists al-Qaeda attacks. If an infobox on the al-Qaeda organisation is created, it would be relevant there, but this is not that infobox. -- Black Falcon 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. This would be an infobox on the page of each of the pages mentioned, so that one could follow the progression of events from incident to incident. It is inert as a navigation aid if it only appears on the AQ page itself. --Petercorless 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Petercorless, I'm not sure if your comment was made in response to me, but I will reply just to be sure. I certainly agree that the infobox should appear on each of the articles on the respective terrorist attacks. My point was that the "Links with" section is not necessary in this infobox, whose purpose is to provide a chronology of such attacks. If a {{Organisation al-Qaeda}} was created, a "Links with" section would be relevant, but I don't think it's necessary in a campaignbox (especially given that it can be misinterpreted and is itself the subject of controversy). I hope this clarifies my comment. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are we bolding attacks with 80deaths or more? Why 80? An attack is an attack. This makes no sense. Merbabu 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nothing is wrong with this template. This template provides a nice way to organize attacks by Al-Qaqeda. If there are issues with the template itself, please discuss them separately on its Talk page, but dont nominate it for deletion just becuase of some other reason. And there's a link to the Madrid Bombings now. It seems you have an issue with Al-Qaeda gettinbg more exposure. The fact is that this template is organizing Al-Qaeda related articles - this is seperate to and in addition to the War on Terrorism template.--Matt57 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems you have an issue with Al-Qaeda gettinbg more exposure. -- Matt57, please read again the nomination before you gave this opinion against me. I don't care about Al-Q attacks, as long as this template does not give false association. You see the template now that has been boldly modified by BlackFalcon in which the Link with section has been removed. However the false association problem is still there in the template, as has been kindly asked by BlackFalcon in the template talk page (6 links have no relationships with Al-Q!). Again, POV is one of the TfD criteria, the only reason I took this template into TfD nomination. — Indon (reply) — 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indon, as I said: this doesnt mean the template should be deleted. If you think there's an issue with the template, it should be fixed, not deleted. I saw the talk page now, yes, so? Those links were taken out now. Answer this question: 1) Are there a group of attacks done by the Al-Q? Yes there are. 2) Is it wrong to make a template that organizes these attacks into a small box? I dont think so and therefore, its not wrong for this template to exist. The name of the countries are not there to give the impression that those countries have something to do with the attacks - it is becuase they were a victim of the attacks. You should have taken this issue on the Talk page of the template, instead you nominated it for deletion. --Matt57 13:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wohoo, slow down. Perhaps because you are late on this discussion that you see the current state of the template is different than when I nominated for deletion. I'll answer your questions: (1). You have answered it, why did you ask me? (2) It's wrong. It's oversimplification of a complex event in the very small box. It's prone to POV issues. It can contain false association because of the small tiny box. It's too bad that you cannot see the previous version of this template when there is the "Links with" section and it gives a false impression to a reader of 2004 Madrid train bombings, for instance, that the attack has a relation to Indonesia (Look carefully at the presentation of the country name and the link to it, tell me if there is a relation of either two to the bombing???). — Indon (reply) — 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indon, I agree that the "Links with" section and the 6 unrelated attacks should not be on the template. But that the template is "prone to POV issues" is not a reason to delete it, but rather one that requires it be monitored. I have added the template to my watchlist, intend to remove the 6 unrelated attacks in a few days unless valid objections are raised, and will continue to monitor it. However, the template provides a timeline of major al-Qaeda attacks and aids in navigation between articles on such attacks. -- Black Falcon 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I value your help. — Indon (reply) — 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indon, every article for that matter is prone to POV. As Blackfalcon said above that this is not the reason to delete something becuase its prone to POV issues. If your deletion nomincation was appropriate, it should not be effected by whether some links are deleted from it or not but this is not the case here. If you are now saying "Look, the links are gone now" - well, if the links were the problem, why did you not raise this issue on the Talk page of the template? I dont see how its oversimplification. The template is simply giving links to different al-Q attacks at various locations. Anyone can see that. Anyway, this is going to be a "no consensus" probably. Please focus on improving the template later if you have issues with it. Read the last line from Blackfalcon above, its worth repeating: "the template provides a timeline of major al-Qaeda attacks and aids in navigation between articles on such attacks." --Matt57 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, if there is no criterion #4 (POV issue) of TfD, I didn't want to nominate this here again. Read the last line of TfD criteria above, its worth repeating: The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement); — Indon (reply) — 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think the template cannot be edited to make it less POV? --Matt57 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep nothing is wrong with this template. It serves a very legitiment purpose.--Sefringle 06:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This template provides a good way to show attacks by Al-Qaqeda. --Medule 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is highly POV. As an example, includes USS Cole bombing, which was an attack on a military target (therefore not terrorism). Listing it under "terror campaign" is either incorrect or POV. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but reword "terror campaign" for NPOV.Proabivouac 22:39, 5 March 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 page.

[edit] Template:German foreign relations

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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How can the foreign relations of a country be pindowned to a handful of nations? Especially when the country in questions has numerous direct neighbours, a touching history with even more countries and these days bilateral aggreements from culture, politics and trade to legal and social issues with almost any country in the world. This template seems to define a sharp border for countries with more and countries with (you might think) no foreign relations with Germany? (Not to mention: lining them up like i dont know what! I can t see that anything than deleting this template can resolve this issue. 72.144.218.5 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - If one set of bilateral relations are important enough to Germany's history, there will be an article made for it. Since there are evidently several of these articles, I see no harm in a navbox. If there is enough info on, say German-Christmas Islander Relations, someone can make an article and add to this template. —Dgiest c 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template aids in navigating between articles on Germany's relations with another country, for which an article exists. As more articles on "Germany-X relations" are created, they will be added to this template. I don't quite understand what the problem is with how they're lined up: it's alphabetical. -- Black Falcon 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Concur. LordAmeth 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is China mentioned but not Italy? Or the Netherlands? The average author (not to mention readers) dont understand that you can modify a template. Just for the sake of reaching articles the template is not the right medium as it suggests a FIXED group! 70.156.224.237 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination is based on the fallacious reasoning that the template is unexpandable, or that even if it is that nobody knows how. Deleting a valid navigational box based on people being ignorant of how to get to template pages is absurd. --tjstrf talk 08:48, 6 March 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 page.