Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6 edit

Fighters in UFC templates 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 speedy delete under WP:T3. JIMp_talk·cont 08:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Speedy delete The substitution of these into the article as suggested appears already to have been carried out. They are thus unused & redundant. JIMp_talk·cont 08:15, 8 June 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:Kashmir separatist 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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

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★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ^tp* 19:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 ^tp* 21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the record, I m not the nominator. →TSU ^tp* 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Delete - not contributing in any useful way to the coverage of the issue here. --Rvd4life (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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.--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the latest edit by Creator the globally declared terrorist organizations have again been added back into the template. this is now an unadulterated & severe POV. the template glorifies organizations that have been declared terrorist organisations. Last TFD was closed as no consensus because the template had been edited and terrorist organisations removed, so a new discussion was started. We are now back to where we started and reasons of TFD1 also hold for the deletion of this template. --Dℬig Xray 10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Watch out for the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, kthxbai. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 08:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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? ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 10:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. Discussion should be the first step, deletion last resort. But I am afraid no conclusion will be reached from discussions where both sides will keep on presenting their views (credible and substantial in most cases). Has happened a few times before between the parties involved. It is best to involve senior neutral editors at this stage. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a lot of effort to neutralise this template compensating for each side and to be quite frank, will not be worth the value of the template. --Rvd4life (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern Geo Swan but as you can see clearly from the Template:Kashmir separatist movement&action=history The template has been created with a clear POV mentality of opposing India, Any attempt to make it NPOV by adding Kashmir related topics have been summarily reverted with frivolous and biased Edit summaries from the creator of template and his followers. Discussion is cool but if the party is hell bent on pushing a POV through a template, its better to do away with the template. hence I support deleteion--Dℬig Xray 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked at Template:Kashmir separatist movement&action=history as you requested. I also looked at Template talk:Kashmir separatist movement.
Before I state what I found there -- let's be clear. Discussions of controversial topics can never take place in edit summaries. Trying to "discuss" controversial editorial questions in one's edit summary is a guaranteed recipe for failure, because it presents an enormous temptation to start an edit war.
Third parties who want to know what is going on look to the talk page. A discussion on the talk page allows detailed arguments. A "discussion" through edit summaries triggers participants to get entrenched in their positions. A third party who just looks at the edit summaries on the contribution history listing, can't follow what went on, because the edit summaries don't make sense without looking at the corresponding edit. But, when you look at an individual edit you can no longer see the other edit summaries. No. Discussions of controversial or complicated editorial issues absolutely must take place on the talk page.
Let me reiterate my genuine shock and dismay if any of you who directed my attention to the contribution history were trying to represent that edit warring as a genuine collegial discussion, a discussion that failed.
At the talk page I found what I was afraid I would find -- the first attempt to discuss the name and scope of the template was ten days ago. I am afraid this confirms my fear that there has been a highly inappropriate jump to deletion, without an adequate attempt to discuss concerns first.
With regard to violations of WP:NPOV -- there are various ways someone can violate the policy. Inserting biased passages is one way. But selective removal of information one doesn't like is also a violation of the policy.
What did I find when I looked at the contribution history? I found what looked like POV pushing. And the first edit that looked like a strongly biased edit was made by our nominator. In this edit, with an edit summary of "Freedom fighters my ass". This edit summary uses inflammatory language. Inflammatory language in our edit summaries is a trigger to edit warring that should be avoided. The edit itself was a controversial change in wording that should have been discussed on the talk page.
I think I am an uninvolved third party here. I may know more about Kashmir than most North Americans, but I know I don't know the details. I know there are armed groups engaged in combat there. I even know a few of their names. I don't know their sponsors, their goals, where their fighteres were drawn from. As an uninvolved third party I would like to see a single template that lists all the groups who field fighters there, without regard to whether their goal is an independent Kashmir, a Kashmir fully annexed by Pakistan, a Kashmir fully annexed by India, or a Kashmir fully annexed by China.
Templates can have sections. Sorting out the names of the sections, and who should fit in there, should happen on template's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a single template that lists all the groups who field fighters there, without regard to whether their goal is an independent Kashmir, a Kashmir fully annexed by Pakistan, a Kashmir fully annexed by India, or a Kashmir fully annexed by China. That's exactly my point. A template should not slice something along the lines of a single POV but should be reasonably comprehensive. The existing template Template:Kashmir conflict, in my opinion, does exactly what you're asking for. --regentspark (comment) 19:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Template:Kashmir conflict a few days ago -- it was, at that time, sparse, and appeared to only include official state actors in the official state versus state border conflict. Our nominator and those whohave voiced a "delete" here owe it to the project to openly discuss their issues with those they disagree with. The edit history I was asked to examine shows the template was a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If, for the sake of argument, this template is deleted, how long do you think it will take before it becomes a battleground?
Template talk:Kashmir conflict is currently a redlink. In other words there has been ZERO attempt to define the scope of that template. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the creator and editors keep on Preach the template is from NPOV....Mar4d adds Terrorist Organistaions as Militant Organizations supporting J&K freedom.How on earth is that NPOV!?...what do Lashkar-e-Taiba and(or) Hizbul Mujahideen...anti-indian organizations..classified as terrorist groups by many countries have to do with the so-called J&K Separatist Movement??....and.....a user tries to make the template neutral by adding Azad Kashmir..Mar4d reverts it without proper reason saying..."this template deals only with J&K Independence Movement"....so..that is NPOV?....dealing only with J&K separatist movement and leaving Azad Kashmir is obvious POV pushing. ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 10:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with DBigXray and Strike Eagle's comments. Its seeming that the real purpose of the template is to push POV, and that is why deleting it is the best option. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Strike Eagle: Well, that is the purpose of the navigation template in the first place. This template is about Jammu and Kashmir, period. It is for the seperatist movement which is present in that area. Show me even one article which is relevant to Azad Kashmir. Even the parties which you noted are advocating independence for the entire Kashmir region are actually based in Jammu and Kashmir. As for your argument on militant groups, see WP:TERRORIST. We are not concerned what their designated status is, we are concerned with whether they are involved in the seperatist conflict and call for a separation of the state; that applies to these groups. Despite this, I obviously tried to reach a compromise here by adding an asterisk to those groups which are campaigning for a Kashmir independent from Pakistan too. You showed no objections to that, as can be seen [1], yet you turn up here minutes later. Can you make up your mind? Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrorist Organizations I mentioned are based from Pakistan.Please see the article before making such comments.The so-called Compromise makes practically no difference to the heavily Pakistani-POVed template.The extremely tiny asterisk you placed for a compromise was hardly visible.I donot wish to be engaged in an edit war..hence didn't revert your change. ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 11:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with this discussion? Are those "terrorist organizations" fighting against Pakistan? No. That only reinforces the point I've been trying to make all along regarding the purpose of this even stronger. Mar4d (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yep...it has nothing to do with the disc...well you started about it I obviously tried to reach a compromise here by adding an asterisk to those groups which are campaigning for a Kashmir independent from Pakistan too. You showed no objections to that, as can be seen [2], yet you turn up here minutes later. Can you make up your mind?...well my comment was obvious reply to that diverting comment made by you... ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 12:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had removed all the terrorist groups and wars of aggression from this template as none of these have anything to do with freedom or seperatisim. The template author has restored them all. This proves the template is purely political and will never be neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied on the talk page. I had removed all the terrorist groups and wars of aggression from this template as none of these have anything to do with freedom or seperatisim .. that is your own opinion, and you have given no substantial argument as to how that applies. Mar4d (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin - I Protest, Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Rape in Jammu and Kashmir have no connection whatsoever with the separation moment. So please do not close this as keep or no consensus until this "irrelevant" links are removed. →TSU ^tp* 03:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these articles are absolutely related to the movement. Please substantiate your argument as to how they aren't related. Mar4d (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Protest - it is regarding the civilian killings in Indian-administered Kashmir, during 2010 Kashmir unrest.
Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir - is also a protest against The administration following killing of 15 people in 2010
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir - 95% of material in this is after 1958 there is nothing regarding the separation that took place
Rape in Jammu and Kashmir - clearly this has no connection with the separation. Everything in this has happened after 1991

None of this has effected the separation or has any coverage regarding separation in the article. And still this links are there in a template which is about separation. Can you tell me that in what way is this related to separation moment like I explained? →TSU ^tp* 06:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete it. I also see nothing political about it. If there is any problem fix it, and add appropriate links to it. Is there any establishment that all the organisations/entities mentioned are terror groups? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was asked to look at the template's edit history, and was told I would see how the nominator and those voicing "delete" had tried to keep this template from pushing POV. First, discussing controversial of complex editorial issues is a notorious trigger for edit warring. Our nominator was the first person to use provocative edit summaries.
Deletion should be a very last resort, to be reserved for when sincere good faith efforts fail. No topic is so controversial good faith contributors can't cover it from a neutral point of view, with enough effort. I see essentially zero effort here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 12 June 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:Keep alphabetized 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 since it is unused by any bots. Feel free to recreate if there is a bot which needs it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[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:Infobox movie quote 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
Keep rams81 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state a reason, a simple Keep isn't enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 6 June 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:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1898 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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Comment. There is a discussion at Template_talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Previous_and_following_year_links about the series. The whole series of templates is a bit "clunky". They link 'between templates. That is a bit off in my opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as described by 70.24.251.208 (talk · contribs). Excellent solution (especially since some of the 190x ones are empty and probably speedy-deletable) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:46, 11 June 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.