Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 18 January 20 >

January 19 edit

Template:Kshatriya Communities 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23 as creation of a banned user's sockpuppet. utcursch | talk 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to need input from WikiProject India, I think. We have big, long-term problems with POV-pushing about alleged Kshatriya communities and those problems have historically been at the heart of many of the notoriously protracted and complex disputes across a range of caste articles. More often than not, it is difficult to justify claims made for inclusion in the group and thus there is constant to-ing and fro-ing between the people that understand Wikipedia's policies and the drive-by caste warriors and newbies. One admin a few years ago noted that it sometimes seemed from the barrage of unsupported/unreliable sourced claims as if in India there existed only rulers/warriors (kshatriya) and that no-one worked the fields, built the structures, washed the laundry etc.

The last thing we need is yet another outlet where the tide of ignorance has to be stemmed week in, week out. At least, in theory, articles can easily be referenced to sources; template entries such as in this case cannot. I'm fed up of trying to maintain what we already have and, really, there are only one or two other people who do. Opening another front in the warzone for very little gain may be one straw too many. Sitush (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is the template useful though? If it is, then why not just have it placed under some strict mode of protection? – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because it is going to be grossly misrepresentative, either by inclusion or omission. It will be a time-sink and, please note, it already contains one fatal flaw because, per reliable sources shown at numerous relevant articles, there were no kshatriya communities in South India. Like I said, it is just opening another front. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, thanks. Just adding that a previous incarnation of this template was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 5#Template:Kshatriya Communities. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that there are no reliable sources establishing the Kshatriya status of any community. All we have are claims. Given that a template with the same name was previously deleted, do we need another TfD for this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ****Please read this before making any decision. Well as you say if there are only ppl who are just claiming kshatriyaness, then who would recite prayers at temples, who would sell and trade goods, etc? But in seriousness, we should trivialize a study of communities of India into basic allegations so as to bring down the whole study. I had created this template in order to gather and orient a basis by which we can understand which are the kshatriya communities of India. I have only added a few, based on their community page (in which sufficient citations are provided) which have their basis on kshatriya clan. Even if we think there are communities that are basing their claim on thin air, we could discuss this on the template talk page, and remove that community from that orientation. I highly doubt a proper discussion by intellectuals and literates would be trivialized into an all out war. Hence, I believe that the necessity for deletion doesn't hold strong ground.

Also, regarding south India, I have added only those communities that are directly linked to royalty like the Urs, Samantha Kshatriyas, etc. These were minuscule Kshatriya communities that formed the royalty of south India (I mean, someone needed to rule, right?), and these small communities followed rituals of kshatriyas communities in general (that of twice born). Again I am stating I did not add martial communities, like Nairs, Reddys, or Kammas, etc which though did participate in military conflict at few times, but weren't ordained nor claim to being part of kshatriya clan (they have stated they are part of the agricultural landholding class).

However, if you guys still believe that this template may be so controversial, then wouldn't it be advisable to place it under some sort of protection? I mean you or someone who is wiki administrator would have this privilege to do so.... by this then, we could discuss this on template talk page before placing any controversial edit

PS - again, as many caste which were not kshatriya caste participated in military conflicts. Likewise, many kshatriya communities, like Khatri, Rajputs, or even Khandayats did work that did not ascribe to their caste profession such as agricultural holding, trade and business, or scholars. Same can be said for brahmin communities which worked in fields of labor, agriculture, or even trade in the past despite their caste profession being in conflict with this. However I have selected, in this template, those communities that are of Kshatriya varna (clan) and based it on that only. if there is any conflict do let me know.... Thanks and do keep me updated :) Skbaral484 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete basically because of the problems with sourcing, pointed out by the nom. Vanamonde (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again the sourcing issue seems irrelevant in this matter. This template is not to give detail on each of the community (that is covered in their pages), but only to organize them in order for any reader/user to access them quickly and efficiently. That is what templates are for: better organization so the reader can easily access pages which are relevant in that order or fashion. Also citations and sourcing are in their page itself. I don't think a template needs to cover this, because it is just relaying the hyperlinks to pages as appropriate. Yet, if citations or proof are needed, couldn't we discuss this on the talk page as intellectuals and delete or add any hyperlink on the template if need be (after discussion that is). This decision to delete seems like the phrase, "Don't throw the baby with the bath water" , implying that deleting this template just because there might be problems (this is still highly debatable) is disregarding the very fact that this template will in organizing and accessing linked pages easier. Hopefully you guys do understand that this template may be easier on first time and professional readers to access relative content in a jiffy, without any hassles, like the sort of ease any professional online encyclopedia would provide. Do keep me updated! :) Skbaral484 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or delete – A list, either standalone or on the Kshatriya page, would give us the ability to include references and properly contextualize the information. A navbox presents its members as equivalent in nature and scope, which is not necessarily true for the articles in this case. Ibadibam (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and template I agree with the user on creating a list with relative citations that could be hyperlinked to the kshatriya page. Also it could be hyperlinked to the aforementioned template page. Regarding the template, i fail to see why the deletion is required. I mean can't we have both the template and list? The list would and could be a prerequisite and a standard to what is added extra on the template, and the template could serve as a navigation box to make readers easier to access other relevant community pages. thanks and do keep me updated Skbaral484 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't listfy. It will just cause the same maintenance problems as those already outlined for the navbox and will have essentially zero encyclopaedic value. Just accept that this is a waste of time. It always has been, hence the rejection of past attempts. In the very rare case where a community does have some sort of legitimate claim, they're likely already mentioned in the Kshatriya article. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it solve some of the maintenance problems if this were simply listified at the article itself? Just add a section that discusses major groups and castes? Ibadibam (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. The problem is that the claims are often disputed by everyone but the caste/clan that makes it. That applies, most obviously, to all those who claim kshatriya status in South India. The complexity of the issue, in many cases, is why we try to avoid even mentioning the issue in the lead section of the caste/clan articles, which is a position that does have long-standing consensus but for some reason I have not documented at User:Sitush/Common (I will have to search the WT:INB archives etc, I guess, because it should be added to my crib sheet). - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reliable sources are scanty, and even those are typically based on claims by the group itself, which aren't exactly neutral. If this weren't an encyclopedia, and instead were a forum or Facebook, I would suggest the alternative "Communities who claim to be kshatriya." Since it is an encyclopedia, this should be deleted. First Light (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a clear-cut classification: several communities claim Kshatriya status, and several others contest these claims. Moreover, there are literally hundreds of castes claiming to be Kshatriya: a template is not suitable for this purpose. utcursch | talk 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and/or template With due respect, I still believe deletion is being unnecessary. Because this template is a study, and study can be disputed and argued by intellectuals who can provide sources to validate objective points. So by deleting this template, we are deleting a facility by which users and readers can easily access relative content. Also I sincerely believe that this template is neither a forum nor some post in FB. The communities that I initially added had their community members being part of royalty and ruling elite. Please read any history book. Again, I am not adding martial communities, which were agrarian at first but took up arms, for example, like Nairs, Reddys, Jats, etc. These were agrarian landlords and landholders that have their respective place in society. Therefore, despite claims (claims are not enough for a community to be kshatriya), I still believe we could discuss these points in a talk page without tearing the whole facility down. Again as for claims, there are many brahmins which are looked down upon other brahmin communities as not being authentic. This is a fact of India. But that does not for an instant change the reality of the tag of brahmin that they have. Classic example is of Chitpavan community which looked down upon as lower caste by Goud Saraswat. In my own state of Odisha, certain brahmin (strotiya) did not marry with Halua brahmins (Padhi, Pati) because they believe them to be indulged in agriculture. That is a fact but for an instant, this did not change their varna status. Hence, despite claims of kshatriyas, we can easily debate and link history to know which community is kshatriya and which is martial. I don't think proper civilized debate will lead to a clash between peoples. So it would be better to not delete for any future problems that may or may not occur, rather use this template for facilitating ease of accessing relevant content. Thanks and do keep me updated. :)Skbaral484 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2017 (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).

Template:Infobox Ultimate tournament 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. I see no reason to keep this around. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:2012 America East Conference men's soccer navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails editing guidelines laid out per WP:NAVBOX and WP:EXISTING. GauchoDude (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:Wings NBC 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, the article are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:Oklahoma City Highways 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 06:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per precedent and all of my past votes. Imzadi 1979 → 17:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Valdosta precedent. -- LJ ↗ 19:57, 22 January 2017 (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).

Template:US Inflation 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and now unused template. Samsara (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:PD-Czech 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons under {{PD-old-70}}. FASTILY 01:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD it should be uploaded at commons. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2017 (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).

Athletic conference navboxes 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. NPASR, provided that they are not grouped together. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following have one or two links in them and fail WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see a problem with a template that links to relevant articles as long as some of them (which is shown) have valid wikiarticles Quidster4040 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think all should be kept, especially Big East mascots (only 2 red links, out of 10 pages), MWC softball, & Big 12 softball. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2017 (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).

Template:Asian Cuisine 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial duplicate of {{Asian topic|cuisine}}. Recently created and used redundantly to that template. Ibadibam (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More or less a duplication. I can see the argument for more specific templates, which would contain some of the specific links such as those currently in the East Asian section, but those would be more restricted in focus. Expanding that to the whole of Asia lacks utility. CMD (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:Chromism 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No objections. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily duplicates Category:Chromism. Not particularly useful for helping readers move from one topic to another. WP:NENAN applies with full force here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:Infobox EN Standard Details 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).

The result of the discussion was keep, though if it can be demonstrated to be easily incorporated into {{infobox technology standard}} I see NPASR. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what this is for but not really an infobox... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an overview about the basic information regarding EN standards (technical standards within the European Union). If you got any suggestion of how to make this a real infobox in wikipedia terms, I am happy to receive them. No problem to update the box to follow Wikipedia standards, your help would be appreciated. As you can see in the list of related standards, there are many more standards to be covered. So a common box for all of them makes sense. Dr. Florian Ilias 15:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilias.florian (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to standard infobox (list at WP:TFD/H to that effect). This has a lot of specialized information that can't be handled by {{Infobox technology standard}}, and it can certainly become an infobox, fulfilling Zackmann08's concerns. Looking at its one use in an article, I struggle to think what could replace it. ~ Rob13Talk 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service 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).

The result of the discussion was delete per the weight of the arguments. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template replicates the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the U-boat service and is unnecessary. It also links 140 subjects which is excessive. The articles are not related apart from the fact that they cover recipients of the same award. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A template and a list are two different things and serve two different purposes. One is a comprehensive list the other is a navigation tool. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the template does not meet WP:NAV:
  • "Templates should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value" -- this template links 140 articles, which is excessive
  • "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" -- the articles are not related apart from the subjects having received the same award.
K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
There is no logic in that argument. In fact, it is a blatant contradiction. The very issue that makes them notable is the very issue that relates them. Dapi89 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not a contradiction. A recent discussion at Notability:People (permalink) has concluded with consensus that the awarding of the Knight's Cross does not in and of itself amount to presumed notability. WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly, specifically calling out the Knight's Cross: diff. In addition, linking 140 entries via a template is excessive. A similarly excessive template has recently been deleted:
K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (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).

Template:Taxobox/virus taxonomy 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is unused (it was only called from {{Virusbox}}, deleted in 2013). Since it hasn't been updated to the changes in the automated taxobox system since 2015, it wouldn't work anyway even it were transcluded from somewhere in future.

{{Taxobox/virus taxonomy cell}} is only used in {{Taxobox/virus taxonomy}}, so should also be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the deletion is meritable. There was overwhelming resistance to the {{virusbox}} anyway, so it's not likely to be useful anytime soon. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 January 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19&oldid=1138373721"