Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

[edit]

Template:Postclassical Era

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Postclassical Era (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A grab-bag of links selected by one user. This template appears on the bottom of one page. It is useless, containing everything from Vivaldi to dhow. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2013 (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:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict

[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) 01:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict with Template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran.
The first template is a copy of an existing second campaignbox template's previous version [1].Greyshark09 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, per talkpage table where I already explained about this issue, and it should be noted there's long-running dispute with Greyshark09 who absurdly insists all Kurdish-related conflicts in Iran were based on separatist motives so he wants single article and single campaignbox about all revolts misnamed as "separatism". --HistorNE (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both above editors were blocked for 48 hours for essentially edit warring over Kurdish related issues for the entire summer. This is part of that conflict, and possibly was created solely to further that conflict and as such I am inclined to say close nomination with no action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The problem here is that what is now Template:Campaignbox_Kurdish–Iranian_conflict used to be part of Template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran but it got split without community consensus when the discussion was still going on. I think we should revert the splitting of the two articles and then have a meaningful discussion. ~ Zirguezi 14:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Comments; I realize this is a touchy subject. A 48 hour block, as I understand, is more of a tool to provide a cooling down period as far more worse things can happen. Since there are "disagreements" and especially since templates are involved, this is (in my opinion) where the discussions should take place. Closing a nomination simple because there was some editors in conflict helps who? Certainly not Wikipedia. Closing with no solution also means there is actually a need for two templates or that appeasement is an only solution. There are two similar templates, a template merge request, and this--- is what should be considered. All arguments aside, if a template was created with, or in spite of, an on-going discussion, and especially in light of--or because of-- editors conflict, I would submit this is improper. It appears there are separate articles, and now separate templates, because of different ideas on the same subject, and editor "conflicts", that need to be resolved. This is about the template and not the articles but apparently it would seem to be a better choice if the articles were merged (thus the templates) under a neutral common article name such as "Kurdish conflict(s) in Iran", Kurdish–Iranian conflict (the name of one of them), or something of the like, and appropriate balanced sections to cover the issues. There again, this is about templates and not the place for a merge request. The problems I see are that, 1)- Both articles (and templates) are still about conflicts, 2)- Neither article (nor templates) are definitively distinct enough and, 3)- Both templates can be merged with compromises. I do not think it would be a good practice for Wikipedia to advance the creation of new templates simply because editors (if the shoe fits) can not (or refuse to) follow protocol to find an acceptable solution.
NOTE: I have just seen where Greyshark09 suggested (attempt to compromise so why was another even created?) the template title I also suggested, and there is "Kurdish-Iranian conflict", as well as "Kurdish insurgency in Iran". HistorNE commented, "It's better to have both articles and templates. You spent time for making article about general conflict, and I spent time for making one about separatism.". Maybe some work needs to be done on compromising? Editors need to figure out a way to work together and use dispute resolutions when there is a deadlock instead of creating new articles and templates. Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you have already noticed, i had proposed to retitle the article "Kurdish-Iranian conflict" (or "Iranian-Kurdish conflict"), in order to tackle the concern that separatism is not the only and single aspect of the conflict in Iranian Kurdistan. However, it seems that the sources draw a clear picture that Kurdish nationalism, self-determination and essentially separatism is the core of the conflict in Iranian Kurdistan and that WP:COMMONNAME is "Kurdish separatism in Iran"; yet again maybe other title can be implemented if agreed by community. That aside, i can live for a while with the split main article (we can deal with it later), but the split of the template makes a mess in the description of events, this is hence the primary concern of data availability for wikipedia readers; of course, merger would be implemented if the community agrees to follow that direction, even though the split was forced without discussion at the above described circumstances.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (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:WikiProject India editor's observation

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject India editor's observation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems pedantic and not all that useful. I have enough problems with the type of thinking that posits that {{Non-administrator observation}} is a good idea, but to get to the level where people are indicating whether or not they are a member of a specific Wikiproject is absurd. To go further:

  1. All comments should be judged based solely on the merits of the points and arguments they raise (and to a lesser degree, how well communicated those points are), rather than based on whether or not a speaker is a member of a specific group.
  2. The propulsive of a WikiProject is to facilitate cooperation and coordination among editors working within a specific area. The moment a WikiProject unilaterally sets policy, either formally or by enforcing a social norm that has not been agreed upon by the broader community, it has overstepped its boundaries. When a template like this, indicating that a speaker is not a member of a Wikiproject, starts showing up in deletion discussions, that is an indication that, at least in the eyes of the person using the template, membership in that project conveys a special status in deletion discussions, something that is simply not true
  3. Wikipedia needs to be more welcoming as a community. Broadcasting something like (Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) makes the community appear (and indeed perhaps function) as being more fractious than it is.

As this does not appear to fulfill any positive role, but does have several negative consequences, I ask that it be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does it add there? Why does it matter that you're not an admin or that you are a member of a specific project? A request for page protection is judged solely on the merits laid out by the protection criteria, and not based on the status of the requester. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Sven Manguard: I/we created WP:INDAFD and this template recently after few discussion (for example this). Frankly, the intention was not to highlight any community, but, to inform others that this editor may be approached for help and to attempt to solve the issues mentioned in the linked talk page discussion. I regularly monitor RFPP (specially the Indian articles, the reason is simple, I know about these articles and their issues). There this template helped me (see example above).
    But, your arguments are persuasive (specially last part of point 2 and point 3). If you think the template has no role, you can go ahead to delete it. Delete the redirects too. --Tito☸Dutta 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wanted to start this discussion when I saw it, but didn't pull the trigger. I'm against {{Non-administrator observation}}, too, but that can serve a purpose, even if small, as Lukeno94 pointed out. This, on the other hand, only refers to a select few editors. The only time I've seen it, it wasn't even used before a comment of which the perception would have changed depending on whether or not the editor was a part of the WikiProject. TCN7JM 01:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It implies, especially to new and inexperienced editors (and we're all editors) a level of authority which the user does not have (nor really do any of us). GedUK  14:55, 9 September 2013 (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:Golden Team

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golden Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant to Golden Team, Template:Hungary football squad 1952 Summer Olympics and Template:Hungary squad 1954 FIFA World Cup. The result of the related Tfd Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 15#Template:Peru Squad 1930s Golden Generation was delete. Sawol (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2013 (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:San Luis F.C. squad

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Luis F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Club does not exist anymore. The Ascenso MX club Atlético San Luis is not in anyway related to this club. GoPurple'nGold24 07:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_3&oldid=1140200260"