< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

Template:Dravidian topics

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template violates WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. We usually have template for similar types of languages, similar types of music, martial arts, states of a given country etc, but this template combines groups of history, geography, politics, languages, dance, music, cinema and martial arts together. This is a hindrance to the pages which it is used on. --Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then edit it not delete it. Yes it is way too much, what we need to do is look at other examples such as Uralic, Turkish etc and modify this to look just like them. Need to wikify does not qualify as Delete. Nominator should have tagged it to qualify and made good faith attempt at editing before nominating for deletion 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; nothing else to say. ~ Arjun 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does look a little random - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasonable. Plus, I think the generalized race-based template is a possible problem - how many articles will a Caucasian or African template be linking? I don't think one has to keep classifying an article in 15 different ways. Rama's arrow 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis should be not confused with a race based template, thsi started as a lingustic template just like Magyar, Turkish etc should be edited and prooned to a lingustic templateRaveenS

Delete per nom.

Comment - The word "Dravidian" has several widely differing meanings depending on context. This template mixes all of them and presents a confused picture. Primarily, the word is used as a term to refer to a group of languages that are linguistically related. Then, we have Dravidian architecture which has nothing to do with linguistics and is only a style of architecture. Then we have the "Dravidian race" which has no sanction among academics and scholars. This again has nothing to do with either linguistics or architecture. Then, we have scattered mentions of this term in few works of literature. About these mentions, there is no consensus about what the meanings are and in any case, these again, have nothing to do with linguistics. There are probably few other connotations too, but none of these have anything to do with each other. Mixing them all up under one roof is certainly OR. Sarvagnya 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, this is not a template of related topics, really, but a template of various subjects which share the adjective "Dravidan", not always meaning the same thing. -Amarkov moo! 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. Khoi khoi 03:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nareklm 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate collection of information.--§hanel 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The meaning of Dravidian on these topics vary greatly. Strong Speedy Delete The template is only used on user-talk pages. Absurd. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is because of an edit war in the process of which it was removed from all articles where it was used (only one editor was trying to include it and many were trying to remove it). For example, see [1]. So that shouldn't be a reason for deletion.

However, there are other issues. What this template does is provide uniform links to articles related to the cultures of a group of people who speak related languages. To give an analogy, it is like having a Template:Uralic topics which has links to all articles like the Kalevala, Joiks, Samoyed dog, Lavvu, Sámi soga lávlla, combining things about Finns, Sami, Magyar, Nenets. This is a little strange to me but I am a very rare participant so I don't know if you think templates like these are useful for Wikipedia. Anyway, I wanted to suggest that I think that is what the voting should be about. -- Ponnampalam 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I have just found now found Template:South India topics, which duplicates this template in many ways. We don't need two templates in this area I think. Once the two are merged we can discuss what is the best name and whether to use the word "Dravidian". -- Ponnampalam 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now Controversial topic. Discussion needed before deletionPraveen 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion needed, and that is this discussion. - KNM ^Talk 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. It is not concise and to the point but rather way too massive and inclusive. --Mattisse 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, Sarvagnya and Amarkov. - KNM ^Talk 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but willing to have the name changed to Dravidian and South Indian topics. In that way other Dravidians such as the Brahui in Pakistan, Tamils in Sri Lanka, and Malto in Bangladesh get represented. At the same time Dravidians in Southern and Central India will get represented and those who do not consider themselves Dravidian in Southern India can go by South Indian. I feel that this is a fair compromise for both the pros and cons. The bottom line of this template is to have links to everything that has to do with Dravidian civilizations. Wiki Raja 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotes myth of two races in India. tamil people are just as Indian as the rest of the people.Baka man 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. YechielMan 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete controversial race related tag which does not add any valuable information to the article the tag resides in.Dineshkannambadi 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Naveen ^(talk) 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and modify to make it look like other linguistic realted topicsRaveenS
Delete, as I've always maintained in the talk pages. Gnanapiti 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete as per nom., its racially motivated nonsensical hodge-podge. I already suggested using the alternative template i.e South Indian, which already exists. The lone campaigner for the template User:Wiki_Raja pushes in the template repeatedly in totally non-relevant articles like Harappa and Carnatic music and indulges in a lot of edit war for this. 59.92.44.77 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with South Indian topics per Ponnampalam.Yugayuga 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep nothing wrong, this has been known for a long time and accepted. Nothing can be acheived by hiding this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.197.2 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and various other comments above. --Dweller 11:26, 18 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Deletedpage

The result of the debate was keep, WP:SNOW. Once we have a new system (either WP:PT or the regex system being worked on) firmly in place and everyone is using it, we should figure out what to do with the old template, but that can probably just be either redirecting it somewhere or putting instructions for the new system on it. Chick Bowen 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletedpage[edit]

This template has been obsoleted by cascading protection. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Salted pages for more information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Since this template is widely-known and widely-used, it would be in our best interests to keep it around for a while. After all, not everyone is aware of the change taking place; if we keep the template around for a few months, it will prevent people unaware of the change from stumbling around looking for the replacement. Also, we could add a category to this template that dumps pages into a category for changing to the proper "salted page redirect". —Cuiviénen 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Er, someone was supposed to run a bot to switch everything over. That hasn't happened yet, and it seems a bit premature to delete the old one first. But as Cuivienen says, if the template says on it to use the new system (I'll add a bit now), I see no reason why it should cease to exist. Chick Bowen 01:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protected titles is a new and generally unknown, and somewhat more complicated. ((deletedpage)) is simpler to use, and deleting it will leave a host of admins with no idea what to do in order to protect a deleted page (other than simply protecting it and leaving it without any category or template at all).
Pages that are protected under Wikipedia:Protected titles do not give explanation to the reader of why a page was deleted or what to do about it. While this is rather fine for long-term protected pages that will likely never warrant any article. This is not fine for the thousands of protected-deleted pages many of which do warrant re-creation with a different subject, or some review.
There is currently another system in the works to replace Wikipedia:Protected titles.
The 1000+ pages that currently have ((deletedpage)) cannot be migrated without an admin-bot. —Centrx→talk • 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1, 3, and 4 are all good points, though my own feeling was that running a one-time script to convert these things should not be considered creating an admin-bot. But as for #2, David Levy tweaked the text for cascade-protected non-existent pages to include pretty much the same text as the deletedpage template. Chick Bowen 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a nearly identical message (complete with links) is displayed. Try viewing one of the protected pages wile logged out of your sysop account, Centrx. —David Levy 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Switching 1000 pages over to a new system is not trivial, so a TfD is premature. And I don't think I could say to delete anyway, as the new display style is ugly. -Amarkov moo! 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cuiviénen. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created Wikipedia:Protected titles, but I strongly agree that there's no valid reason to delete this template. Even after all of the pages are switched over to the new system, the template should be kept and tagged to alert sysops of the change. —David Levy 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Protected titles can only affect Wikipedia itself; deleted articles that aren't replaced by ((deletedpage)) continue to be mirrored far and wide across the net. The vast majority of pages that need to be removed anywhere do tend to end up protected against re-creation. While pages like http://www.answers.com/topic/brian-peppers may be ugly, they're far and away better than having them mirror our deleted, libelous content forever. —Cryptic 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, Of course, there's no harm in changing over pages for which the deletion notice already has been mirrored (as we've done with Brian Peppers). —David Levy 03:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Centrx. FIWI, I'm one of those admins who had bnever even heard of cacaing pages, and since I do a lot of New Pages Patrol, deleting deletedpage would have resulted in a major "WTF?" from me. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful template for excessively re-created articles that are not notable.--Sefringle 05:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the process stabilizes; there's no rush. ~ PseudoSudo 06:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As PseudoSudo wrote, there's no rush. Let's get everything moved over to the new system first, then have a few months of time for admins to get used to the new method, and for all references to using the template to be switched over to referencing the new method. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah we gotta keep this for awhile just so us admins can get used to the new methods. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep post-replacement for historical interest, but modify to put everything in <noinclude></noinclude> to discourage accidental use. —Dgies^t c 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but advertise WP:PT on it. Which we already have. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]