< September 9 September 11 >

September 10


Template:Islamophobia

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) 00:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamophobia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violation of policy NPOV USchick (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is irrelevant. The template is a violation of policy. USchick (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the RfC, I'm going to expand on my "keep" rationale. Pretty much all of the arguments for deleting are based upon objections to what is in the "Organizations" and "Blogs" sections of the template. There is a legitimate discussion that could be had at the template talk page, about removing those parts. However, no one has really presented a reason why it is not useful to readers to have a navigation aide to the pages that are linked in the "Issues", "Specific incidents" and "Opposition" sections of the template. Many of the throw-the-whole-template-out arguments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and WP:RGW), so I hope that whoever closes this discussion remembers WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Anti-Islam, Category:Criticism of Islam, Category:Islam-related controversies, Category:Persecution of Muslims, Category:Violence against Muslims, Template:Violence against Muslims. What does this template add that's not covered already? More importantly, what is the criteria for inclusion? The only purpose for this template is to promote hate speech. Don't forget what brought us here, an RfC on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about "Branding individuals as bigots via Templates" explanation "In essence we are branding individuals as bigots by pigeon-holing them on these templates and then embedding the brand on their biography page." Hate mongering is against Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we know where you stand. I don't think you have really looked at what pages are in those other sections, if you are asking me those questions. I'm not here to promote hate speech, and I doubt that the editors who edited the template or used it on pages were here to do that, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. What is the criteria for inclusion? Is it defined somewhere or is it arbitrary? USchick (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's defined the way we define most content here: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and so on. There should be a preponderance of reliable sourcing to support inclusion on the template. And there can be discussion at the template talk page. Yes, I know that you think a template like this violates WP:NPOV, but that is because you haven't looked closely enough at the template to see what pages are linked in the "Issues", "Specific incidents" and "Opposition" sections. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And those sections utterly contradict your claims that the template intrinsically violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are used for articles, not templates. Where on a template can you verify that inclusion is warranted? For example, the article Southern Poverty Law Center does not even address Islam, but somehow it made its way into the Opposition section. This random cherry picking is ridiculous and needs to stop. USchick (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that templates do not have inline citations, but there is no reason why anyone cannot challenge the inclusion of a particular link on the grounds that reliable sources do not support its inclusion. As for the SPLC, you could look for source material as to whether they work against discrimination against Muslims; WP:CIRCULAR applies to what the page about it says. That's a single link, and there's nothing stopping anyone from removing it from the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Phobia is a clinical disorder. Islamophobia is a Prejudice. Why does it need a template unless you want to tag people. Why not create a template Yellow badge while you're at it. USchick (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clinical diagnosis is beyond my pay grade as an editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTSOAPBOX For an administrator to participate and endorse this kind of activity, perhaps administrator review is a good idea. USchick (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria for inclusion? Is it defined somewhere or is it arbitrary? USchick (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is described at Template talk:Islamophobia#Inclusion criteria. Just your basic WP:V and WP:RS. // Liftarn (talk)
I see no sourcing and references on the template. Obviously it's merely WP:ILIKEIT and since it's a type of category precedent applies. Jason from nyc (talk)
Not only are there no sources, but on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard an editor complains that "almost all the individuals/groups deny being Islamophobic." So how did they get included???? USchick (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give a specific example? As far as I know all inclusions are sourced with reliable sources (look in the articles). // Liftarn (talk)
2011 Norway attacks is a terrorist attack. Along the same lines of thinking, let's create a template "American aggression" and tag every country ever attacked by the US. Wouldn't that be a great idea? USchick (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an islamophobic terrorist attack. Feel free to create such a template, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. So again I ask you to give a specific example. // Liftarn (talk)
What source claims that it was "Islamophobic"? If an editor made that decision, then it was WP:SYNTH. USchick (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What source don't? Why don't you just read the article instead of trying to ignore obvious facts? May I recommend you reading 2011 Norway attacks#Political and religious views. If it's in reliable sources then it's not WP:SYNTH. // Liftarn (talk)
It may be obvious to you, but it's not supported by sources, making it WP:SYNTH. USchick (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious to anyone reading the article that it is indeed well supported by reliable sources. Sorry, I can point you to an article but I can't force you to read it. I can however point out that you are wrong. In any case it's a moot point since it's still not a valid argument for deletion. // Liftarn (talk)
That consensus was to omit individuals and organizations from categories of this sort (and there is an ongoing RfC now about that for templates). It's not a precedent for deleting anything, and it doesn't address the sections of the template that do not deal with individuals and organizations. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is obviously a precedent because categories and templates both do categorize/label things and the Category:Islamophobia was deleted notwithstanding the fact that it too contained more things than individuals and organizations. Proponents for keeping bias templates have consistently failed to show why we should treat them any differently than we have been doing with bias categories for over two years now, that is removing them. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Category:Islamophobia wasn't outright deleted, it was renamed and merged into Category:Anti-Islam. That still exists as a container category for opposition to/hatred of Islam and Muslims. Robofish (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it was unacceptable according to policy, just like this template. USchick (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What polices might that be then? // Liftarn (talk)
The policies I already listed. Islamophobia is not a clearly defined term to begin with. To have a vague template with a title that hasn't been defined and then to argue that it can be resolved on the talk page is ridiculous. USchick (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far you have not managed to demonstrate in what way they apply. You can't just list some random policies and demand a template should be deleted. You have to demonstrate in what way having the template violates those policies. The template is not vague, it deals with a specific field of scientific study. // Liftarn (talk)
The topic is covered extensively in the article Islamophobia. The only reason for the template is to promote hate speech. USchick (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of an article obliterated the need for a template, we wouldn't have templates at all. Your personal view that the word Islamophobia is "hate speech" is, obviously, not shared by the many reliable sources which use it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Anti-Islam, Category:Criticism of Islam, Category:Islam-related controversies, Category:Persecution of Muslims, Category:Violence against Muslims, Template:Violence against Muslims. There's nothing in this template that's not already covered. The reason we're having this discussion is because editors on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard are using this template for "Branding individuals as bigots via Templates" and "In essence we are branding individuals as bigots by pigeon-holing them on these templates and then embedding the brand on their biography page." The only reason for this template is to promote hate speech. USchick (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And which editors are those, and what are the particular edits they have made? If you are going to make this sort of accusation you need to back it up. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You took part in a discussion here Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates. Did you happen to notice the irony of condoning "Branding individuals as bigots" on a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? As administrator your role is to intervene, but no, you started an RfC here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism". And now you act like you have no idea what I'm talking about. Would you kindly explain why an admin would condone "Branding individuals as bigots via Templates"? USchick (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when it's used for "Branding individuals as bigots via Templates" USchick (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template inherently violates policy by including things that editors randomly decide are Islamophobic. There are only 3 items that may fit this category Islamophobic incidents, Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, and Islamophobia Watch, and upon a closer examination, it's not clear why those are included. USchick (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not self inflicted when editors randomly select articles and tag them with this template with no explanation. USchick (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of that happening? And even if it did it is still not a valid argument for deletion. // Liftarn (talk)
That's an excellent point. The term is a highly controversial neologism this is in a state of flux. Having an article on the term is legitimate as it reflects the current debate. Using the term as a category or template means applying a contentious and ill-defined term for categorization. We should debate the sources in the Islamophobia article, not the templates and categories. This only distributes the debate n-fold thus depleting the manpower we so desperately need to improve our articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More sources is always welcome and I haven't had time to go trough your list, but several of them appear to be either self-published or opinion pieces and that are not really reliable sources and can thus not be used in the article. // Liftarn (talk)
Obviously, we aren't sourcing a page here, but evaluating a template. It's not surprising that there are sources that contain statements critical of a term like this, but not only does that mean that we should not automatically assume that all the sources are reliable for our purposes, but we also need to consider whether the quotes on the user subpage are representative or picked selectively, and, most importantly, to what extent there are other sources that express the opposite view. Absent a clear indication that these "numerous" sources represent the mainstream of reliable source material, these arguments for template deletion are simply based upon WP:OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Liftarn, and several are esteemed academics. As you remember we spent several months last summer reading the literature in an effort to agree on a definition and whether racism should be part of that definition. Let me refresh your memory: [3] Benjamil (for whom I have the upmost respect) and I debated the issue for months with the help of many others. The number of books and articles were overwhelming. Finally I found a review of the literature by the preminent scholar of the field, Chris Allen that I though should put the issue to rest. [4]. Benjamil argued that we shouldn't go by one review article. At that point, the work became overwhelming for both of us. Thus, the “or” our the definition represernts not a consensus but a failure to settle on a definition. How can we as editors apply a word when after months we can't even agree on how the experts define the world? Can we categorize on the basis of such an ill-defined word? I think not. (editing conflict with Tryptofish) Jason from nyc (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the edit conflict, but let me take a stab at answering that. You are conflating editor discussions about a page with keep/delete for a template. The template is a collection of links to pages, as a navigational aide. You don't need a single source that, by itself, sources all of the links in the template. What you need is source material justifying, one-by-one, each of the page links in the template. Yes, there will be pages where the sources conflict with one another. If the preponderance of sources indicate that the particular page falls within the subject matter of the template, then the page link can be included in the template. If there are a substantial number of sources that dispute the relationship of a person or organization to the subject, then we should be cautious about including links to that person or organization; there is less tolerance for mischaracterization of persons and organizations, and more flexibility for linking to related concepts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With categories, the page editor adds the page to a category. Thus, a consensus can be formed at the page level. If there were a mechanism on the page to add an article to a template I'd agree with what you said. That could trivially be achieved by making all categories into templates with possibly making sub-categories as section headers. As it is now, template editors must not only repeat the debate of page editors but they must go further and decide which of the conflicting claims on the page should be dominant. You say "preponderance of the sources." We couldn't even agree on the "preponderance of the sources" for a definition of Islamophobia. Now we have to agree if an organization is or is not Islamophobic by judging the sources quantitatively (preponderance). There is also a qualitative factor: some sources are more authoritative than others. We might need a weighted average! All of this makes the template a place for a second debate on the article. That's draining our manpower. Will all due respect, keeping organizations and people off of bias templates makes our work much easier. There is still the categories and most articles have wikilinks to anti-bias groups that will easily get you to the allegedly biased organizations. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you are missing is that there is nothing to stop such discussions at the template talk page. That's exactly what template talk pages are for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word has not been clearly defined. Arguing about it on the talk page is not going to help. USchick (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, every article dealing with any aspect of anti-Islamic prejudice or discrimination should be deleted, as should WP:CONSENSUS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's problematic to base deletion arguments upon a subject being controversial. Wikipedia does not omit content on the basis of controversy; instead, we cover the controversy in a balanced way. And controversy on-wiki, amongst editors, can be ginned up to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Editors keep claiming that the template is inherently biased in ways that can never be fixed through the normal processes of editing the template, but no one has really shown that this is true. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 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:Antisemitism

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) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antisemitism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violation of policy NPOV USchick (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Template:Antisemitism topics already exists and it's much better. USchick (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of the three violating NPOV? These are about three different types of prejudice.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling something as Antisemitism is in violation of policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTSOAPBOX USchick (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's a violation of NPOV to describe Nazism as anti-Semitic?
All three of these nominations should be speedily closed, since there is currently an RfC about them. Formerip (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the RfC that talks about "Branding individuals as bigots"? USchick (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For all three of these templates, much of the template links to pages that do not fall within the nomination rationale, such as conceptual topics related to the form of prejudice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is irrelevant. The template is a violation of policy. USchick (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the RfC, I'm going to expand on my "keep" rationale. Pretty much all of the arguments for deleting are based upon objections to what is in the "Antisemitic publications" and "Antisemistism on the Web" sections of the template. There is a legitimate discussion that could be had at the template talk page, about removing those parts. However, no one has really presented a reason why it is not useful to readers to have a navigation aide to the pages that are linked in the "Manifestations", "Antisemitic canards", "Persecution", and "Opposition" sections of the template. Many of the throw-the-whole-template-out arguments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and WP:RGW), so I hope that whoever closes this discussion remembers WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And those sections contradict the claims that the template violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's another Template:Antisemitism topics and it's much better organized. Why do you need 2 Antisemitism templates? USchick (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template discussed here is designed to be placed near the top right of a page, whereas that other template is designed to be placed at the bottom of the page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia has not deprecated the use of templates in page leads. If the issue is that this template is not as well organized as it could be, that's a reason to revise it, not to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it necessary to have 2 templates on Antisemitism, 1 on top and 1 on the bottom? How about another one in the middle? lol USchick (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can choose one or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a third then? Would give editors even more choice according to your reasoning. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's hypothetical, but there is no reason why editors cannot choose one out of three. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying it so eloquently. USchick (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTSOAPBOX For an administrator to participate and endorse this kind of activity, perhaps administrator review is a good idea. USchick (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep something that goes against 2 of the Five pillars: 1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. USchick (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) And how is this relevant in this case? 2) Again, in what way is this relevant in this case? // Liftarn (talk)
Sex and Character is a publication included in the template. It explores gender stereotypes for most of the book. Who labeled it as "Antisemitic?" Is there a source? No, an editor didn't like it's criticism of Jewish religion and put it in the template. The article has no sources at all. For My Legionaries is a book about political ideology. What reliable source claims it as antisemitic? No source, just a WK editor. The Malay Dilemma is a book about the Prime Minister of Malaysia . The article doesn't even mention Jews and the only source used in the article is where the Prime Minister claims that he's NOT antisemitic. USchick (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove them or challenge their inclusion on the talk page. That the template may need editing is not a valid argument for deletion. If you check the articles it may be clearer why they are included. For My Legionaries says "a set of demonised enemies, particularly, /../ the Jewish people". The Malay Dilemma is "describing Jews as hook-nosed". Sex and Character "analyzes the archetypical Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil." // Liftarn (talk)
None of that is mentioned in the article. USchick (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should check the articles. The quotes I gave come straight from the respective article. // Liftarn (talk)
Apologies, I do see it in the article. Those are stereotypes. Where is the source that says it's antisemitic? If an editor made that decision, then it was WP:SYNTH. USchick (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could try to use the search function in your browser. // Liftarn (talk)
Some articles are not sourced, so there's nothing to search. USchick (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it is sourced. Try again. Or are you just trolling us? // Liftarn (talk)
From the template when I click on "antisemitic publications" it takes me to Category:Antisemitic publications and the first article I opened is unsourced Sex and Character. Another one The Lightning and the Sun.USchick (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. It however has nothing to do with the question if we are to have a navigation template for subjects related to antisemitism or not. // Liftarn (talk)
Actually a rather self defeating "find". Both works and especially their authors are cited by external sources to be anti-semitic. and or pro Nazi. Check the authors. The external references are there. Therefore their inclusions are justified. The articles themselves need additional citations. You appear to be on a whitewashing exercise. Your attempt to seperate "racial stereotyping" from anti-semitism (above) really is poor. Irondome (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not sourced, there's nothing in the article to explain what makes them antisemitic, except an editor randomly decided to tag it. USchick (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this template is not used in any of those articles. // Liftarn (talk)
Those articles are linked to this template. USchick (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this template links to another template that is listed in a category that contains a page that may not be fully sourced. And that is your best argument for deletion? // Liftarn (talk)
This template takes you to places that may or may not be remotely related to the subject matter and there's no way to figure out what those places are because it can be used randomly to include whatever you want with no sources. Yes, that kind of template needs to be deleted. USchick (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Six degrees of separation is still not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk)
That consensus was to omit individuals and organizations from categories of this sort (and there is an ongoing RfC now about that for templates). It's not a precedent for deleting anything, and it doesn't address the sections of the template that do not deal with individuals and organizations. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is obviously a precedent because categories and templates both do categorize/label things and the Category:Islamophobia was deleted notwithstanding the fact that it too contained more things than individuals and organizations. Proponents for keeping bias templates have consistently failed to show why we should treat them any differently than we have been doing with bias categories for over two years now, that is removing them. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An additional reason for deletion is the existence of Template:Antisemitism topics. I am not aware that WP has ever been following a policy of having two template on one subject, has it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the article is for. What is the template for? USchick (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that about any navbox, yet we have navboxes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show me a navbox that promotes hate speech I will nominate it as well. USchick (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There it is. I think that comment gets right to the heart of all three template discussions here. You, and other editors who are also in favor of deleting, believe that having navigational templates to pages about these subjects promotes hate speech. Now don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to hate speech too. But that comment reveals the weakness in all of the delete comments that have been made. Those of us who argue for keeping believe that Wikipedia, with its NPOV and encyclopedic content, serves to combat bad ideas with knowledge. Deleting these templates is nothing more than trying to limit knowledge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors tagging things indiscriminately does not promote knowledge. It promotes WP:OR. USchick (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherent in the template that makes link inclusion OR. I've already explained how any links that should not be there can be removed from the template without deleting the template, and you yourself have said (sometimes) that another template about antisemitism does not attract OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I already explained that it's unnecessary to have 2 templates, why not 10 or 100? USchick (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((Antisemitism topics)) links to actual topics. This one is being used to randomly tag people, places and things as Antisemitic, like a Yellow badge. USchick (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It inherently violates policy because it's being used to tag articles that have nothing to do with Antisemitism. Unlike this template ((Antisemitism topics)) that sticks to the topics about Antisemitism. USchick (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it! What articles are you talking about? And please, no more "Lalala! I can't hear you!". Try to refrain from such childish behaviour. // Liftarn (talk)
Religious segregation, Le Pays Réel, Sex and Character, The Lightning and the Sun, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies It's not clear why any of these have been tagged except that an editor wanted to, which is WP:SYNTH. USchick (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles use this template. Try again. // Liftarn (talk)
From the template, I clicked on "Antisemitic publications" which it links to Category:Antisemitic publications and that's how I got to all those articles. USchick (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it perhaps is Category:Antisemitic publications you want to delete? But it looks like you have an issue with how it is used in some articles. Considering that a) this template isn't even used there, and b) it is still not a valid argument for deletion. // Liftarn (talk)
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep this template. USchick (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's ironic. You've just listed several articles that don't use this template, apparently as an argument against the template. Have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all ironic, I used the template to get there. Click on "Antisemitic publications" inside the template and you'll get there too. USchick (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not delete the other one? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or both of them. USchick (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't want any Antisemitism because you don't think anything should be labeled as Antisemitism? Do you think the same about say racism - nothing should be labeled racism? I wonder how far this principle might extend. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to have 2 templates. The other template is better organized. This one is being used to tag articles indiscriminately and that's what I have a problem with. USchick (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller's observation is a good one, and the reply is rationalization after the fact. This deletion nomination, like the other two on this page, isn't about the specific templates, but about a desire to remove these topics from Wikipedia. I hope that whoever closes these discussions understands WP:VOTE and can weigh the strength of the arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, I would have nominated the other template for deletion and the category as well. USchick (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just said: "Or both of them." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 19 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:Racism 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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Racism topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violation of policy NPOV USchick (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this one may just need a name change. USchick (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the RfC, I'm going to expand on my "keep" rationale. Pretty much all of the arguments for deleting are based upon objections to what is in the "Racist groups" section of the template. There is a legitimate discussion that could be had at the template talk page, about removing that part, and about moving the template to a different name. However, no one has really presented a reason why it is not useful to readers to have a navigation aide to the pages that are linked in the "History of racism", "Racist ideologies", "Acts of racism" (pages about the kinds, not specific incidents), "Racial violence", "Racism against groups", and "Anti-racist groups and movements" sections of the template. Many of the throw-the-whole-template-out arguments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and WP:RGW), so I hope that whoever closes this discussion remembers WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And those sections contradict the claims that the template violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's explore that. In the Racist ideologies section there are the obvious entries but there is also Sinocentrism. It's not clear to me why that is included. It seems that the POV of the template editor may be the standard of inclusion. Normal articles, on the other hand, have references to reliable sources but templates generally don't. I worry about the abuse of bias templates. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable rationale for making an edit to the template, to remove the link to Sinocentrism, and that's just one link. It's not a reason to delete the whole template. Your worry is a reasonable one, but it can be handled by watchlisting the template, reverting inappropriate additions to it, and discussing concerns on the template talk page. Any template that contains links to pages carries the potential for some editor adding an inappropriate link. Any template. If there is a history of bad edits to this template, it can be protected. It's true that templates do not have inline citations, but there is no reason why anyone cannot challenge the inclusion of a particular link on the grounds that reliable sources do not support its inclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criteria for inclusion. Sources are used for articles, not templates. USchick (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that templates do not have inline citations, but there is no reason why anyone cannot challenge the inclusion of a particular link on the grounds that reliable sources do not support its inclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't there first be a reason to include it? What's the reason for even having it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by USchick (talk • contribs) 20:47, September 12, 2013‎
No, it's not backwards. It's true of any template. WP:BURDEN applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the reason for having it? USchick (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For having what? The template, or a particular link? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template. USchick (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then my answer is that the purpose of this template, and the other two, is pretty much the same as the purpose of all templates of this type. It serves as a navigational aide for our readers, essentially saying that if you are interested in reading this page, you may perhaps also be interested in reading some of these other pages, and here is where to find them. The purpose is not to promote any particular point of view, nor to make the world a better place (beyond Wikipedia's role in helping the world find information). I know that you and some other editors feel that the presence of some article links in these templates is somehow pinning a pejorative label on various persons or groups, and I've argued that any such problems can be fixed by editing the templates rather than deleting them, and I know that you and some other editors disagree with me. Unless I see a factual misstatement in this discussion, and decide to correct it, I'm probably not going to continue to respond to the hectoring here, because we have reached (passed) the point of diminishing returns. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria for inclusion? Is it defined somewhere or is it arbitrary? USchick (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTSOAPBOX For an administrator to participate and endorse this kind of activity, perhaps administrator review is a good idea. USchick (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you either take me to WP:ANI or drop the personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it. USchick (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually such categories would have to go too (or have already). // Liftarn (talk)
It contradicts 2 of the Five pillars: 1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. USchick (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it don't. // Liftarn (talk)
It contradicts 2 of the Five pillars: 1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. USchick (talk) 15:56, 13 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:Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey roster

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) 19:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:American college ice hockey roster templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed after being merged with 2012–13 Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey season. note that the roster from the current season is transcluded using <section>...</section> tags and the lst function (see Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey#Current roster), which avoids duplication and moving the roster at the end of the season. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 10 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:Ir-Crown-UK

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 merged Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ir-Crown-UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-free Crown copyright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ir-Crown-UK with Template:Non-free Crown copyright.
Two different templates for the same thing. I suggest that we get rid of one of them and convert that template into a redirect. Some text may need to be merged. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this templates creation was so that I could tag something as a ((Non-free logo)) with the additional restriction that it had a ((ir-Crown-UK)) restriction.

I also note that sometimes images are incorrectly tagged as ((Non-free Crown copyright)) and migrating the correct uses to the new name was useful in finding the ones that were mistakenly tagged.

No objections to a merge, but would suggest merging the former ((Non-free Crown copyright)) into ((ir-Crown UK)) as it's more accurately named. There are also Cronw copyrights for Canadian, Australian and New Zealand works whose terms differ from the UK ones. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates can be used together with ((non-free logo)) (provided that the file is a logo of course). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 12 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:Nonnotable content

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) 00:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nonnotable content (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template directly contradicts WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. It's transcluded in four articles, all of which would be better served by a template like ((overly detailed)). DoctorKubla (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—I proposed creating such a template, and then created it, more than a year ago, and it met with no opposition whatsoever. I even waited more than a year after posting at the talk of WP:TC to see if there would be any problems with it, and no one raised any. It is therefore strange that it comes up now. However, to the point: it doesn't contradict the notability guideline. The guideline just points out that you can include content inside an article that you wouldn't be able to have as a separate article. It does not say that you can add any information you want as long as it's inside an article (that, indeed, would be a contradiction of the WP:NOT policy). The current template talks about clearly excessive and/or unencyclopedic content inside of articles, and indeed in certain cases it can overlap with ((overly detailed)). This is no reason to delete it, but if it is not clear what the template is about, we can work together to make it more clear. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline makes it clear that there's no such thing as "non-notable content". Unencyclopedic content, yes, that can be a problem, but that's adequately covered by other templates: ((overly detailed)), ((undue)), ((cleanup-list)), ((trivia)), etc. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read and re-read the relevant parts of WP:N and fail to see where it says that "there's no such thing as non-notable content". It merely says that the guideline doesn't apply to content within articles, and for that you have other policies and guidelines.
Regarding your other argument, consider the following example: an article about a school that has a sourced list of all of its current teachers. I think we can both agree that such a list is not desirable, and even if verifiable at a certain point, is bound to be outdated quickly and won't be maintainable. However, if you look at the other templates you proposed, this is not clear at all.
The overly detailed template points to WP:IINFO and in general WP:NOT, which don't technically have anything against such a list. Nor does WP:UNDUE. The list is verifiable, discriminate, doesn't promote anyone in particular, and if it's short and the article is long—doesn't constitute undue weight.
Therefore, it is left to editorial decision whether to include this list, and common sense dictates that it shouldn't be included. Usually this happens in articles where the main author doesn't envision long-term maintenance of the list, or believes they will be able to do it by themselves. There are lots of other examples where this applies. It is therefore appropriate to place a tag that some parts obviously shouldn't be included, without alluding to existing content policies. This is usually an issue which is very easy to solve by anyone who checks the backlog.
So we're talking about a template that's both useful and isn't bound to create a huge backlog.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 09:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to use this tag on a section where it was far more relevant and less like a 'badge of shame' in order to redirect contributors to the article's talk page, but ended up substituting it with the less appropriate ((off-topic)) tag so as the redirect to this discussion wouldn't distract contributors away from the issue at hand.
In predominantly working with articles that attract a high number of interest group users and which, by their nature, can provoke edit wars by merely adding or subtracting a word, neutrality and consensus are of primary concern. I do my utmost to encourage discussion on the talk pages, and it's certainly a more appropriate tag for sections in such controversial articles and/or lengthy articles where vaguely related lists (which are unlikely to be expanded) with too little information for a stub, sub-page (much less a category) are tacked on by overly enthusiastic contributors. The majority of Wikipedia tags are too officious for some subjects and, I'm sure everyone is aware of their being misused as 'badges of shame'. Ynhockey makes a valid point in it being a template that "isn't bound to create a huge backlog." The list in question had already been identified as being problematic and this tag is worded in such a way as drive home the point that redressing problems with the content will be expedited (again, precisely what is intended as per my example). I disagree that it is as generic as ((cleanup)) and other tags that linger for years already proliferating entries on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, DrKubla, but your suggestion that it is interchangeable with the ((overly detailed)) template is incorrect. In fact, your suggested template is the antithesis of the issue to be discussed. The closest relevant template would be ((trivia)) which presents as being antagonistic as it doesn't allow for referral to the talk page in the string and, as a result, seems far more likely to be a candidate for being left lingering around without being addressed for years on end. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:47, 20 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:Governments of Turkey

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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governments of Turkey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Orphan, less informative, and redundant to Template:Cabinets of Turkey Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:12, 10 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:Metro 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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metro Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Metro Line, currently the only article using this template, already lists all the stations, and provides links to all the articles linked to in this template. 117Avenue (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template is part of a unified, coherent series that the nominator is attempting to disrupt. Useddenim (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What series? There is no mention on Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit or Talk:Metro Line about implementing a series of templates in addition to Template:ETS LRT route. 117Avenue (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't need/like/want the templagte, don't use ut. There's no reason to do a smack down. 128.205.249.240 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid leaving templates unused. 117Avenue (talk) 05:09, 18 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.
More