The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No articles exist, save one (Look Back at It) in which the act was featured in a remix version of the song and not discussed in the article. Capo Plaza itself doesn't even have an article; it just redirects to List of number-one hits of 2018 (Italy). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: As per nominator, it has one link, and the parent article doesn't even exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[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:Ongoing protests
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Fails nearly all of the suggested criteria of WP:NAVBOX (2, 3, 4, and 5). There's not really any meaningful connection between many of these pages that'd require them to link to each other. There are also MOS:RECENTLY concerns. ((u|Sdkb))talk 09:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Current Events was notified of this discussion, with the notifier expressing an opinion at the invitation, here. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. You are right, it fails most of the criteria. The subjects are only loosely related, which was what the guideline was intended to prevent in the first place. And yes, this also runs afaul of MOS:RECENTLY. "Weak" because I personally find it useful. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Encyclopedic groupings should have long-term signficance, not a mere churn of temporal events.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I'm going to be honest here. This template is useful (for me it's really useful) for navigational purposes, even if these articles didn't really even loosely connect together. SMB99thxmy edits 04:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is worth considering, given IAR. For me, though, the usefulness comes out of the fact that it's fulfilling a news function, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia's mission per WP:NOTNEWS. ((u|Sdkb))talk 05:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I feel that this might run afoul of original research and synthesis by making editors pick and choose which specific protests are "notable" enough for inclusion. I don't see anything related to Africa, for example (although that might be due to other factors). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily original research. Also it isn't directly making editors pick and choose "notable protests". The Portal:Current events and Current Event WikiProject (As of April 2020) decided the notability on protests. There are standards that are put in place. In short, those protests were listed sometime on the Portal:Current events, so they had to have been notable at one point in time. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for Current Events WikiProject. The Current Event WikiProject is planning to adapt the ongoing protests template for the WikiProject’s page. We won’t until the discussion is final, due to the possibility of a deletion. (Current Events WikiProject Coordinator), Elijahandskip (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm willing to do that, provided that this gets off the mainspace per my earlier comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per SMB99thx. -Śαǿturα💬 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 22:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-JungwonTalk 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but untransclude from article space. Keep only as it's useful for Elijahandskip and the Current Events WikiProject. But remove from article space because it's a collection of unrelated events, and hard to keep up to date and maintain, no clear in/out criteria for it (how does "Anti-austerity movement in the United Kingdom" from 2010 onwards count as current?!) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. It's just too easy for this to become outdated. Any given protest, picketing, or civil unrest will end at some point. This could very well have too fast of a "turnover" (for want of a better word) to be a permanent Template at all. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I realize maintenance is a pain, but I've seen some articles that make it seem like people in Russia have been demonstrating forever. Maybe if the template was expanded to provide more detail or modified to promote tighter focus on the most important and relevant common threads between protests, things would be better. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. It's just too much to constantly monitor and update this template, and it ultimately has very little value when we can't decide which protests are significant enough to include. And who's to decide when a protest ends? Sure, the George Floyd protests are technically ongoing, but not nearly on the scale that they were back in June. Songwaters (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, they haven't stopped, so they're still ongoing. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Support Since the both have the same text and function there is not real need for two. I would support the merging of the editnotice into the base template.McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, since they're redundant. PS: We should really merge away many more of these "nationalistic squabbling" templates entirely, into ((Commonwealth English)), since there is virtually no difference between most of these dialects in an encyclopedic register. The only overall dialects we need to distinguish between are Commonwealth ("British" and near-indistinguishable), American, and Canadian. Most of the others do not have have style guides in the real world (people just use the British ones). It's completely absurd that we have templates asserting that articles are written in things like Barbadian English, or even Scottish for that matter; we don't have "Ontario English" and "Oregon English" and "US Virgin Islands English" templates, for good reason). But this is a matter for another time. Another would be removing them as editnotices. All they do is harass editors, many of whom are new and who already feel overwhelmed, even put-upon, already. The presence of the page-top, silent templates (((Use Commonwealth English)), ((Use American English)), ((Use Canadian English)) – the reset should be merged away) in the article code, and the optional presence of these big banners on the article talk pages, is more than enough. I would actually advocate nuking all these "dialect grandstanding" talk-page banners entirely, as unhelpful noise. But getting rid of the redundant editnotice variants is at least a baby step in the right direction. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per the above common sense. Re @SMcCandlish: I think you are under-estimating how frustrating it is for those of us who are from furth of England and the US to have to deal with editors from these countries attempting to amend perfectly good text to their own variants. One loon's unhelpful noise is another's polite request for understanding. BenMacDui 13:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC) PS In this part of the world WC's are sometimes labelled for "quines" and "loons". See also here.Reply[reply]
@Ben MacDui: I see it all the time. But it's just trivial copyediting and easy to undo. It's common throughout the project (e.g. non-US English suddenly appearing in US-politics articles because of who added the material and where they're from), but it isn't actually harmful. Oppressive editnotices that discourage participation are harmful, and so are "claim-staking" banners on talk pages that set up a WP:BATTLEGROUND for future disputes, especially since they are often placed without there being a clear consensus for the ENGVAR that is claimed. In short, this stuff is making huge, ugly mountains out of frequent but trivial molehills. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ben MacDui: Heh. I never made it that far into NE Scotland. Someday! Been to Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: Why would you do that? It seems totally redundant. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about creating duplicate templates. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the logical thing to do would be to merge the two templates, but it raises the question of why they both existed in the first place, and I find myself wondering why exactly this has had to come up right now, as it truly is one of the most trivial things that could possibly be brought up here. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a perspective on "why", see my post above. There's been a profusion of nationalistic "claim-staking" via template (more and louder templates over time), for about a decade now. The more we chip away at this mess, the better. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. There was some interesting discussion between editors on the differences between the states of Israel and Palestine, verses the land, and verses the nations/people represented. The gist of the discussion appears to be that different historical events (and hence articles) are more relevant than others to a particular one of these sidebars. Consequently, editors are opposed to merging these templates. (non-admin closure)ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:History of Israel with Template:History of Palestine.
These templates cover almost exactly the same topics, and there is no reason why they could not be 100% aligned under the name Template:History of Israel and Palestine, since the history they cover is identical. Currently they frequently feature in the same articles, one of top of the other, creating problems with image bunching. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The modern terms "Israel" and "Palestine" and their contemporary political context are ruining the ability to properly document the history of this distinct geographic region. On the one hand "Israel and Palestine" is a horrible label, but on the other hand, alternatives such as "Holy Land", "Cisjordan" or simply "Palestine"/"Israel" are not better. "Southern Levant" is not an option because it refers to a larger region. I believe that the current situation of two separate narratives, somewhat overlapping and somewhat contradicting is bad enough to justify the irritating "Israel and Palestine". Both the modern nations of Israel and Palestine, whether they are invented or indigenous have ties to the entire land. Me and Oncenawhile have agreed long ago that the proper documentation of history is more important than the appeal of the article/template's name, and it is true also for things such as the 1948 war and other topics which have more than one narrative. I hope that the Israelis like myself and the Israeli narrativists, along with the Palestinian narrativists, will accept this technical move to allow Wikipedia to do its job and educate people.--Bolter21(talk to me) 10:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The problem here is that the term "Palestine" refers to both the original roman name for the region and to a modern state, and Israel is different modern state. We don't merge templates for different states together just because they are neighbors. --Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True or not, this is a narrative. It can also be said that "Palestine" doesn't refer to a modern state. Today there are two people who see themselves as nations and use two different names to describe the same land. You can't label the history of Israel as "History of Palestine" because Israel predates Palestine and you can't label the history of Palestine as "History of Israel" because Palestine postdates Israel. You can label them both and just talk about the history of the land which is literally the same.--Bolter21(talk to me) 10:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is the intended scope of the templates, then the sections "State of Israel (1948–present)" and Jewish specific non-region related links should be removed from the Israel template, and anything post-48 from the Modern era should also be removed, and instead should contain one link to Israel and State of Palestine. Today there are two people who see themselves as nations and use two different names to describe the same land this isn't correct. While there are some areas with overlapping claim, most isn't. Of course you'll find extremists on both sides claiming all the land, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor. --Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gonnym, I agree that the mainstream on both sides does not make political claim to the whole land. But both sides certainly lay claim to the history of the whole land. Biblical Israel and Judea were mostly in the West Bank, and a majority of Palestinians lived in what is today Israel Proper prior to 1948. If we stick to a purist approach for templates on the area of the respective states today, most of the pre-state history would have to be deleted because it correctly applies to that of the "other". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The name of the template should be "History of Palestine and Israel" But I don't think merging the templates is realistic. ImTheIP (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the problem, that you insist that "Israel" refers only to Jews and to the modern state of Israel. This is not wrong, but it is a narrative. Another narrative believs that "Israel" is a name of the land, and Homo Erectus who wandered this spesific region have wandered "Israel" according to academic studies. Today there are two geopolitical bodies, Israel and the Palestinian Territories/State of Palestine. People want to know what is the history of the land before these two nations. Instead of disecting history to fit nationalist narratives, just didge the problem by technically referring to the land in both narratives, and instead of dealing with narratives (Palestine and Palestinians/Arabs, Israel and Israelis/Jews), just deal with the history of the land, of which only a tiny portion actually matters to the national ethos of the Zionist Jewish and Palestinian Arab nations. The separation poses huge technical issues for the documentation of history. There should be a clear differentiation between the land and the nations, and all three have their own historic narrative. Right now all three, (Israel, Palestine and the Land) are both merged and diverged into a list of confusing articles whose subtext is a background for a 20th-century nationalist idea.--Bolter21(talk to me) 11:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Better to keep separate templates for separate entities – we wouldn't consider merging ((History of Russia)) and ((History of Ukraine)) despite them being almost entirely entwined. Number57 12:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ukraine history is a subset of wider-Russia history. So a parent-child relationship. Israel and Palestine are two names for exactly the same place. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then US History needs merging into UK history. And they are not the same place, you could argue that historical "Palestine" = "Holy Land" or something of that sort, the territory physically occupied now by both is what was called Mandate Palestine, but the future Palestine is not going to be the same place as the future Israel, although some might think otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Subset". It makes it sound like a data set on a spreadsheet. Ukraine falls under the umbrella of Russian history, since it arose out of it. The Ukraine does have a lot of history in common with Russia by virtue of that, but it ultimately has its own history separate from that, just as the land we now know as America had a history before settlement and certainly before imperialism and the United States has had history of its own and developed a variant of the English language apart from that of the British. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Should probably be a snowball close as not merged, since there is no change of this happening. The nominator claiming that "Israel and Palestine are two names for exactly the same place" is obviously referring to some time in history, since at present this is not true. Even if the histories largely overlap, but each template might stress a certain article that the other should not stress. Simply put, as long as History of Israel and History of Palestine are two separate articles, that is a sure sign that these infoboxes should also be separate. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose but ...: Debresser, at all, are correct, but this points to a conceptual problem to solve, like the difference between Rome (the city) and Ancient Rome (the empire). Palestine as a modern place has a distinct history, and there's reasonably an argument for a navbox about this. But pre-modern Palestine and pre-modern Israel are not really distinguishable topics. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose "History of Israel" deals with the history of the land. The history of Judaism and the Jewish people in Israel deals with their relationship between the people and the land and the history of the relationship between the two through the lens of Judaism; it's the history of the interelationship between the three. These are differences significant enough to serve as cause for not merging the two articles.
Actually, I've just come from an article about the history of Judaism and Jewish people in Israel, and I've gotten a bit mixed up. Just because Israel and Palestine are recognized by some as sharing some territory, that doesn't mean they're a unit. The recognition of Palestine as a state situated on Israeli land has only happened relatively recently. How much history can they really share? There's been so much friction between them for so long because each nation has elements of its own history which give it cause for it not to have aligned or collaborated with the other until now. This is about far more than just land; this is about nations. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the sake of clarity, Palestine is not a state situated on Israeli land (it is more the other way about but that's a different discussion) and it is not the "history of Judaism and the Jewish people in Israel" it is History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, where Land of Israel is not the same thing as Israel, roughly speaking it means the Palestine of antiquity or the Holy Land or the Promised Land.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does Palestine have primacy over what was clearly recognized as israeli land first? This brings me to my point. The primary issue here is not the land, but the respective histories of Israel and Palestine as nations, as groups of people. It is as a group that each of these factions claims and exploits any land they come upon, and to merge the templates about Israeli and Palestinian history is to suggest that they have the same history, and for good reason, they don't. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[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).