Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 June 27 >

June 26

[edit]

Template:Kashmir separatist movement

[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 keep for now, seems like something which could be better addressed on the talk page of the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kashmir separatist movement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every time I remove the POV stuff which has nothing to do with seperatisim it is reverted back in. The template is unfix-able due to this behavior. I have made my points on the talk page, they are roundly ignored. The template remains and always will remain POV and needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and close: this place is not to resolve content disputes, talkpage is (where no effort has been made about the current dispute). This nomination would violate WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because it was kept on two subsequent nominations consecutively in a short period and that too recently. [1] [2]. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TFD#REASONS#4 Earlier discussion were closed as no consensus as multiple editors had hoped that a discussion would improve the template. The template has been created to push a biased POV and any attempt to neutralize the POV has been reverted. --DBigXray 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the third time that this user has nominated this template for deletion, after two closes where the consensus was clear. If anything, the nominator needs to be reported and slapped a good block per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both were closed as no consensus actually, and the first closer said renominate if necessary. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first close is a bygone era. Check the second time you nominated and the result is there for you again. In short, what you want to happen has not happened. Get over it and stop being a snob. This is for you: WP:TROUT. Mar4d (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is there[3] Closed as no consensus. So here we are again due to editors continually pushing POV material into the template which has no place there. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem is, Pakistan sees the Kashmir conflict as a separatism conflict in which Jammu and Kashmir (Indian-administered Kashmir) allegedly wants to separate itself from India with Pakistani help. Thus, some editors following the Pakistani pov created the Template:Kashmir separatist movement and put it on every Kashmir or India/Pakistan war-related article. India and editors here following the Indian point of view, however, see the Kashmir conflict as a conflict of attempted territorial conquest by Pakistan using terrorist means and forced eviction campaigns of Hindus from Kashmir. The template in question, exclusively representing Pakistan's pov, cannot possibly conciliate and represent properly both point of views. Therefore, the template should be deleted. The neutrally named Template:Kashmir conflict should be worked with and expanded instead. JCAla (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template is neither Indian nor Pakistani, it represents the Kashmiri seperatists point of view. How many times do I have to clarify that? Mar4d (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some one needs to inform the previous two closing admins. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote: "The template in question, exclusively representing Pakistan's pov, cannot possibly conciliate and represent properly both point of views."
My first question would be, how, exactly, is the template representing the Pakistani point of view? Since uninvolved third parties need to understand the concerns of the delete camp, I request someone try to explain this so outsiders can understand.
Why can't the template aid navigation to the articles on all parties to the conflict in a way that is fair to all sides? If a civil discussion were to take place, as to the names and scopes of the subheadings, and that civil discussion was truly deadlocked, the template could simply list all the parties with no subheadings. Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess an indication for the template name representing the Pakistani pov is this very discussion and who is for delete and who for keep. If this was not a pov issue, there would be no discussion here. ;-) But seriously. The template's very name propagates the Pakistani pov on the Kashmir conflict which is that the conflict is a "separatism conflict". The articles chosen in the template are meant to propagate Pakistan's pov and if they get removed by editors with concrete objections, they are edit-warred back into the template. Troublesome is the following, "keep" editors have not given up on trying to include terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba which conducted the Mumbai attacks, in the template.[4] For information on Lashkar-e-Taiba see:[1]
  1. ^ John, Wilson (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Implications for South Asia. Pearson Education. pp. 61–62. In his prison dairies, he [Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist Syed Omar Sheikh, convicted for the murder of Daniel Pearl] recalled his first impression of [Indian capital] New Dehli, from the point of view of "a future conqueror, as I fondly imagined myself to be." Sheikh's ruminations point us in the direction of the world-view of Islamist terror groups operating from Pakistan, of which the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is amongst the largest, and without dispute the most dangerous. ... It was actively promoted by Pakistan's external intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, since its inceptuion but particularly after 1996.
So, in a way, the template has become a tool box for a certain pov on the conflict. As I said, India's pov on the conflict would be that this is a conflict of attempted territorial conquest/a conflict of aggression by Pakistan in which Pakistan uses proxy groups such as Lashark-e-Taiba (remember we are talking about Indian-administered Kashmir here, part of India since 1947). So, there are two possibilities: Either we create flawed and disputed templates for both povs or we simply put everything related to the conflict in one neutrally named Template:Kashmir conflict. I support the second option, similar to This, that and the other (editor below). An inclusive Template:Kashmir conflict will provide readers immediately with an oversight over all relevant aspects related to the conflict. JCAla (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the name of the template is a problem, then it should be renamed. I said, and I think various of us said, in the previous TfD, that we were all prepared to have the name of the template changed.
Sorry, I dont see deleting this template, and trying to have all the same people cooperate in Template:Kashmir conflict is any kind of solution. Template talk:Kashmir conflict has no discussion of that templates scope.
When I looked at Template:Kashmir conflict during the previous TfD it only listed state actors. Realistically, if this template is deleted, shouldnt we expect the exact same disagreements there as found here...
One of the sources of disagreement here has been over the subheading, and what should be included in them. Moving everything to Template:Kashmir conflict wont solve anything unless involved parties can talk to one another, and agree on the templates scope and the scope of the subheadings. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection you mean... an autoconfirmed editor has nominated it for the third time over a content dispute. We don't delete articles or templates or anything if we are in a content dispute and are not able to get a consensus in our favour. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming that IP and new editors was causing the problem, I wasn't aware that the edit warring was by experienced editors who should know better. Still, speedy keep stands. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone may say that allegations on ISI are not proven, then who proved the allegations on Indian Army? You are incorrect in that regard. It is widely accepted and agreed upon that human rights abuses which occurred at the hands of rebels are no where near comparable to state-sanctioned killing of civilians at the hands of security forces. This is according to official Indian statistics, [5]. Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The world knows the deeds ISI has done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A more accurate phrase would be "All attempts to hear valid arguments from users objecting to template content have failed." The users in question make policies such as WP:BURDEN, WP:DR, WP:BRD a great farce while blatantly advocating their WP:POV. Mar4d (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get very accurate, BRD is not a policy, it is an essay. Burden is a policy, and one you tried turning on it's head on the talk pageC_why as anyone can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even though the two previous deletion nominations were closed as no consensus, I don't see the point in this renomination. I !voted delete in both previous nominations (and still believe that the template is, by definition, a skewed version that will always be non-neutral) but it would be far better to give the creators sufficient time to work on it. This is way too soon and I suggest a procedural close, preferably with a WP:POINT warning. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template has been reviewed twice for deletion and there is no new information here that is going to change the previous two closes. Repeatedly nominating it for deletion is disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of them were closed as "no consensus". It was a general consensus in both of them that they template needs work as of now. It was the creator's duty to neutralize the template. Also when a neutral replacement already exists, whats the need of another template? I still maintain my position that both previous closures were bad ones. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what you (or I) think about the previous closes, 20 days is not sufficient amount of time to renominate something for deletion. You can't get fixated on things just because they don't work out the way you think they should because repeatedly arguing the same point is detrimental to the building of the encyclopedia. This nomination seems unnecessarily pointy to me. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree if there was productive work being done. Unfortunately, the creators of the template are not working to neutralize it but instead try to reintroduce already rejected and disputed content such as the inclusion of the Al-Qeada ally and terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba which committed the Mumbai attacks.[6] JCAla (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfortunately, the creators of the template are not working to neutralize it but instead try to reintroduce already rejected and disputed content...." This coming from you would be a bit thick. From what I know, you haven't been involved in the discussion on the talk page so I don't know in what position you are to make that comment. I have clearly tried to initiate a discussion as can be seen here and here with sources. It is not my problem at all if the opposing editor fails to reply or contribute to a meaningful discussion, as can be seen in both threads. This, created minutes later after it appeared that the person in question had nothing much left to say, is probably the only significant development and is a sorry case of WP:BATTLEGROUNDISM. Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As I said in the 2nd {{TfD}} -- there is no topic so controversial that it can't be covered from a neutral point of view, if good faith contributors make enough effort. The nomination asserts: "I have made my points on the talk page, they are roundly ignored." Although I have been quite busy, I took the time, about a week ago, to see whether any of those in the delete camp, last time around, had made a good faith attempt to calmly and coherently explain their concerns at Template talk:Kashmir separatist movement. Exactly 1 comment has been left there, since the last closure [7]. So claims that those concerned over a perceived bias had made subsequent good faith efforts to discuss the scope of the template, and the definitions it should use, are, not backed up by looking at the talk page. I still don't think this is a case where good faith efforts to voice a concern have been ignored.

    I am not from the region. A navigation template like this is useful to me. One of the respondents above said the problem with this template is entirely reflects a Pakistani point of view, and neglects the Indian point of view. Surely it is possible to have a template that is neutrally covers both points of view?

    I see some in the "delete" camp calling upon those in the "keep" camp to prove some of the militant groups are really separatist groups. For an outsider, like me, comprehensive inclusion is important. Deciding how to name the groups would be more useful that discluding some groups.

    I will remind everyone that, since the template is transcluded into article space, it has to comply with all the key policies. In addition to WP:NPOV it has to comply with WP:VER. Calling upon other contributors to "prove" whether or not a Kashmiri group is really a separatist group is not part of what we should be doing. If reliable sources call it a separatist group, that is important. If reliable sources say it is really a front group for the ISI, that is important.

    Unfortunately, some of the discussion in this and the earlier {{TfD}}, and used in the edit-warring in the edit summaries in the templates revision history, gives the appearance not of working together to build the most neutral, encyclopedic coverage of this topic -- but rather of obfuscating the coverage of the groups they don't like. Obfuscating coverage based on reliable sources because contributors don't like those groups, or they disagree with what the reliable sources say about them is a violation of a number of policies.

    My requests to those in the delete camp are:

  1. Please use the talk page. Please use it carefully, so a latecomer, like myself, who is an uninvolved third party, has a good chance of understanding what your concerns are.
  2. No matter how much you dislike the groups you think have committed atrocities, no matter how frustrated you are with those you disagree with, could you please try to keep your comments civil, collegial, and coherent? Remember, uninvolved third parties like myself may try to sort out what you are concerned about, and the extent to which your concerns are genuinely policy based.
  3. Edit summaries are too short to explain an edit that is complex or controversial. For edits no one is likely to disagree with go ahead and explain yourself solely on the talk page edit summary. But, you trigger edit-warring when your sole explanation is in your edit summary. The temptation to respond with a reversion, so one can leave a response in one's own edit summary if too often overwhelming.
  4. In your talk page comments use diffs, be specific and name the groups which groups you think are mislabelled or just don't belong.
  5. Please don't renominate this template until you can genuinely say good faith efforts failed. Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template helps in easy navigation across articles related to separatist movement and it should be kept. It should be broadened to include all articles related to separatist movement of Kashmir Valley (Indian administered), Azad Kashmir, Ladakh, and Jammu. If there are separatist movements in Azad Kashmir explicitly wanting separation from Pakistan, then they should be included also.
This is disappointing. It is sad how some editors are using this forum to express their personal views and not focus on what an encyclopedia should be about. The world knows the deeds ISI has done. The world already knows everything about everything, lets just focus on the article for the sake of the ignorant few. Please relax and don't make this a war, even the two governments are trying to work things out now. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please read Geo Swan's comment again. He has made some good points. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is certainly a content dispute per the nomination statement. Besides the inclusion of links to articles, which was questioned on the template talk has been addressed by providing reliable sources that relate these articles to the subject of this template. I don't know how a content dispute leads to deletion. --SMS Talk 07:44, 3 July 2012 (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:Pokeconvert

[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 userfy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and I suspect a remnant of the days when there were a large number of Pokemon articles. Izno (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep this is a substitution template, not meant to be transcluded. It's meant to provide a complete reference for consistency. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume that's the truth, but I see no documentation that it is to be transcluded or used as a reference (hence the nom). On the other hand, is it really so necessary [now]? I'm sure there are external tools available for this sort of lookup. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, i actually had kind of forgotten about how i wrote this template. no... ur right, it's meant to be transcluded. the idea was actually to have it used in the various lists and infoboxes, to reduce user input error going forward (for massive changes and the like). I personally just never got around to implementing it - and this was created well after the giant merger of separate articles (not that it matters). i still would like to keep this as the template itself is useful, even if i was bad at promoting it's use :/ (there are more complex templates out there for use on a much smaller number of articles, this template could be potentially used around 100 articles) --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, substituting this template would be your worst option. the parserfunctions would leave a mess. 24.206.47.98 (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was also a concern of mine with the claim that it's a "substitution template". There's no way it sees article usage. --Izno (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    see first comment --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria
  • Keep - I would say to delete, cause it is not being used and will likely not ever be used, but it's so neat, and has so much coding, it would be a shame to delete if the creator of it(zapper) really wants it to be kept. At least just Keep as historical? It is used I think in past versions of many articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    if you guys don't think you'll ever use it, then there's really no reason to keep it, wikipedia isn't my personal hard drive. the original idea was to be able to do something like {{pokebox|image|voiceactor}} and have all the infobox content auto-generated based off the PAGENAME in most cases. if this ends up getting deleted, please at userfy for me for a short while so i can copy content. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:04, 26 June 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_26&oldid=1136430511"