Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16[edit]


Template:Chicago Shamrox roster[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 G7 by User:Pascal.Tesson, non-admin closure. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago Shamrox roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The team suspended operations and all players were released into a dispersal draft. Jc121383 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete' - as a variation of Template:Db-g7, the main contributors to this template concur that it should be deleted as the team in no longer in operations. Mitico (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (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:Rquote2[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rquote2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is just an ugly version of {{Rquote}}. As far as I can tell, the only difference between this template and {{Rquote}} is that this one has a thick brown border and a peach background color. There are only a handful of articles currently using this template, so it should be easy enough to change them to Rquote and delete this monstrosity. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (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:Shadow[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 Speedied under G7, author request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cannot see any useful purpose for this template in the context of an encyclopedia. ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this useless? It can be used for effect in user pages and to make certain pieces of text more visible or highlighted. It upsets me when people like me work hard on something like this just to have it nominated for deletion ten seconds afterwards. Uber-Awesomeness (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (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:AmericanDomesticTerrorism[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 speedy delete G10 in accordance with BLP Special Enforcement and Summary deletion of BLPs. You cannot call people terrorists without adequate sourcing. You are welcome to create a template which contains only links to terrorist organizations or which contains only the names of people on whom their articles give reliable sources affirming the designation and about whom there is no serious question that they are terrorists. --B (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is a BLP nightmare. It has already been applied to biographies of living people who would heavily dispute the characterization of themselves as a "terrorist." Per WP:TERRORIST this is exactly the kind of thing we should be avoiding, as evidenced by the fact that even on our Osama bin Laden article we don't have a template that outright labels him as a "terrorist," but rather one which includes him as part of the "war on terror" (which is undeniable since he is a target in that).

There will never be a neutral and fair way to determine who or what goes into this template and what does not, and quite frankly it is not all that useful anyway. Let's delete this, and actually I would have no problem with another admin deleting this outright for the time being as part of the special enforcement clause of our BLP policy, though I'm not sure anyone even invokes that these days. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For everyone's information, there was a recent similar TfD here where the template was kept. There's a major substantive difference there though in that most or all of the people on that template were either a) involved in 9/11 or b) convicted or currently charged in the U.S. with terrorism or similar crimes. That is not the case for a huge percentage of the people in this current template, some of whom were never convicted of anything.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The criteria for this template is membership in a terrorist organization (with the possible exception of Eric Robert Rudolph, who never-the-less would seem to have very unambiguously earned his status as a person associated with terrorism, despite his apparent lack of association with a larger organization ie., he acted as a "lone wolf" - even "Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski claimed to be a member of an organization, its just that his organization apparently only had a single member). That seems reasonably objective to me. Even a person who was never convicted of any criminal offense, yet who never-the-less belongs to a terrorist organization, and thus presumably contributes to their activities in some manner, is still engaged in the process of terrorism. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So says you, but that's not, not, not how Wikipedia works. You are making up a standard off of the top of your head that it's obvious that certain groups are "terrorist" and that therefore so are their members and that this is all "objective" so it's fine to have a template basically labeling someone a terrorist on biographies of living persons. This violates our policies on neutral point of view, original research (since you are randomly picking groups to toss in here), and biographies of living persons. You're argument boils down to "it makes sense to me that these folks are terrorists and some have called them that," and that is completely unacceptable and makes me more committed than ever to the deletion of this template. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, likewise this template does not call anyone a "terrorist", it simply lists major "terrorist attacks" and the people associated with them. The question of who/what does or does not go on this list is for discussion on individual talk pages, or its talk page - not for "Templates for Deletion".Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing the substance of my objection which relates to WP:BLP. It's a bit beyond the pale to make the argument that the "template does not call anyone a "terrorist." Anyone on that template is associated with terrorism as far as our article is concerned since thousands of readers will see the person grouped with other "terrorists." In my view it's a bit unfair to pretend otherwise. Some of these people are alive and well, doing productive work, and completely dispute the notion that they are terrorists. You say we can just debate it out as to who belongs where, but I'm saying this template will be a permanent BLP problem and people will always be added and re-added who ought not remotely be there (this guy, who I'm sure I would not like, is simply "alleged" to have been involved in something which most deem terrorism). This template is a lawsuit waiting to happen, which is obvious if you just were to imagine if you were the one who had an article about yourself that ended by putting you in the same category as Timothy McVeigh. These are real people with livelihoods to protect and your template could have a real effect on their lives (for example this guy, who does public speaking and who now has a mention of terrorism in his article where there was none before). I don't think you or anyone else can guarantee this template will not be misused, particularly since it already is being misused. Finally the template does "simply lists major "terrorist attacks" and the people associated with them" as you claim, it also has cherry picked certain groups and decided that that group and basically everyone associated with them is involved with "domestic terrorism" without any sourcing whatsoever. It's an irresponsible and defamatory template that does not take into account the effect it could have in the real world. Sorry if that comes off a bit harsh but this is BLP issue and I take that seriously as should we all.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not acceptable as is - Any of the non-blue links on here need to be removed or sourced, particularly if they are living per WP:BLP. Having a template with unverified/not easily verifiable claims that these people are terrorists is unacceptable. As long as the designation is sourced in the linked article, it's ok, but listing a bunch of names of people is not acceptable and not even useful for a template. A navigation template is supposed to be to aid research and article creation on a common topic ... so having plain unlinked black text serves no purpose whatsoever. --B (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, delete and I'm thinking about speedying it G10. I just clicked on five names at random and in none of these does the source article identify the subject as a terrorist. That's a flagrant BLP violation to have this unsourced claim about a living person. Such claims can be removed by anyone at any time and this template is subject to a BLP deletion by any admin at any time. Falsely calling someone a terrorist is libel and unless that designation is sourced, it's not acceptable here. --B (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue and I was close to deleting it myself, I just wanted to run it by a few other people first which is why I brought it here and to the BLP noticeboard. I don't know if it's exactly a G10 speedy (maybe) but I think it's certainly worth deleting under the special enforcement provision of the BLP policy, assuming we even use that ever (I've been out of the loop on that for awhile). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's unquestionably in violation right now and can be deleted at any time under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs. I'm somewhat content to leave it around until the end of the day in case someone wants to take the legwork to clean it up and remove from it every person listed where there is not a reliable source in the respective article describing that person as a terrorist, but any admin can delete it at any time and is under no obligation to leave it around for 5 seconds. --B (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All of the organizations I have listed in the template have been regarded by the federal government, at one time or another, as "terrorist" organizations. None of the individual articles about specific people, as far as I know, dispute in any way their previous membership in a terrorist organization (most/all of the articles make note of their previous terrorist associations, and if there are a bare handful of exceptions, then that is the problem which needs to be fixed ie., their past terrorist associations need to be brought to light in their article, as opposed to deleting a useful template on the topic of American domestic terrorism. If, for example, an armed bank robber like Ashanti Alston, who committed his crimes while a member of, and in service to, the Black Liberation Army, has an article which does not mention his membership in that terrorist organization (I'm pretty sure it does, but can't definitively address every single article linked to the template by memory), then that would seem to be an oversight, rather than a problem with the template. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not the way it works. "You were a member of an organization that the US government at one time or another labeled as terrorist" does not mean "you are a terrorist". For each individual person on that template, it needs to be demonstrated that they, personally, are considered "terrorists" by reliable sources and that this designation is not in serious contention. This is what Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires and really, this is the EXACT reason the policy was implemented. This template makes a specific claim about these people that, if false, is libel (for the living persons on the template, anyway). This really isn't even open for debate - until such time as all people who are not verified terrorists are removed, it can be deleted at any time by any admin. (If it is fixed, it still may be worth having a TFD discussion on whether or not the template is appropriate at all, but I take no position on that and don't really care.) I'm not hearing, from the comments here, that anyone has an interest in fixing it, so I'm strongly leaning in the direction of speedying it before I go to bed tonight. --B (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're not understanding is that if a person is a member of a terrorist organization, its appropriate to include them on a template about terrorism, totally irrespective of whether or not they approve of being referred to as "terrorists" (which, in point of fact, the template never actually does). How are members of terrorist organizations exempt from being associated with the organization to which they once belonged? The very idea is ludicrous. Every name on the template associated with, say, The Weathermen, is a name which the article on the Weatherman claims was a member of that organization (and none of those names were added by me). Most of those articles seem pretty well-sourced. For example, contrary to a claim above, the status of Michael William Brescia ("this guy," from an earlier comment) as a member of the Aryan Republican Army, is not remotely in doubt. It has been clearly sourced by articles from both the London Sunday Telegraph, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Claims he is, yes, alleged, to have been involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing are also sourced, via a separate article from the London Telegraph. If referencing Mr. Brescia as a man who is suspected by many independent researchers, as well as some federal investigators at some point, of having been involved in the OKC bombing, is not an issue for one of the most prominent British newspapers, I'm not sure why it should be one here. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify, every single name included on the template is the name of a person who was already listed as member of a terrorist organization within an article about a given terrorist organization. If any of those names appeared in that article without proper sourcing, then by all means, the claim they are terrorist should be removed from the original article. The template is simply not the issue. Wikipedia already claims all these people are members of terrorist organizations; the template is merely acknowledging what has already been claimed about them. Maybe that is where the confusion stems ie., people thought I was arbitrarily listing people as terrorist. Everyone on the template has already been listed as a member of a terrorist organization, here on Wikipedia, and by someone other than me. Maybe some of the articles themselves need to be cleaned up (or perhaps sources merely need to found and listed in the article; finding sources has become something of a recent specialty of mine, and I'd be happy to find sources for any problematic claims anyone is aware of, or, failing that, to remove the claim both from the original article and the template), but the template is merely reflective of what other people have already written, generally in rather well-sourced articles. These people are already associated with terrorism here on Wikipedia; the template merely reflects that fact. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're off the mark in several ways Kevin but let me start with one point. The first statement in your last comment is patently false. Our articles on the Black Liberation Army and The Order (group) do not claim they are "terrorist organizations" and indeed say nothing about terrorism at all in the text. This was also true of our article on the Aryan Republican Army until you changed it several days ago (I've changed the descriptor back to "criminal" per WP:TERRORIST, a guideline which you need to read if you have not). So for all three of these groups and anyone in them the decision to label them "terrorist" was yours and that of no one else. But this gets to the heart of the matter. How do we decide who is and is not a "terrorist organization?" What is your criteria? Our guidelines say that terrorism is one of those labels that is "inherently non-neutral" which is why it should be avoided or cited directly to secondary sources (which you cannot really do in a template). So how did you decide who or what to put in the template? Who decides who is a "terrorist?" Right now it seems like, for the purposes of this template, it's you. This gets us to the BLP issues that caused me to put this up for deletion in the first place and which you do not even address in your previous comments. B deals with that very well in his previous comment and I don't think you're really grasping how BLP works on Wiki.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:02, 17 January 2009 (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:EERE[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an attribution template which is unused in mainspace; plus it is unnecessary because we already have an attribution template for the U.S. Department of Energy, {{DoE}}. Eastlaw (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (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:UserClone2[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 close. Userboxes are handled by WP:MfD. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UserClone2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned broken user box B (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2009 (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:User:bench[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 close. Userboxes are handled by WP:MfD. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:bench (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused user box and I don't even think it can be used because of its name B (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (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:No Labels[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 close. Userboxes are handled by WP:MfD. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Labels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless and incorrectly named user box, image was a copyvio image B (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (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:Chaser[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 close. Userboxes are handled by WP:MfD. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inflammatory template in template space B (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (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:User Fox News Sucks[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 close. Userboxes are handled by WP:MfD. JPG-GR (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Fox News Sucks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Divisive and inflammatory template in template space, used to be speedyable as T1 before apparently someone decided inflammatory templates help build an encyclopedia. B (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This needs to be relisted at WP:MfD. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm ... why? All of these are templates and have always come to TFD. --B (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Userbox deletions are supposed to go to WP:MfD. It says so at the top of the page. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to userspace per Wikipedia:German solution. —MJCdetroit (yak) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone cares enough to host these templates in their user space, that, of course, is their prerogative. --B (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (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_deletion/Log/2009_January_16&oldid=1142310950"