Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 25

May 25

Template:Jackie Chan Films

Template:Jackie Chan Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned actor filmography navigational template that fails WP:MOSFILM. It was originally deleted with other actor filmography naviational templates at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 16#Template:Fred Astaire Films. It was recreated and speedily deleted as being recreated, G4, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25#Template:Jackie Chan Films. That deletion was reversed since it was "Nowhere near the same as what was deleted before". Since the original deleter thought consensus might have changed since 2009, I am starting a new discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rewrite restrict to films produced or directed by Jackie Chan. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Recreation of previously deleted template and actor navigation templates are against the MOS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment however, directors and producers do have nav templates. And this person is also a director and a producer. ie {{Steven Spielberg}} , {{Roger Corman}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well be bold and fix it so it's just for the films he directed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Remember that G4 is for reposts, i.e. when content deleted at TFD is put in anew; it doesn't apply to new pages on the same topics. I tend to agree that this template is a bad idea, but this is the kind of thing that needs this new discussion. Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Common name for

Template:Common name for (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions on any pages other than talk pages and a test transclusion on a user page. Also, wording in this inline template is so unique that transcluding {{Hatnote}} would really suffice to create hatnotes with similar wording. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Primitive fishes

Template:Primitive fishes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently arbitrary grouping of articles, with probably little biological sense. cyclopia^speak! 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary, no. Little biological basis, yes. It's seems to be based on the use of the word primitive. Sturgeons for instance being the most ancient ray finned fish. Alligator gar being virtually the same as they were over 100 million years ago. Simply this about really old fish. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Cyclopia Please see the discussion at User_talk:Apokryltaros#What_do_you_think_about_creating_a_template.... which took place before the template was created. It is not arbitrary rather it is a systematic grouping of primitive fishes in a series. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

While, yes, the grouping is arbitrary, the intent of this template is to help the readers look/notice/search for primitive extant fishes and notable "living fossil" fishes, i.e., sturgeon, alligator gars, bowfins and bonytongues.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is that "primitive" has little to none meaning in a biological context. More than that, it is misleading. It implies some sort of evolutionary ladder with species more and less evolved, and this is simply nonsensical: all species are evolved the same. See Primitive (phylogenetics)#Modern usage and views. It is a misleading, ill-defined and deprecated concept. --cyclopia^speak! 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep this template. The nominator's rationale, that the grouping has "probably little biological sense," demonstrates that he/she hasn't bothered to check whether it has biological sense or not. As a matter of fact, sources show that it does: [1], [2], and so on. Here: [3] is one that criticizes the notion of primitive fishes, but even that's not an argument for the deletion of the template. If a biologist takes the time to write an article criticizing the notion of primitive taxa of fishes, and Elsevier takes the trouble to publish it, there's a reasonable chance that a reader will want an easy way to read through the articles on these (possibly putative) primitive fishes. Furthermore, some evolutionary biologists try to draw conclusions about the evolution of this or that trait of fishes from primitive fishes, while others make cyclopia's argument against this practice; that all "species are evolved the same." On the other hand, the fact that this very argument is ongoing in the literature using the phrase "primitive fishes" shows that this template is useful, regardless of the correctness of cyclopia's view. See the basic google scholar search here for hundreds of examples: [4].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your check only shows that very few, very old papers used this nomenclature, not that it is actually meaningful or that scientific consensus endorses it. You can find papers that endorse homeopathy on PubMed, but this doesn't make it any less pseudoscientific. Now, about the "bothering to check", I am a biologist, so I think I have some vague idea of what makes biological sense or not. And in fact, if you look for "primitive species" on Scholar, for example, hits are very few and old. The concept of "primitive" has been practically abandoned in the scientific literature. There is no meaningful concept of primitive in modern biology, and there is no biologically meaningful relationship between the taxa included in this template.--cyclopia^speak! 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You're a biologist so you don't have to check the literature? That's a good one. First of all biology, like any modern science, is complicated enough that specialists in one area often have little idea of what their colleagues in other areas are up to, and they have to check the literature. Second, once an editor invokes the argument from authority they've essentially already lost. Nevertheless, how old is the literature?

2014:

1. The alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula) is a primitive euryhaline fish
2. In contrast, in many primitive fishes, the influence of circadian rhythms on metabolism and behaviour remains largely unknown.
3. Furthermore, our results with transgenic pufferfish sequences are consistent with the patterns found when enhancers isolated from more primitive fishes were used. In all cases indeed

And so on. There are others from 2014, although in fairness many (not all) of them are citations of older (although not that much older) articles. You're just wrong, biologist or not, about the usage of this term in the literature when discussing fishes in terms of the recency of the publication date. It's not very few sources, and they're not all old. There are a number of fishes that are consistently grouped as primitive in the literature, even if only to argue against the classification. Is it not clear that a reader might like an easy way to read articles on all of these species? There may be no "biologically meaningful relationship between the taxa" in the template according to you, the putative biologist, but evidently other biologists find the concept important enough to write about regardless of their position on the concept. The rest of your argument is a straw-man. Obviously you're right about the concept of primitive in modern biology. Being right is irrelevant in this case because we're talking about a navbox. And who cares how many hits one gets for "primitive species"? This isn't about "primitive species," it's about "primitive fishes," on which there is an extensive (and recent) literature. And who cares about homeopathy? A navbox isn't endorsing the scientific validity of its subject. Why don't you go try to get Template:Pseudoscience deleted on the same grounds? It's a frigging navigation aid. Obviously there's a coherent subject to navigate here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And also, even if we steel-man your argument by assuming that at this point in time biologists universally agree that the term "primitive fishes" has no sensible reference, the fact remains that it has been in widespread use in the scholarly literature since at least the 1880s see ngram viewer results and that it is therefore entirely plausible that a reader, coming across the phrase, will want to get some sense of its scope. E.g. I read that an alligator gar is a "primitive fish." I look up alligator gar on WP. I wonder what other fishes are known as "primitive." I use the navbox. Voila.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You're a biologist so you don't have to check the literature? That's a good one. - Quite the opposite, I am a biologist so I know how to interpret the literature, its weight and its context, something that apparently you don't know all too well. Yes, it didn't escape me that some recent papers still use the term. Yes, some recent papers still talk about lots of wacky pseudoscientific things -this does not make them believable as such. Individual scientific papers mean nothing - scientific consensus does. Finding only about 30 papers which talk about "primitive fish" in a biological context in all of 2014 so far kind of makes this point clear -the scientific community has practically abandoned the term. The example of homeopathy was to clarify that sources make sense in a context, and the context here is that consensus in the biological community is that terms as "primitive", applied to a taxon, are best to be avoided, and mostly devoid of meaning. About your example for Template:Pseudoscience, that template makes perfect sense because it clearly calls such things pseudoscience. Here instead we are leading the reader to think that "primitive fish" is a meaningful, up-to-date concept -which is not. If we want to call the template "Fishes that were called primitive according to obsolete terminology", then we may begin to agree, but what would be the meaning of such a template? Note that I would perhaps agree with an article on Primitive fish, because it is probably a notable concept, even if problematic scientifically. But an article can explain that, a template/navbox doesn't. --cyclopia^speak! 16:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC) - Add: By the way did you click your own ngram link? It clearly shows that usage of the term collapses after the 1960s. --cyclopia^speak! 17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will agree that this is not a useful biological term, I also am a biologist, I know little about fish - am a herpetologist. It comes up in herpetology as well. By that I mean its not phylogenetic as in referring to a related group of species. The thing is though this is an encyclopedia, not a research work on fish. So my question is also not whether or not its arbitrary, but is it useful to the encyclopedia. If it is then keep it, but I think making it clear its not a biological term is reasonable. If it has no navigational use then discard it. Our purpose here is to make it easy for people to "further read" on possibly related subjects. If they are interested on the actual biological relationships then they can read the relevant articles. So I think your both right, but aproaching this from different perspectives. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 18:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying the ichthyologists with doctorates who probably wrote much of the documentation/research you studied while obtaining your degree in biology (in what field?) are incorrect when referring to primitive fishes, or ancestral fishes? I think not. You may not like the title, but that is not a valid reason to delete the template. AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am a molecular biologist (with a doctorate and in process of getting a second one), but evolution and evolutionary terminology is the same in biology, regardless of them being fishes or yeasts. The point is not that I don't like the title. The point is that there is no such grouping. That a few papers here and there use it does not make it right, just like a few papers here and there do not demonstrate anything in science. "Primitive fishes" is a made-up group, something that you pulled out of your hat. What is the criteria to put species in the template? Primitive with respect to what? Would a species which is "primitive" (that is, I guess, basal, in itself a not-so-well defined term) with respect to a non-"primitive" fish group be included? Would a basal Perciformes be included, for example? @Faendalimas:, the problem is that it makes it easy for people to further read on a completely arbitrary classfication of taxa, giving the impression it is a real thing. If tomorrow I made a navbox about "strange fishes", claiming that scientific literature uses the term, I would rightly be deemed insane and the navbox killed. This is no different.--cyclopia^speak! 10:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cyclopia: I get that my question was a genuine question, I wanted to know if it had navigational benefits. Based on what I see now I suspect not. The question arose from my trying to put myself in the shoes of readers. I was thinking that could this lead to an interesting assemblage of fish that for some reason are labelled as primitive. But I gather that this may not be the case. I think you need to be cautious though you seem to be trying to use biological definitions and uses only, that may not be the best way to go. So based on what I see here now I would say Delete maybe when there is sufficient content a useful cat can be developed, maybe more aptly named also. But for now I don´t see its value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faendalimas (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) My apologies I must have forgot to sign this.. Faendalimas ^talk 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I did read my own ngram results. I understand that the use of the term is declining. I understand your arguments as to why that is and why that should be. The fact remains that it was a widely used term, and it remains a regularly used term. It must have meaning of some sort because scientists wouldn't keep using it if it didn't. As late as 1985 Springer published an entire edited volume on the topic: [5]. You can't seriously argue that Springer's going to publish an edited volume on a topic which had no clear definition at the time, even if that definition is now deprecated. If the topic was notable then, and clearly it was, it's notable now. If the subject was clearly delineated then it's clearly delineated now, even if the delineation is no longer found useful. Finally, your arguments are all theoretical: "'Primitive' is a useless concept in evolutionary biology, so it must be a useless concept in the evolutionary biology of fishes." This the fallacy of division. It seems to me that evolutionary fish biologists have a use for the concept of a primitive fish, and it may be that you're parsing it as a determiner+noun phrase, where "primitive" is modifying the noun "fishes" and they're using it as an atomic noun, "primitive fishes," in which case your theory is off-point. Anyway, the main points are that (a) the concept is used a lot so readers might want to browse amongst the fishes and (b) your argument falls prey to the fallacy of division.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - Fallacy of division does not really enter here. What is true for evolutionary biology in general has to be true for individual taxa, otherwise it would not be true for evolutionary biology in general - if you read fallacy of division here you find an example that conveys the real meaning of the fallacy. Now, about your book source (1)yes, I contend that Springer can publish absolute nonsense (e.g. this), let alone something terminologically debatable (2)the very book you link (which is actually acts from a symposium) starts with the sentence What,precisely, is a primitive fish? Most biologists would agree that the living cyclostomes, selachians, crossopterygians, etc. cannot be considered truly primitive, indicating that it is not a biologically sound definition, more of a way of lumping together stuff for the sake of brevity (3)its definition, judging from the articles in the book, for example is not consistent with the one of the template, indicating that it is an ill-defined concept.--cyclopia^speak! 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you're arguing that because the material in the template is inconsistent with the articles in the book the concept itself is ill-defined? That's novel. Also, now you've moved from an argument from authority to an argument that your authority as a biologist trumps wikipedia policy about reliable sources? In any case, the sentence you quote is merely a warning to the reader against being duped by the etymological fallacy, which you have been. So primitive fishes are not truly primitive? So what? I addressed this above. You're treating the word "primitive" as a determiner which modifies the noun "fishes," in which case you're obviously right that the concept doesn't make sense. The fact is, though, that the ichthyologists who are using the term "primitive fishes" are using it as an atomic lexical unit, so any argument based on the fact that all extant species are equally evolved and that the concept of "primitive" is useless and misleading in evolutionary biology is fallacious, even though that's obviously true. "Primitive fishes" is a single word here. You might as well go try to argue that most "people's republics" aren't actually republics.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• you're arguing that because the material in the template is inconsistent with the articles in the book the concept itself is ill-defined? - I am arguing that at the very least the template is original research, and at worst it is an hopeless non-concept.
• Also, now you've moved from an argument from authority to an argument that your authority as a biologist trumps wikipedia policy about reliable sources? - Not at all. I am arguing that sources need to be understood in a wider context, and this is failing miserably here.
• You're treating the word "primitive" as a determiner which modifies the noun "fishes," in which case you're obviously right that the concept doesn't make sense. - How else should one treat that? And even if it was in another sense, how is the reader going to know from the navbox?
• the ichthyologists who are using the term "primitive fishes" are using it as an atomic lexical unit - This is total nonsense. They use it to clump together for the sake of brevity (or by being simply inaccurate) a bunch of basal taxa within a larger taxon, and/or taxa (perhaps) showing (some) ancestral features that were probably also present in the common ancestor of the group. That is the meaning of the modifier "primitive" they are using.
• that the concept of "primitive" is useless and misleading in evolutionary biology is fallacious, even though that's obviously true. - If you agree that it is useless and misleading, why are we giving it to the reader as it was a legitimate concept? That is the point. I am not going to argue that at some point in history biologists didn't use "primitive fish" in their terminology. It is that a navbox presents it with a distinct lack of context, legitimizing a poorly legitimate concept. At the very least you might concede it might confound readers. Why not at least renaming and restricting the template to "Basal ray-finned fishes" , which has a better definition, is a more modern and meaningful term used in the scientific literature, and is less misleading? --cyclopia^speak! 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see the point of this confused template, which currently sits on a number of inappropriate articles. I was somewhat dismayed when it first appeared. There is not even an article on Wikipedia called "Primitive fish". There is however Template:Evolution of fish, which already adequately covers much of what might legitimately be regarded as "primitive" fish. Instead of an unhelpful template vaguely dedicated to "primitive" fish, perhaps a short article could be written explaining some views on the use of the term "primitive fish". --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep (definitely) There are many educational courses that refer to "primitive" and "primitive fishes" in Ichthyology classes. For example, the Concept of Primitive Vs Derived [6] which states: Relative primitiveness, in an evolutionary sense, is measured in terms of similarity to a common ancestor; the more primitive an organism is the more similar it is to its hypothetical ancestor. The template doesn't attempt to define the biology of ancestral fishes, rather it identifies certain species that have evolved relatively unchanged. AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an intrusive and unprofessional template, arbitrarily cobbled together in an ill-defined manner. There might be a case for the template if there were a well written article on primitive fishes, and if the notion of primitiveness was appropriately developed in supporting articles. But that is not the case here, and it seems that no background effort has been made at all to write the sort of material that might justify the existence of the template. Even so, it is not appropriate to develop templates to cover every wrinkle a subject might take. There is already a problem with inappropriate template creep in parts of Wikipedia, and this template is a prime example. The topic of "primitive fishes" perhaps requires an article of its own. It does not require a template. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Intrusive? I disagree. The template is extremely useful in that it links articles in a relative series. For example, bowfin to alligator gar, both of which are primitive fishes that have remained relatively unchanged. That is extremely useful information in determining the concept of primitive Vs derived. Perhaps if more readers understood the primitiveness of these magnificent relics, they could develop a better understanding and appreciation for their existence. The template includes a list of primitive fishes that are now extinct which adds more weight to those species that have survived. – added by AtsmeWills (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Then do some work and write the article on primitive fish, instead of messing up other articles with a useless template that fails to deliver anything. The template is also outright misleading. There is is no "series" of articles on primitive fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone seems to agree that the concept of "primitive fish" could support an article. If there were such an article then this template would certainly meet the five criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX. The fact that there is not yet such an article therefore should not be an obstacle to keeping this template, as there almost certainly will be such an article at some point. Once there's an article, obviously readers will want to be able to navigate amongst the kinds of fishes described by the article. Why would they not want to do so now, before the article is written?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that the template does not meet any of the five criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX. If there were a properly developed article on the topic, it would be largely self-contained and would not require a template. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The template simply links to other articles about ancestral fishes that have remained relatively unchanged; i.e. Concept of Primitive Vs Derived. It is helpful, not a hindrance. Also keep in mind that many of the articles link to a finite group of primitive fishes, the majority of which mention "primitive" in their respective articles. See the following list of articles that are linked in the template:

1. The Paddlefish article leads in with "Paddlefish (family Polyodontidae) are primitive Chondrostean ray-finned fishes."
2. The Acipenseriformes article leads in with "Acipenseriformes /æsɨˈpɛnsərɨˈfɔrmiːz/ are an order of primitive ray-finned fishes that includes the sturgeons and paddlefishes, as well as some extinct families."
3. The [[Sturgeon}} article states, "In that time, sturgeons have undergone remarkably little morphological change, indicating their evolution has been exceptionally slow and earning them informal status as living fossils." Not sure if "living fossils" is the correct term to replace "primitive fishes".
4. The Bowfin article leads in with "The bowfin, Amia calva, is a primitive species of bony fish related to the alligator gar in the taxon Holostei."

And so on down the list. The template is definitely relative to "primitive fish species", and quite useful in that it links a finite group of ancestral fishes that have remained relatively unchanged from the earliest fossil record. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. Do the work and add appropriate material to these articles if you want, but don't pretend that useful material is already there and that the template is pointing to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme for giving me a list of articles to fix. --cyclopia^speak! 12:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It could be that Atsme means actually to group "non-teleost fish". See Fig.1 here. This would make more sense, since it is at least a somewhat well defined group. But in this case it would make more sense to divide Holostei and Chondrostei, not having a single template. --cyclopia^speak! 12:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia When did you become the sole authority on primitive fishes, and templates? There are other editors with far more knowledge and experience than you have displayed who agree with the template, and the concept of primitiveness, and their beliefs are backed by mountains of acceptable WP sources. Please point to the sources that validate your position over the one you are challenging. Anyone who believes primitive is derogatory doesn't fully understand the meaning of the word, and will be well served to read the articles and follow the links included on the template. Wiki has policies that ALL editors are supposed to follow. I have followed policy, referenced reliable sources, and have avoided original research. What you are trying to impose on this template and the articles that are linked to it goes against WP:NOR. I counsel you to rethink your position. AtsmeWills☯ talk 15:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When did you become the sole authority on primitive fishes - Never. I am not the sole authority on anything; I just state what is the scientifically sound terminology. You now had two biologists here agreeing however that the usage of "primitive" to indicate that subset of fishes is not scientifically correct. If you want a template on non-teleost fishes, then perhaps we can discuss it. About WP:OR, it refers to the content of articles, not to editorial judgement. And if anything, you are engaging in WP:OR in clumping together a bunch of non-teleosts and calling them all "primitive fish", misleading the reader. The problem is that "primitive" is also a relative term; in fact according to whoever uses it, you find even trouts (belonging to a lineage first documented in the Eocene) defined as such. Could we at least find a clear definition of what do you mean to put in the navbox, and refer that? --cyclopia^speak! 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just a fair reminder to all of you biologists. Your expertise is prized and valuable and thank you so much for taking part in wikipedia, however your expertise doesn't amount to a trump card. I have not scanned thru every argument of why the primitive fish template should be removed but I notice one is backed by information published in a blog. Why should that self published source be taken into consideraton? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:GoldSrc engine games

Template:GoldSrc engine games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as Category:GoldSrc engine games, which it is more suitable as. Vaypertrail (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Source engine games

Template:Source engine games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Gives the same info as Category:Source engine games. Everything else already fits in our other templates such as Template:Valve_games. Nothing else connects the articles. Vaypertrail (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed. "Source engine games" doesn't match the main article, and the category also needs renaming, as it is ambiguous. (Source engine vs a blackbox engine) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gamestats

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

External link template to a 404ed site which has never been a reliable or comprehensive resource. Can probably be speedied. - hahnchen 12:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Massacres committed by Zionists

Template:Massacres committed by Zionists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This extreme POV template utilizing terminology straight out of antisemitic/fringe websites is entirely original research as it assumes the political positions of the alleged perpetrators of the massacres. Mind you I'm not aware of any other template of massacres committed by "......" brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NPOV, WP:OR.

1. Reliable sources do not categorize events such as the Gaza flotilla raid as "Zionist massacres".
2. Furthermore this templates is not sourced and represents original research.
3. Note that a massacre means to "deliberately and violently kill a large number of people", while many of the events in this list are, in fact, regarded by most sources as not deliberate. See for example 1996 shelling of Qana.
4. Finally, "Zionist" is not synonymous with "Israeli". Zionism is a political view which is not held by all Israelis. Alleged massacres performed the Israeli military cannot be neutrally called "Zionist Massacres". Marokwitz (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This template makes amalgam between Zionism and Israel, which is a political point of view aiming at delegitimating the status of State of Israel and that does not comply at all with WP:NPoV. More, even replacing "Zionists" by "Israelis" would not be appropriate as it targets a wider group of people than those directly responsible of the events. Something such as "Massacres committed by Irgoun" focusing on the direct perpetrators who revendicated them or "Massacres commited during the 1948 Palestine War" focusing on a period would be more "acceptable" even if the interesest would be discussable. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete—for obvious reasons. What is a Zionist massacre anyway? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment

@nom: utilizing terminology straight out of antisemitic/fringe websites. That is not a criteria at all. More like OR/POV by you. Not an argument in that.

@Pluto2012: amalgam between Zionism and Israel, which is a political point of view aiming at delegitimating the status of State of Israel. Sounds like you are running away with words. Simply, Israel as a (or the) Zionist state is accurate and correct. And of course the pre-state killings were not Israeli's for timeline reasons only. It is you who is labeling it with POV associations. Not encyclopedic.

@Marokwitz, @Ynhockey: "Zionist (Mm)assacre(s)" -- where does the template say that?

@Marokwitz: massacre means to "deliberately and violently kill a large number of people". Your description is not in Massacre. Any RS for this? Your "violently" would leave out mass poisoning, and a "deliberately" suggests that a shelling could happen by accident. So at least your definition is dubious. I read it to be ad hoc.

@Ynhockey: for obvious reasons - not obvious, empty argument. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Covers both pre-Israel and Israeli massacres (Category:Massacres committed by Israel by name does not). Simply, to the point navbox. As I wrote in my comment above, most arguments here (also by nom) are making interpretations that are not in the bare text (that would be OR in TfD). Maybe the wording could use refinement, but that is not a reason for deletion. I have not read or found any wording improvements so far. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• 'Delete.The scope is not clear at all.Seems to me WP:OR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I am undecided. In any case, 'by Zionists' should have read 'under Zionism', as I argue below. I dislike too many categories. I dislike categories other than cultural taxonomies - they bundle up phenomena that might otherwise be subject to distinctions. But most of the arguments so far, beginning with Brewcrwer's, are simply wrong and question-begging. There are numerous problems in many cats, not least the way for several years we have substantial lists (Israeli–Palestinian conflict-related lists) nobody here finds troubling, in which a small group of Gaza-Strip based jihadist/Hamas-linked militant organizations firing mostly lamp-post bombs into the Negev desert are listed as 'Palestinian' (as if the ethnicity had anything to do with it). The usage is not pulled from antisemitic sites, and that accusation is cheap. A scholar of standing, Saleh Abdel Jawad, has written a paper:' Zionist Massacres: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War' in Eyal Benvenisti, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (eds.) Israel and the Palestinian Refugees, Springer 2007 pp.59-127 He details, with a conservative estimate, 68 massacres during 1948 committed by people he calls Zionists, and his work is widely respected for the quality of its research: two of the editors are distinguished Israeli scholars. There is an important distinction between Zionist and Jewish/Israeli, just as there is an important distinction between Islamic and Arab/Palestinian. Which, however, we ignore i.e.List of Islamic terrorist attacks (meaning terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, just as Massacres committed by Zionists (cf.Zionist political violence) are committed in the name, or in the pursuit of the goals of Zionism. I'd prefer not to vote. However, I would be more impressed by input from outside editors, and not editors identified with the I/P area. The only criterion for the former should be, is this kind of cat anomalous, or is it congruent with extra I/P cats (i.e.Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes; Mass killings under Communist regimes; Soviet war crimes (Soviet is on a part with Zionism, both being ideologies); United States war crimes has a cat 'War crimes committed by the United States'. Provisorily, if retained I would suggest these precedents would allow one to modify the cat to read: Massacres committed under Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I agree completely with Nishidani on the quality of the above arguments for deletion. They are all essentially bankrupt and not based in policy. It's not "OR" as Shrike says, since that policy can't possibly apply to navboxes. The nominator's arguments rely on the content of the navbox, which are specifically not a reason to delete it, as the contents can be fixed by editing. The rest of the arguments in favor of deleting it are similarly flawed. On the other hand, my instinct is to support deletion of this template because it, like all such wikipedian artifacts in the I/P area, is troll-bait and, even if the subject were delineable (which I think it is, per Nishidani), without constant vigilance it will degenerate into the nonsense it is now. As Markowitz says, e.g., it's not plausible to include Israeli army actions in such a navbox. However, being troll-bait is not a policy based reason for deletion either. There is a serious problem in the I/P area (and probably others) with the use of these templates (and categories as well, since neither requires sourcing). We're not going to solve that problem here, if it's even solvable. However, there is at least a guideline which suggests that this template should be deleted, and that is WP:NAVBOX. See the five criteria for the existence of a navbox? This meets exactly none of them. Until there's an article on the subject, and sources suggest that one could be written, there should not be a navbox. Until the articles that might go in that hypothetical navbox have some relationship to one another beyond the presences of the navbox, there should not be a navbox. And so on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete as per Nyttend, Marokwitz and alf laylah wa laylah. Like him/her, my instinctive reaction was to delete, but saw no strong arguments for deletion, hence my indecision. There are no 'obvious' reasons here, but the navbox one now is, as is Nyttend's close reasoning below. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, because this corresponds well to the WP:OC#NARROW standards for categories. You might as well have "massacres committed by socialists", "massacres committed by royalists", etc.; Zionism is a political ideology that happens to overlap with religion, but it's not a religious ideology (you might as well call Arthur Balfour a Zionist because of the Balfour Declaration, and he was a Christian), and the position of Zionism has nothing to do with mass murders or non-murder massacres. And what would you do if a person (1) were a Zionist at one time, (2) renounced it later in life, and (3) committed a massacre after renouncing it? Not to mention the issue of whether an incident is a massacre or not! In other words, Zionism and massacre-commission are pretty much unrelated, and whether we include this incident or that is very subjective. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Newark Bears roster

Template:Newark Bears roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct team has no need for a current roster Spanneraol (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)