Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Santryl (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 30 July 2017 (→‎Template:Family tree of House Arryn and similar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 26 July 28 >

July 27

Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus

Per WP:NDA, this template should not exist. It's a disclaimer to assuage possible hurt feelings cultural offense or something similar, and we don't do that on Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - [EDIT] This is a legal disclaimer in Australia for the benefit of an ancient cultures/ancient Australian cultures (specifically for the dead from their cultures) but, per WP:PBUH, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. (Just as a word of advice, please don't belittle the importance of cultures tens of thousands years old by oversimplifying the argument to 'hurt feelings'. It really doesn't sit well with neutrality and cultural sensitivity which should be respected according to the spirit of the project.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)--Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain at this time; I am running an RFC on this topic, and would not wish my vote here to influence any outcome on that matter. Dane|Geld 23:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld: The RfC you've started is not well qualified, and is on a template page that would have very few watchers. I'd recommend that you find a better forum for the more generic RfC you've started, as well as elaborate on the policies and guidelines you're invoking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, @Iryna Harpy:. Despite being on WP near on 18 months, I've never done an RFC. I read the basic guidelines which said to start it on a Talk page of what you're requesting comment on, and to keep the question as neutral as possible, so those reading it can't guess your opinion. It was as bare as possible because I didn't want my opinion on the topic to influence it. Dane|Geld 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly understood your RfC to be in good faith. The problem is that you are asking for editors to comment on the broader concept of disclaimers, but have appended the RfC to a very specific template. "No disclaimers" is already a policy, therefore, in essence, there is no RfC question unless you wish to overturn the policy (which isn't what you are attempting to do). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I get you now. The reason I appended it to that specific template is because it was seeing it on the article about Gurrumul, that brought it to my attention. I tried to copy it to the Simple English wikipedia, where it was removed from his article. When I informed them that the English Wikipedia were using it, the administrator who removed it informed me it was new, and hadn't even received consensus for use.
The idea of the RFC was to verify the thoughts on the use of Cultural templates (like the one it was attached to) and see whether they were acceptable and appropriate. If I worded it wrongly, or without clarity, I apologise. Dane|Geld 23:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not "censorship" as the material in question is of course still retained in the article. It's also not a "legal disclaimer" as publishing this sort of content is not and never has been illegal in Australia or anywhere else. The "hurt feelings" argument is a particularly callow remark and should be withdrawn. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I must say that I'm leaning towards your argument to 'keep', Lankiveil. The grounds are quite boorish, and WP:IAR applies to any specific 'disclaimers'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Iryna Harpy, both for the nice words and for keeping an open mind. I don't see it as any more of a "disclaimer" than is Template:Current or Template:Recent death. We can have a valid discussion of course about how long a template such as this ought to stay on the article, or about the exact wording to be used, but this template can serve a valid purpose to some of our more vulnerable readers, especially given that Wikipedia's coverage of this person now differs significantly from what the media is reporting. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: I was too quick on the draw, having decided that I should keep personal feelings on the use of the template out of it. It actually occurred to me that we use such 'disclaimers' all over the place for current affairs, etc. (as per the templates you've pointed out) after I'd !voted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a "This is a current event, so the info in the article may change rapidly" and "We've altered the content of this article in order to avoid offense". The former is perfectly acceptable, and the latter is not acceptable per WP:NOTCENSORED (as you stated). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... which is why I haven't changed my !vote. Disclaimer templates of the calibre we use on Wikipedia are inclined towards WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. The variant we're discussing is used as a long-term template for cultural reasons, which is why I invoked WP:PBUH in my 'delete' argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: But we're not "censoring" or "altering" the article content at all, it still contains everything that it did previously did. Your argument is a complete red herring. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: There are no herrings involved, red or otherwise. If you look at the history of the article, it has everything in it still because I reverted it to have what it had before the template was applied. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template has nothing to do with the deletions though, you're conflating two quite separate issues. If anything, a side benefit of this template might be that it makes our position on removing such things clearer, and will remove the amount of work that needs to be done around that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: I'm not saying the template has anything directly to do with the content removals (at least not directly). I'm not conflating anything. If anything, the template should be made very generic, so it can be used for any similar circumstances. I don't think we should be creating templates for dealing with every cultural situation we run across as that would get out of hand quickly. I was merely commenting that the only reason the article still had all of the content was because I had reverted the edits that had removed it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reality is that whenever there is a death of someone with a traditional Aboriginal Australian cultural background, people will try to remove the image and change the name. This at least is a proactive step to avoid that. I also see the similarities to Template:Current or Template:Recent death. The template is not permanent, it can be removed after a period of time when the traditional mourning period ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneymau (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be fine if the template was modified to match the other recent events templates. There's no reason to have it look different. Perhaps something like Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus/sandbox would work. It's pretty much the same thing, but not the unsual color. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—Provides a relevant option for people observing respect for subjects of articles.--Carwil (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword or Delete As currently worded, this seems to be in violation of WP:No disclaimers in articles and should be deleted (it also reminds me of the controversy over whether the article Muhammad should contain images and honorifics). But if Boneymau is correct in stating that people come to these articles and remove names and photos to try to make them comply with their cultural practices, I could see keeping it if it is reworded to make it more clear that such removals are not acceptable here rather than the current wording which just warns them that names and photos might be present. I could also see it being placed as an edit notice (again, like the article Muhammad) rather than being present on the view presented to readers. I'll leave actual rewording to others, as I don't have any ideas for wording that seems likely to be culturally sensitive enough. Anomie⚔ 19:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is in violation of WP:No disclaimers in articles. It is the responsibility of the person wishing to practice avoidance to not view the article, and it should be expected that the name will remain in our page. It's a good idea, but it's not our role to put up warnings like this. Perhaps we could make a talk page template instead saying not to change it? Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 20:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Talk page or Editnotice. The template is clearly contrary to WP:NDA. Other editors have mentioned that NDA allows exceptions, eg {{recent death}}, but that template serves a completely different purpose - to "alert the reader that the article content may be subject to a flux of ... changes ..." This is completely different in scope and and intent to a disclaimer that says "the reader may be offended". If there is a real problem with editors repeatedly trying to edit the article to comply with Indigenous customs (contrary to Wikipedia's policies) – and I'm not sure that there is – then a template on the Talk page, or an {{Editnotice}} would be more appropriate. We have precedents for this, eg on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Sex. As others have suggested, such a template could be date-stamped for ease of removal by bot after an appropriate time. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:No disclaimers in articles makes an exception for current event and temporal templates that are likely to coincide with high levels of activity (i.e. culturally concerned individuals removing full name and images, which must be undone to prevent censorship, as was the case with Yunupingu). Should the wording perhaps change to make it clear that this is a recent deaths template more so than a disclaimer? I'm thinking:
      "This article is experiencing high levels of activity because it is about an Aboriginal Australian person who has recently died. Those who practise avoidance of naming the dead are advised that this article may include the full name, voice, images, and/or footage of this person, which should not be removed from the article because Wikipedia is not censored." Thoughts? Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with putting the standard {{recent death}} on the article, but note that it says "article may change as news reports change", not "... as well-meaning editors try to make the article culturally appropriate, contrary to Wikipedia's policies". Advice to editors about Wikipedia policies belongs on the Talk page or Editnotice, not visible on the article page. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer includes the following: "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures." Since that is one of the five official Wikipedia disclaimer pages, can this be mentioned or linked at the start of a relevant article? Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of WP:NDA is that individual articles should not have disclaimers at the top. (All pages have a link at the bottom to the general disclaimer.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I agree with Lankiveil about the focus should be on amending the disclaimer's wording and how long it should be kept. This disclaimer is not censorship at all as the content remains unchanged. This is a mainstream disclaimer in Australia used by media outlets, by government organisations, and by Indigenous Australians. This disclaimer only supports the content remaining unchanged as many users and non-users are likely to delete the full name and images of recently dead Indigenous Australians (as can be seen in the edit history of Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. As such this disclaimer is a good mechanism to keep content from being continuously deleted and to provide a mainstream and respectful disclaimer for. This is not about hurt feelings or censorship.--Jacarandacounsel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between Wikipedia and mainstream media outlets, government organizations, and so on is that the latter typically cannot be edited by users. In those places, a disclaimer that it "may contain" content is sufficient. But here the editors who are offended by it could take the current "may contain" wording as implying "that should be fixed", doing nothing to prevent the problem of said editors trying to censor the article in line with their cultural beliefs, unless perhaps Australian English interprets such wording differently from American English. Further, the placement of the disclaimer on the article itself rather than as an edit notice violates our own WP:No disclaimers in articles guideline. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As we are discussing a potential exception to WP:NDA, I have included a neutral invite at WP:VPP and on the Centralized discussion template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 'Not Censored' mob has been long used to back up some very weird inclusions - and the rather naive universalist 'one size fits all' approach of content and material, has seen at stages loss of editors, due to the total intransigence of the 'not censored' against 'cultural sensitivities' arguments. Jacarandacounsel has fortunately taken the discussion out of this endless issue - and given a context well worth considering - and I support the argument put forward JarrahTree 07:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. If you don't like something on Wikipedia, it's not our job to forewarn you. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR keep. NDA as a guideline has long outlived its usefulness. It handicaps our ability to serve as a compendium of human knowledge for all of the English-reading world. If you look at the reasoning given in NDA, it reflects a willingness to put the preferences of editors ahead of the needs of our readers. I agree with the longstanding consensus not to censor articles, but disclaimers are not censorship, and indeed our petty refusal to allow disclaimers taints that sound policy by association, making it seem to the casual reader that in that regard, too, we refuse to consider their needs and preferences. We build this encyclopedia for others, not as an abstract academic exercise. I know that the closing admin may be tempted to disregard this !vote, since I might appear to be acknowledging that policy isn't on my side. But NDA is a guideline, and IAR is a pillar. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. NDA, as applied in this context, hurts Wikipedia, and thus policy demands it not be applied. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per Jacarandacounsel and PinkAmpersand. In the context of articles referring to Australian figures, the audience is going to be mostly Australian, and if a significant percentage of potential readers require the disclaimer to access articles it's only right that it should be provided. The only other alternatives would be to either remove the information (violating No Censorship), or to have a situation where a significant number of readers simply can't access biographies on Wikipedia in case the subject had recently died. This is a very different situation from that which WP:NDA is intended to address. If you discard this banner, you're putting certain groups of readers at a disadvantage by creating a barrier to free information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasechun tashunka (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reword as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing to do with censorship - but change template towards the style at Template:Recent death Aboriginal Aus/sandbox per above. Also, most readers of articles about Aboriginal Australians are probably going to be at least from Australia, and per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Readers first#Our audience, the page should be written for this audience, so I believe this template is appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  18:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The more I think on it, the more I understand it to be an IAR issue. The issue is a complex one however, at the heart of it, it is not about religious or personal moral objections that are being pandered to. As a parallel, articles and categories surrounding the subject of Jewishness allow for the fact of ethnicity, ergo individuals who are atheists who are Jews are categorised as 'Jewish atheists', or if their mother is Jewish, they are recognised as being Jewish. Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders are an ethnicity (that is, indigenous peoples are of ethnicities tens of thousands of years old), ergo this the issue is one of an ancient cultural identity. I believe that taking NDA to such a literal level is antithetical to the principles of the project. Another parallel is that of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES where consensus for the use of an image of a highly specific and identifiably unique lifestyle and appearance of a very small ethnic group has been used and is maintained as an exception to the rule. Where there are appropriate generic policies, and there are always going to be a handful of exceptions to the rules. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Although I agree that exceptions can and should be made to WP:NDA, I do not agree that an exception should be made here. Wikipedia is a global project that caters to an international audience, and the fundamental issue is that as a result of having such a diverse readership, it is inevitable that some content that we publish may unintentionally offend some readers – the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED is that we cannot remove material offensive to some at the expense of our broader interest in creating an internationally-catered encyclopedia. This is a sentiment which I'm sure we all agree on.
    I think there's a natural intuition in cases where we know beforehand that some content may offend a significant group of users, we want to forewarn these users through a disclaimer. The issue with this approach is actually the same as the fundamental issue which it intends to address: the diversity of our readership. We include articles which relate to so many different cultures and groups of people, each with their own values and views, that it is difficult to compare and say which groups' objections deserve disclaimers and which do not – this is a main reason why our guideline is to avoid disclaimers. For example, one issue that is seen fairly frequently at WP:OTRS is objections to depictions of Muhammad. We do not currently include disclaimers for depictions of Muhammad, but if a reader were to email OTRS and ask, "Why is there a disclaimer for Aboriginal Australians and not one for Muslims who object to depictions of Muhammad?", I'm not sure I could provide a very good answer. There's no clear line separating which issues are worth a disclaimer in an article, and which issues aren't – the least problematic approach, however, is to avoid disclaimers in articles almost entirely.
    Some point out that the disclaimer is intended to be temporary, but others have pointed out that avoidance of naming the dead can extend "anywhere from 12 months to several years". Currently, {{recent death}} is one of the few disclaimers granted an exception to WP:NDA, and it is to be removed once the high rate of editing following a death subsides – usually not more than a few days or even hours. As a result, even if it is temporary, it is still quite long-term and would represent an unprecedented deviation to our normal practice for disclaimers. Mz7 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PBUH (et al) has already been discussed in this thread. Firstly, we are not talking about a religion with hundreds of millions of adherents across multiple ethnicities around the world: we're talking about what can only be understood to be a miniscule "ethnic group" (as per my observation directly above your vote). It is not about a 'significant' pressure group, but about where WP:COMMONSENSE lines should be drawn. How many articles do you envisage that it has ever featured on, or will feature on (and for a proscribed period of time)? IAR exists for a reason. It's existence is not for lawyering, righting great wrongs, or any form of advocacy, but for genuine cases where abiding by the letter of the law is inappropriate for the circumstances. Worrying that this will open up the sluice gates for submitting to other pressure groups is not a relevant argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the contrary, Irina, I believe it is a quite relevant argument. If the purpose of this disclaimer is merely to warn people not to edit the article to change the name, we could perhaps do that via hidden text or on the talk page. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • IAR does exist for a reason, and I agree with your interpretation of it here. However, I am not trying to wiki-lawyer you, nor am I trying to apply the "letter of the law" in the absence of any other reasoning. Although it seems like common sense to you that Wikipedia should include a disclaimer in articles to appease a "miniscule ethnic group" while at the same time avoiding disclaimers for those "significant pressure groups", to me, that seems counterintuitive. It creates an imbalance in our application of disclaimers in articles that we cannot readily explain beyond the fact that the disclaimer would only apply to a handful of articles. We have one disclaimer, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which tells readers that some of Wikipedia's content may be objectionable, as is unavoidable in a project with a diverse readership. We simply don't need any more disclaimers that cater to every single "miniscule ethnic group" with an objection out there. I don't envision that this will open up a "sluice gate" and suddenly everybody will be petitioning for a disclaimer, but what I do feel is that this would set a precedent that others might follow later, so I advise caution. Is more disclaimers really what we want in Wikipedia? Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Australian media, government institutions, etc, routinely provide similar notes. We should extend the same important courtesy to Indigenous Australian editors and readers. The offensive deletion rationale at the top of this discussion reflects poorly on that editor. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick-D, responding to you as most recent supporter, could you clarify your position for me? Specifically, I'd like to know which groups you do/don't consider worthy of this courtesy. Muslims who object to images of Muhammad? Christians and Jews who object to spelling out God in full? Scientologists who consider information about Xenu to be secret? And how about me and my 100 cult-friends who have divine-revelation that images of bridges are forbidden? Are you proposing that all religious beliefs should be respected equally, or are you proposing that Wikipedia should decide which religious beliefs are worthy of courtesy and which are not? Alsee (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From the tone of your comments, I presume that you are not aware of these issues, or how they are handled in Australia. For an example of the practices of mainstream Australian media organisations, please see the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's policy on respecting Indigenous Australians' bereavement practices here or the Australian Government's recommendations on the subject here - the later website also provides links to the policies which Australian journalists' professional bodies recommend that their members follow. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick-D if this were a disclaimer template for Muhammad images, do you think I would even bother opening links on how Muhammad images are handled in Saudi Arabia? Nope. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. I don't understand which of the endless religions/beliefs you consider worthy (or unworthy) of equal respect and equal courtesy. I would like to understand if you have any coherent position for templates of this type. Or are you literally saying Australian-aboriginal-religion is the one True Religion deserving unique respect and courtesy? Alsee (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, do you also think that Wikipedia should follow the ABC's policy and on any article "Where content is likely to cause ... offence ... use ... classification labels or other warnings or advice"? Do you think that Wikipedia should follow the Australian Government's recommendations and put a warning on every article about a dead indigenous person that "this article may contain images of deceased persons"? If so, we might as well delete WP:NDA; if not, why is "recently dead" any different? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should keep this template given that it's in line with standard provisions used in the Australian media (even the tabloid media often uses these kinds of disclaimers). The other things you're asking me aren't relevant to this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The other things you're asking me aren't relevant to this discussion" – Correct. The Australian Govt guidelines and the ABC's guidelines are not relevant to this discussion. What matters here are Wikipedia's guidelines. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I am shocked and appalled that people are trying to single out a favored religion for preferential treatment. This is directly contrary to WP:No disclaimers in articles. There is a dang good reason for that guideline. There is a strong consensus that we don't put this kind disclaimer on articles containing images of Muhammad. We don't put disclaimers on articles that fully spell out the name "God". We don't put disclaimers on Scientology articles for containing "secret" details of the religion. We don't put disclaimers on articles with images of nudity or women-without-burkahs. We do not, and cannot, add disclaimers for every random religious belief. Wikipedia can't start picking "approved" religions/beliefs are going to be privileged with disclaimers plastered on random articles. Wikipedia doesn't have a religion, and no religion makes up more than about 1/3 of the world population. Any reader should already expect that the majority of the world doesn't follow their religion.
    The only support argument that has any semblance of validity is to discourage people from disruptively editing the article. That is a disingenuous argument here. When people are disruptively editing an article, such as trying to remove images of Muhammad, we use edit notices, talk page notices, and/or hidden comments. No one has offered any rationale why Australian aboriginal religion should be treated any differently than Islam, Christianity, Scientology, or this week's latest cult. None of them get disclaimers, and we certainly can't get in the business of deciding which religious belief are/are-not worthy of special respect. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NDA. We shouldn't single out any ethnic group for preferential treatment. feminist 09:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a disclaimer for an article, which we don't do per WP:NDA. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am really shocked that this exists on WP, considering the fact that it directly goes against core WP policies. As mentioned many times, it is a disclaimer, which WP does not do, and it is a form of censorship, which we do not do. Every page is covered by a general disclaimer, EVERY page. And as WP policy states, "The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits." I can't understand how or why people are supporting this when it is 100% specifically disavowed in core WP policy. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family tree of House Arryn and similar

Original research or copyvio and fancruft; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen where the article versions of these family trees were all deleted.  Sandstein  19:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - These relatively small trees are used for navigation in character articles; the connections in this franchise are particularly confusing. Some are better cited than others, but the suggestion of copyvio is kind of a joke, as we're talking about character names. The use of the Martin-García-Antonsson source was for ease since it is very complete, but these family connections are explained in the appendices of every single novel in the series. The citations to various works have been implemented to satisfy citation purists, but one could argue that connecting characters this way is essentially plot and may not need citations at all. I could see some trimming if the generations go too far beyond characters actually featured in the novels/series in some cases (which is why I was fine with the deletion of the huge article versions), but otherwise they seem to serve a purpose.— TAnthonyTalk 20:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Family tree of House Arryn}} itself does not seem to be used in any articles, so I'm fine with that one being deleted. {{Family tree of House Tyrell}} should be reduced to the left portion that includes active characters, etc.— TAnthonyTalk 20:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, family trees and lists can't be considered copyright violation as we're not copying something word by word from a source. They're just a list of names. On that basis actual family trees of royal families and famous people have to be deleted as well. On the other hand, there are no family trees at the end of neither of those novels. We have just taken the names from the appendices and turned them into family trees. The World of Ice & Fire is the only novel with three family trees by the end of it, which again are different from those that we currently use here. Keivan.fTalk 10:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long term delete but preferably copy to one or other of the character lists or the like first. TAnthony's point that they are used for navigation is good in theory, but they are OR/show-book-conflation magnets (virtually no major house in Westeros appeared in the HBO show without significantly more or significantly fewer members, the show eliminated a generation of Targaryens, R+L=J is canon in the show, etc.), and their being in the template space rather than in the relevant articles serves no recognizeable purpose except to allow vandals/POV-pushers/whoever to push through edits without anyone noticing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: So what you suggest is moving them to the list of characters or other appropriate articles about the characters that are linked to these fictional families, right? If that's what you want to say, fine, we can do that, but deleting all of them only because they're fictional or don't match the "show storylines" doesn't seem to be reasonable as they're principally about the book characters not GoT characters. Keivan.fTalk 11:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These templates were formed because the trees were seen as useful for navigation, and so are used in multiple character articles. I can admit they are not essential for navigation in this way since we have navboxes, so keeping truncated versions in List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters (and perhaps show-specific ones in List of Game of Thrones characters, as necessary) is a compromise that will probably help in understanding the families. They are pretty strictly book-based, and are used in articles which are primarily book-based. I didn't realize that World of Ice & Fire had actual trees in it, so I do want to reiterate what Keivan.f said: these were created from the descriptions of the families in the novels and appendices, and were created before that book was published, I might add.— TAnthonyTalk 17:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral--Thanks for the ping, but I can see both sides. Game of Thrones is particularly problematic because of the differences in name, lineage, etc. between books and TV. Tolkein's works don't have that problem. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates are useful navigation tools, and the trees are adapted from information in published sources. The argument made above by the nominator ("either the trees are original research because the books and the TV show don't match in terms of characters, or they are taken directly from a source and therefore are copyvio") that the trees must be either WP:OR or copyvios is a false dilemma logical fallacy which, if it were true, which it is not, would also make most tables and lists on Wikipedia also either WP:OR or copyvios. The deletion nomination therefore has no valid rationale. —Lowellian (reply) 07:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lowellian: Wait, are you saying that an article that conflates a work of fiction with a separate adaptation of that work that changes major elements (pretty much every element of the templates under discussion) is not OR? Yeah, maybe if a "reliable source" did the conflation it would not technically be OR for us to copy their conflation, but would just be taking false information from a source of questionable reliability (since it got the relevant facts we attribute to it wrong). I don't know enough about fair use to contradict you on whether, if we copy-pasted the entire thing from an external source without inline attribution, it would be a COPYVIO, but Sandstein's view seems to make more sense than you give it credit for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix the problems. I don't see this as copyvio. Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. established that information is not copywrightable. A family tree is bare information; it would be different if we were copying a distinctive, stylized family tree with creative elements that could be copywrighted. And it's not OR; it's reporting the information from the fictional works. Where I do see a problem is with the many differences between the books and the show. It would be reasonable to confine the templates to book-only topics, or to create variant trees (either within the existing template or as separate templates--by the way, I know very little about templates) for the show, with only those characters included or mentioned on-screen. And if some of the trees are bloated, cut the branches that aren't relevant to understanding character relationships. But those improvements don't require the templates to be deleted. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Unless the templates or the lists have been copied from somewhere else, or, unless someone is able to explain why the templates are a copyright violation they should remain as they are. I personally find them invaluable. Thanks.l santry (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sharif

unused and duplicates navigation found in template:Nawaz Sharif Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shantara diagram

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sectoral Contribution to GDP Growth

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seasons in Australian soccer

unused, and it's not clear that we need it since there are already succession links in the infoboxes in 2008–09 in Australian soccer and Category:Seasons in Australian soccer with all the seasons. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Season list 2

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslavia 1980 Summer Olympics squad (men's handball)

unused 6th place squad template. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Year in country category/parent ?/*

List of templates

unused. there are better ways to do this now that we have LUA and wikidata (or even better, just store the parent information in the template call directly). Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HighDefMediaComparison

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).

The result of the discussion was Redirect to the section where the information was merged. The history in the redirect page will preserve the attribution history as requested. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 2008, no foreseeable use, no reason to keep historically Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Page was protected with log message No longer used in mainspace. Marked as historical to preserve GFDL and page history. DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! by inactive admin User:RyanGerbil10. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Brora Rangers F.C.

No navigational benefit, contains only three links and, of those, the link to to the team's ground redirects to the team article. No scope for expansion either. Jellyman (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2016 Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles QF

We have generic tennis templates that can be used and should not create new ones for editions of specific tournaments. Wolbo (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 Bank of the West Classic – Singles QF

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have generic tennis templates that can be used and should not create new ones for editions of specific tournaments. Wolbo (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:2017 BB&T Atlanta Open – Singles QF

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have generic tennis templates that can be used and should not create new ones for editions of specific tournaments. Wolbo (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2017 (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).

Template:Gender-neutral

Promotes neologisms. Can be substed, then deleted. KMF (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. Was and may still be useful and does no harm. "Promotes" is a bit tendentious; I would agree with a wording like "facilitates [the use of certain] neologisms". Since this template is only used in talk space, I see nothing wrong with that. To my knowledge there is no policy against neologisms in talk space. But maybe policies have changed, in which case I'd agree with subst+del. It may also make sense to check who used it; if it turns out that it was hardly used by others than me, then I'd agree with subst+del, too. — Sebastian 02:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with talk space templates that facilitate the legibility of particular expressions. However, I think it's better if this is moved to Template:Spivak pronoun or something similar, as these are far from being the only gender neutral pronouns in use. – Uanfala 12:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "Spivak pronoun" would have been a better name in the first place. But changing it now would affect several hundred pages; not sure if that's worth it. — Sebastian 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I now recall that the name already changed once when the template was new; probably after a discussion, but I don't think anyone thought of the name "Spivak pronoun" then. — Sebastian 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that TfD regulars might have a trick up their sleeve to replace all instances of the template. But even without that, the template can still be moved to a new title, with the old one remaining as a redirect: this won't change existing transclusions. – Uanfala 09:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famines in India

Unused, redundant to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will—This template includes three subtemplates. If they aren't deleted, I have no opinion either way on this one.--Carwil (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Entertainment News Program

Precedent of {{Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Musical Performance in a Talk Show/Morning Program}} that we should delete these Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Great powers by date

Only has one mainspace transclusion (viz. in Great power). As there is no reason for it to be in the template namespace, can easily be substituted and deleted. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tram in Algeria

WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis"

Unused, misnamed taxonomy template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not a straightforward issue. There are two ways to handle genus names that are in use but are invalid under the nomenclature codes. One is to put the taxonomy template at the invalid name, here Template:Taxonomy/Palaeornis, but then fix the displayed text for the genus name to show "...", which is what I've done (but this doesn't display the quotes at the species name line nor in the binomial name box). The other, which I think is more transparent, is to put the taxonomy template at the quoted name, i.e. Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis", and then make the automated taxobox pick up this template. I'd like to know what others think, but it's not correct to say that it's a "misnamed" taxonomy template; it's correctly named but currently not used in favour of the taxonomy template using the invalid name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the concerns of the lone co-participant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kosovo (UNMIK)

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-audio

Unused, redundant to {{PD-old-100}} FASTILY 08:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Karthi

Templates must not include an actor's film roles. If this template aspires to be like that of Kamal Haasan or Leonardo DiCaprio, it has to include his directing, producing or writing credits. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: out of curiosity, is there a policy or guideline for this rule? Or if there's consensus, where might this be found?  Seagull123  Φ  19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seagull123, yes. WP:NAVBOX reads, "Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others." --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_27&oldid=793094301"