Template talk:Terrorist attacks in Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template bolding[edit]

Perhaps putting larger attacks in bold is not a good idea, because whichever article you are looking at has its own link in bold. Maybe underline? —ScouterSig 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same things. All links are underlined (at least in some of the skins), so changed to italics. —AySz88\^-^ 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont understand the purpose of this template. 90% of the pages on the template doesnt exist so whats the result of this, all the links are in red. Either you should make all those pages or remove them from the template. Managerarc (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"War on terrorism"[edit]

Hello- Just a note to explain my template edit adding quotes to the above term: Though widely used in the media in reference to various activities, this expression was invented by U.S. administration political propagandists and is not a legitimate or accurate term for describing the campaigns it is meant to justify. To give Wikipedia proper distance from its invention and use, it should be either placed in quotes or have "so-called" added in front of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHM02667 (talkcontribs) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave your POV out of this. War on Terrorism, for better or worse, is widely used by both the mainstream media and Wikipedia. No need for scare quotes. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The origin of the term is not my point of view, but fact. My own opinion is much more grim.
I've never encountered the term "scare quotes" before, and from reading the WP article you linked, I'm not at all convinced that it accurately presents the term's definition or the extent to which it is accepted.
In any case, I was not using the quotes in the negative manner you seem to be implying; I merely don't think WP should use that term without giving some indication that it is a contrived one. Good journalists in the U.S.--and almost all journalists I've heard and read from elsewhere--insert "so-called" before the term "war on terrorism" (and especially before the grammatically lamentable "war on terror"). They do not do so to indicate their POV, but to maintain neutrality and distance themselves from endorsing the term. -Eric (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well Eric, I don't know where you are but I read American journalism everyday. The only time I come across a person inserting "so-called" before the phrase "war on terrorism" is when the writer is an opponent of said war, writing in a non-objective media article. (i.e. a partisan political magazine) It very much is your POV that the name is propaganda or that journalists that do not use "so-called" are not "Good journalists." I am not a particularly big fan of the "War on X" formulation, but as I said: for better or worse this is the phrase we are stuck with for now. If people need more context to the term, the reader can follow the link to the full article where there is discussion of historical usage of phrase, as well as a link to a separate article (Criticism of the War on Terrorism) The scare quotes are unnecessary and inappropriate. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the template that's unnecessary. --Wetman (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree the template is not needed. I have a feeling, though, that marking it for deletion at this time would not be successful because the subject is so current. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the template is utterly unnecessary. Steven, on second read, I think rather than saying simply "good journalists", it would have been more accurate and just for me to say "journalists who are careful with language and not quick to jump on bandwagons"; I'm sure plenty of good ones have yielded to pressure or laziness over time. Sorry you think the above is only my POV. I take a long view on what I see in the world--from the perspective of thousands of years of history--and not from any fixed standpoint or group membership. FYI, my main news sources are NPR, BBC radio, Radio France International, Newshour, Deutsche Welle (German radio news), and whatever papers I come across. -Eric (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you Eric for implying that I do not "take a long view" and that I do "jump on bandwagons". Maybe you should review WP:FAITH. If you want, you can nitpick all kinds of naming schemes for various wars. For example, Great Patriotic War vs. World War II, or even better the very determined editors who want to change Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe to Allied occupation of Europe, claiming that the Soviets were part of the allies and that they "liberated" the Eastern Bloc (See, there are those scare quotes again!) You can take the same issues with the American Civil War (War of Northern Aggression vs. War between the States vs. War of the Rebellion vs. American Civil War) for better or worse a name needed to be chosen. Has the South won, surely a different name would be chosen, after all history is written by the victors. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy---no need to get defensive. I wasn't implying anything about you, no insinuation whatsoever, just clarifying where I'm coming from in reaction to your above comments ("non-objective media article", etc). -Eric (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Any reason why is this right-aligned and not in the traditional footer style? Lugnuts (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Template is misleading[edit]

It says the underlined ones had more than 100 deaths but all of them are underlined. I am deleting this sentence. If anyone who knows more about editing templates would like to change it so only the attacks with over 100 deaths are underlined then go for it. NeoJustin (Talk page) 05:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

All of them are not underlines, maybe its a browser problem? there are only 2 this year, for example.(Lihaas (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Some browsers underline all links; see #Accessibility, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


The use of emboldening, underlining and colour to convey information does not meet WCAG accessibility criteria; these should be replaced with icons such as asterisks, hashes and daggers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbering of attack?[edit]

I think its not wise to number attacks as 10th Karachi, 15th xyz etc. Better you name them as "March, Karachi" and "April, xyz" which explain better for navigation.--Nizil (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)