Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29

[edit]

Template:Pope test

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

The result of the debate was deleted at author request --Byeitical (talk · contribs) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pope test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Never used. Name suggests testing in Template namespace. Does nothing that can't be done with standard templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates.Bazj (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I constructed this when I didn't realize about "stranded" test items. It can be deleted. Student7 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this template with {{db-house}} in response to this. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 03:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

PA Succession

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

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAHouseSuccession box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PASenateSuccession box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No longer used. All uses replaced with standard templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates. None of the additional features of the boxes were used, and were anyhow already populated in the pages' infoboxes. Bazj (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sep11

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thanks to those who stepped in and gave their opinion. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sep11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{Sept11}} covers all this information in a more appropriate horizontal format allowing for more space, less congestion, and the ability to place images along the right side. Veggy (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wish we would phase out more of these vertical sidebar navboxes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think the vertical nav box is going to go away as a species. A vertical nav box can be appropriate to many situations, and its use is no more complicated than the placement of four or five images on an article. I have been involved with taller and wider templates than this, without inordinate difficulty. If the collective sense is that the September 11 constellation of articles is better off without this template, perhaps orphaning the template would bring forward reader-editors that care. As it stands, the reader of an article cannot tell that the template is nominated for deletion. I suggest re-listing again after orphaning.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:EASAD

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

The result of the debate was delete. delldot ∇. 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a navigational template about "Erotic actresses of Indian descent", and listing nine of them. It's not clear why this needs to be a navigational template, as there is no significant commonality among the actresses listed in the template. Some are or were based in India and made films there, while others are or were based in the U.S. or the U.K. and worked in those countries. Some of these actresses worked in the hardcore genres and others worked strictly in softcore. Two of the actresses are not even of Indian descent, but are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent instead. And not all of the actresses listed are necessarily perceived by the general public as being of South Asian descent. There is no clear criterion for which actresses should be listed in this template, and so it would be better to delete it. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Template has been retitled to its original name, which would provide for inclusion of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • May I also add that it really doesn't matter if there are other navboxes like this or not? In the beginning there was no Wikipedia, then there were no article/category/list/whatever for the most of the stuff we have now. The discussion, as I see it, is more about what could/should be, rather than what was. Quite a number of scholarly books has discussed the paradigm of South Asian ethnicity in the porn industry, while the porn industry itself renders enormous importance to ethnic origins (which may be an issue to consider when dealing with subjects on the industry). I can only offer some of the books that discuss South Asian ancestry/ethnicity/origins (India and Pakistan are mostly in focus, naturally, as they have bigger representation and more clout):
  • Mira Kamdar, Planet India, Scribner, 2007, ISBN 0743296850
  • Peter Lehman, Pornography: Film and Culture, Rutgers University Press, 2006, ISBN 0813538718
  • Vinayak Purohit, Arts of Transitional India Twentieth Century, Popular Prakashan, 1988, ISBN 0861321383
  • Suad Joseph and Afsaneh Najmabadi, Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, BRILL, 2003, ISBN 9004128190
  • Jonathan Light, The Art of Porn, Light Publications, 2002, ISBN 0972045600
I hope if the consideration is acceptable to academia, it may be acceptable to Wikipedia as well. Thanks for joining the discussion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is really whether a navigational template is the best way of covering this topic. The topic may be worthy of discussion in Wikipedia without having such a template be appropriate. As an example, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8#Template:Oligarchs, in which a template listing Russian business oligarchs was deleted, even though we still have an article about business oligarchs which lists some of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question actually is whether we are presenting the right examples here. The first deletion discussion ended in a delete verdict and the issue was redundancy; the second discussion ended in a delete verdict and the issue was POV. I see neither applicable here. Why quote discussions that has only a superfluous relation to this discussion? Looks like clear cherry picking to me. A navbox is for navigation, and an article is for information. I really don't see the point in proposing an article in place of a navbox. The current navobox is in agreement with WP policies and guidelines, has a clear scope, and is encyclopedic in nature without POV or OR involved. Apart from vague connections to barely related past verdicts I see no problem here (and even those verdicts are not the end of the world). Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A category is not POV, but a navbox is!! Very strange argument there. Would you like to go through WP:NPOV once again to see what it means? And, where do we find 100+ porn actresses from South Asia? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100+ is a bit greedy don't you think? Bazj (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Especially so when you consider that they may be completely non-existent. Apart from that strangest of statistics the argument also represents quite a few suggestion made in the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (like I don't like it, arbitrary quantity, what about X?, and just pointing at a policy or guideline). Very interesting. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The task of associating ethnicity with this particular occupation has been carried out both by scholarly works and the industry that engages the occupation. Calling that an OR, especially after sources have been provided, doesn't make it OR. Rather the call could be seen as a refusal to see the point. More so when consensus has agreed to retain articles and categories dedicated to the association between ethnicity and occupation.
I would rather address the relevant point here — definition of erotic — which may not be decided on the basis of a fairly underdeveloped article. From what I have, I see that erotic, as applicable to art, is a piece of creative work that either aims at varying degrees of sexual arousal or incidentally achieves so. This view is supported by a number of scholarly sources, including:
  • Peter Lehman, Pornography: Film and Culture, Rutgers University Press, 2006, ISBN 0813538718
  • Jennings Bryant, David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen and Joanne Cantor, Communication and Emotion, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, ISBN 9780805840322
  • Jack Stevenson, Fleshpot: Cinema's Sexual Myth Makers & Taboo Breakers, Critical Vision, 2000, ISBN 1900486121
  • Barrie Gunter, Media sex: what are the issues?, Erlbaum, 2002, ISBN 0805837221
  • Roy F. Baumeister, Social Psychology and Human Sexuality, Psychology Press, 2001, ISBN 1841690198
I don't have much on all kinds of art at the moment, but that doesn't seem necessary. If you have any other reason for advocating deletion, please, state. Voting without a valid argument, especially voting strongly may be counter productive in building an encyclopedia (as is warned by the relevant policy against polling). Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be irreversible if the strong voting wins the day, and, trust me, I have seen votes winning over arguments in the past. No apologies needed though, I have full faith in the intentions of editors participating here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article on one of the actresses in the template, Silk Smitha, says: Some film critics, historians and journalists have referred to her as a "soft porn" actress. Her roles were, however, mildly erotic in keeping with the Indian tradition of keeping away explicit sex from the screen. I don't know what is considered soft porn in India, but it doesn't sound like the actresses who perform in that genre engage in the same on-screen activities as some of the other actresses based in Western countries who are listed in this template. Hence, this template runs the risk of WP:BLP violations by potentially characterizing living people inappropriately. (Smitha herself is no longer living.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we are again falling into the trap of relying too much on underdeveloped articles on the Wikipedia, when there is reason to believe that self-referencing on the Wikipedia is not yet a way to establish things (a point made explicit by Wikipedia itself, see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia). The claim — Her roles were, however, mildly erotic in keeping with the Indian tradition of keeping away explicit sex from the screen — has no source and is highly dubious, so dubious that I have removed it already. If you still think she doesn't belong in the navbox, please, remove her name (with appropriate reasoning of course). You don't need to bring down a house to remove a broken faucet.
The argument about what might happen in future is plain mistaken. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, never a crystal ball. Let's leave speculations about the future to the appropriate profession. Do we really have to stoop this low, like offering prediction of about the future as a valid argument, to get this deleted? If you really need to see this out of Wikipedia (and may be the entire gamut of articles on the porn project) we might as well try to show that this is not encyclopedic, or is too broad in scope or is not supported by published reputable sources or something in that line? This continuous invention of new reasons doesn't show that much good faith, you know.
Occupation by ethnicity and nationality is a common practice on Wikipedia supported by consensus, which is even more valid for this navbox. The relevant policy is completely in favor of this navbox (until it grows large enough to become a list or a category). There is no POV or OR involved, which I hope I have managed to show, with sources and cites, to editors who claimed it without knowledge. One of them apologized (his argument was a mistake), the other went on to gather together as many non-arguments as possible (his argument was clear I don't like it, and the whole nomination is now seasoned with that flavor). Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this navbox does not group articles that are part of a defined series (such as Prime Ministers of India). Moreover, these types of templates (People by occupation and descent) have the potential to become extremely unwiedly; imagine Template:Cricketers of Australian descent or Template:Chemists of French descent.
    This template is attempting to carry out the function of a category; however, the category itself probably should not be created, since all of the articles are already appropriately categorised in a manner that identifies the subjects as being erotic actors/porn stars and as being of South Asian descent. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-arguments seem to be winning the day. And, I am getting tired defending against these strangest of arguments. "This navbox is attempting to carry out the function of a category" - well, that is mostly the function of a navbox, as categories are not the only way to organize articles. "All of the articles are already appropriately categorised" - perhaps you'd like to notice that articles can belong to multiple categories at the same time without a problem (that's exactly what happens to most articles).
"These types of templates have the potential to become extremely unwiedly" - why are we repeatedly offering fortune telling as a valid argument? It seem particularly strange when you consider that there are only a handful of erotic actors of South Asian descent who are notable enough to survive as a Wikipedia entry. Why don't we just go ahead and tell - I don't like it, and I don't care if it is in perfect agreement to all relevant policies and guideline, therefore delete it just so. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
First, while categories are not the only way to organise articles, categories and navboxes have their unique advantages and disadvantages when it comes to organising articles. Just because a topic works well as a category does not mean it will work well as a navbox. For instance, while both Category:The Beatles and Template:The Beatles work rather well in organising content related to The Beatles, Template:1990 births would not work as well as Category:1990 births and Template:German non-fiction writers would not work as well as Category:German non-fiction writers.
Second, you appear to have taken my comment that "all of the articles are already appropriately categorised" out of context, and I apologise if it was due to a lack of clarity on my part. That statement, which you quote in your comment, has nothing to do with the navbox; it is merely a comment regarding the need (or lack thereof) of creating a category for erotic actors of South Asian descent. The point I intended to express was this: since the articles are already placed in multiple categories, there is probably no need to create yet another category for the intersection of "erotic actors" and "people of South Asian descent".
Third, there is a difference between fortune-telling and reasonable expectation. In principle, this template is no different from any other intersection of occupation and descent, such as Non-fiction writers of German descent. While this template may not be too bulky yet, it belongs to a class of templates (intersection of occupation and descent) that would, on the whole, be rather unwieldy.
Finally, I would ask you to consider the possibility that things are not as 'cut-and-dried' as you seem to see them to be. Determining the appropriateness of using lists, categories, and/or navboxes in particular situations involves a substantial degree of case-by-case evaluation; while the template "is in perfect agreement to all relevant policies and guidelines" in your view, others clearly disagree with you. While disagreement is not always based on sound arguments, I ask you not to automatically dismiss all disagreement as being the result of "I don't like it". Doing so hinders constructive discussion and consensus-building, as it shifts attention away from possibly valid concerns or issues without ever addressing them. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_29&oldid=1141876967"