Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 19

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bankstown line black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Blue mountains line alt2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Carlingford Line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cumberland line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:East Hills line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Eastern suburbs line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:GSR white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hunter line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Illawarra line only white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Interurban colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Eastern suburbs & Illawarra line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Illawarra line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Inner West line black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Olympic Park line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Newcastle line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:North Shore line black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Northern line white (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South coast line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South line black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Southern highlands line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Western line black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

these are now unused after updates to template:CityRail platform box. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CBB navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NBA navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NFL navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NHL navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFB navbox was discussed on the 2011 November 28 and the outcome of that was delete. These four templates are virtually the same as {{CFB navbox}} and can be replaced with {{Navbox}}. WOSlinker (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pride of the Jaguars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navigational tool. In the future, a navbox for the Pride of the Jaguars Ring of Honor in Jacksonville might be useful, if there was more than one entry. As it stands, it is a navigational box that is used only on the team article Jacksonville Jaguars and on the Ring of Honor's only entry, Tony Boselli. — Moe ε 19:57, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clear breach of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH has been deployed on numerous pages associated with alleged anti-Islam organisations. Wholly inappropriate, generic use of side-bar template. Might this be a speedy candidate per blatant misrepresentation of established policy? Leaky Caldron 13:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is OR? There are reliable sources saying each and every one of the included articles is linked with islamophobia. Compare Template:Antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

• Delete The template is an artificial and randomly selected compilation of articles, headed under an already controversial term. —Filippusson (t.) 14:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it makes it easier to understand and navigate the subject. Design and what should be included can of course be debated. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Obviously you want to keep it when you yourself created the template. —Filippusson (t.) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues, organisations and now blogs listed within the template are not all universally applicable to every article to which the template has been added. It is entirely a work of original research created to support a particular point of view. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any example? It is hard to say anything about unsubstantiated allegations. // Liftarn (talk)

• Keep Persecution of Muslims, Islamophobic incidents, Counterjihad and Quran desecration are Islamophobia topics, it's as simple as that. If a link being added is debatable, go to the talk page and discuss whether a particular link is appropriate for the template and whether it would violate such policies, but the template should be kept, as there is a clear use for it. — Moe ε 20:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most cases of Quran desecration occur in Islamic countries. Muslim zealots take liberal Muslims or members of non-Muslim minorities to court (around one thousand cases have reportedly been lodged since 1988 in Pakistan alone [1]) or use alleged desecrations as a pretext for riots, pogroms and lynchings. It would be cynical to label the victims of, say, the 2009 Gojra riots as 'islamophobic'. Ankimai (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I would be hesitant to label anything that is alleged. I'm not saying all cases of Quran desecration are Islamophobic, but that the Quran desecration article is a topic in regards to Islamophobia that would be appropriate for this navigational tool (where 2009 Gojra riots would not be). I advocate that the template is kept and that entries in regards to it are discussed fully before being added on to it so that everyone agrees. All I was saying is that articles like Persecution of Muslims, Islamophobic incidents, Counterjihad and Quran desecration are general topics which should be added to the template as obvious areas in regards to Islamophobia. Articles like the 2009 Gojra riots obviously don't meet inclusion on the template, but attacks like the 2011 Norway attacks which the perpetrator was clearly someone who held an Anti-Islam view and attacked for that reason, definitely belongs on such a template. — Moe ε 21:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a useful tool to assist our readers. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As others mentioned, this is a troublesome breach of WP:SYNTH. Beyond that, Islamophobia in and of itself is a controversial neologism that speaks of a claimed irrational fear or Islam (and radical Islam). It should not be conflated with discrimination or persecution against Muslims, which would be a more appropriate template. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ((edit conflict)) Basically per Andy Mabbett/Pigsonthewing. This is a textbook case of what WP:NAVBOX is looking for: the topics relate to a subject which has a Wikipedia article, the subject is mentioned in the articles, and the articles (largely) refer to one another. Problems with the inclusion of individual articles should be discussed on the template talkpage and/or at those articles. Rather than being deleted, the template should be further populated - and I'll advise everyone to be on the lookout for those same users who think that anyone and everyone can be labeled as antisemitic or anti-Christian (there are multiple works by living people in Template:Antisemitism!!) but that anyone writing about Muslims should have to jump through special hoops in order to have Wikipedia treat Islamophobia in the same way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot Spoiler, you should know better than to claim that the template should be deleted because there's no such thing as Islamophobia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such unhelpful self-righteous condescension. It is a questionable and controversial term that is arguably not one and the same with simply persecution or discrimination against Muslims as is evidenced in the article. A more universal term like either of the latter should be used for the navbox, not Islamophobia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamophobia is a relatively clearly-defined topic area; I don't agree that grouping certain topics under the heading "Islamophobia" is synthesis when we have a root article tying them together with reliable sources. Navigating between topic areas is the purpose of navigation templates. Assuming a sensible level of discretion in its content and deployment, which seems to already be the case, this seems to be a valuable navigational aid. I don't see that the template is inherently POV or controversial, and none of the editors arguing so have clarified why that may be the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A phobia is an irrational fear, and "Islamophobia" is a neologism that is used to label various actions and beliefs according to the viewpoint of the speaker. Naturally sources can be found to say that someone thinks, for example, that banning sharia law is "Islamophobia" because such a ban would have supporters (who think a ban would be great) and opponents (who think the opposite), and each side will use loaded language to vilify the other. There is no encyclopedic method to decide what views are a phobia. The article Jihad Watch correctly asserts that its opponents describe it as "Islamophobic", but it is not acceptable for an encyclopedia to have a template which baldly asserts as fact that Jihad Watch is Islamophobic (for one thing, what would that mean?). We can possibly agree that the 2011 Norway attacks were related to Islamophobia, but it is very dubious for an encyclopedia to use a neologism to assert that a crazy mass murderer is part of a worldwide phobia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh lovely, "we should delete the template because Islamophobia is justified"! As for Jihad Watch, scholarly sources describe it as anti-Muslim so no luck pretending it's all touchy Muslims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? My point is that "There is no encyclopedic method to decide what views are a phobia". Do you disagree? Of course Jihad Watch is anti-Muslim, but is it encyclopedic to label their views as a "phobia"? The suggestion by Robofish below (rename) may be a solution. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can disagree with that, mostly because this term has nothing inherently to do with a fear. It mostly has to do with discrimination against Muslims (note, that criticism of Islam is not the same). I'm willing to bet most people who are labeled homophobic do not have a literal fear of a homosexual, but rather a subconscious one that manifests as discrimination, contempt, or hatred for them (or anti-x behavior). The same applies to the term Islamophobia. — Moe ε 14:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Homophobia is commonly understood to refer to a variety of negative attitudes, and I'd imagine its strict use as meaning literal fear of homosexuals is a distinctly minority one here. Exactly the same situation as with Islamophobia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly! People with athlete's foot aren't necessarily athletes. Antisemites are agianst Jews, not Semites and so on... Criticism of Islam is not necessarily the same thing as islamophobia just as criticism of Judaism is not necessarily the same thing as antisemitism. To decide what should be included or not should be dependent on what reliable sources say. // Liftarn (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but possibly rename. This is clearly a legitimate topic for a navigational template, and arguably a useful one; no one can deny that these articles are all linked by being being related to opposition to Islam. The only problem with this template (and the main reason some are arguing for 'delete' above) is the title. 'Islamophobia' is a controversial term, and perhaps not a neutral one. I think this template could be renamed to something like {{Opposition to Islam}} or {{Anti-Islamic sentiment}} without losing anything, and that would address the 'delete' arguments. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The root article for this subject is Islamophobia. Unless we're going to Bowdlerise that as well (which we aren't), it makes little sense renaming the associated navigation template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, the main problem with the template is that it is used for listing up alleged "Islamophobes" as an objective fact. As the term is a contested neologism, it would be far more appropriate to focus the template around the debate about the neologism itself, such as listing the proponents and opponents of it. Wikipedia can not go on and propagate that the neologism is a widely established and neutral term, when it is not. It is not even established what it connotates; according to the template it includes everything from massacres and murders to European parliamentary political parties and internet blogs. —Filippusson (t.) 16:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Propaganda template. Wikipedia should have a neutral POV; when this template is added to articles, the articles become propaganda.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per thumperward and Roscelese, and by analogy with {{Antisemitism}}. By the way, the question of renaming is largely irrelevant, since our readers don't see the name, though they do see the title at the top (Islamophobia), and that isn't going to change. --NSH001 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. While Antisemitism has bee cited above, I note that not one single person is mentioned on that template. In contrast, this template does do so, and it immediately brings up WP:BLP issues, as it is a form of Association fallacy.

  Also compare with Anti-Christian sentiment. The template featured there is Religious Freedom sidebar. The Antisemitism page also features the Discrimination sidebar As others have noted above, the term "Islamophobia" is in and of itself a controversial neologism. That said, the Anti-Christian sentiment mentions "Christophobia" or "Christianophobia" in the first line. Wouldn't the phrase "Anti-Islamic sentiment", and then mentioning the term in the lead be more NPOV? Let's just try and reevaluate the rationale for having this in the first place and aim for some consistency for these types of templates in general Jemiljan (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions (or have mentioned) some organisations and blog, but as far as I've seen no persons are mentioned by name. Anyway, that is still not an argument for deletion. "Anti-Islamic sentiment" is not the same thing as islamophobia as islamophobia is not directed only at the religion but at the individuals who may only "look muslim" or for instance cultural muslims. // Liftarn (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite obviously not arguing for deletion. That said, you haven't explained how "Islamophobia" as a term can be more inclusive, while "anti-Islamic sentiment" is some how more more limited solely to religion and exclusive as you have claimed. You're making an argument without first defining your terms. Quite clearly, the term Islamophobia is contentious, as evidenced in the discussions above, and the wording I've proposed is inclusive of the range of sentiments, including what some define as "Islamophobia". For example, examine the usage in the following sentence:

Anti-Islamic sentiments have led to violent, even lethal attacks on Sikhs living in the United Stated for appearing to look like a Muslim by their attackers.

Precisely what is incorrect in the above sentence?Jemiljan (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jemiljan, in case the point I made in my last comment wasn't clear, it is utterly pointless renaming this template, since its name is not seen by our readers. It will only be seen in the edit box, by someone editing the section in which it is placed. Now you could certainly argue for the Islamophobia article to be renamed, but that should be done on the talk page of that article, not here. If consensus there is that that article should be renamed, then the title article of this template changes, and it will then be administratively convenient to rename this template.

Alternatively, you could argue that some other article should become the title article. Again that case should be made on the talk page of the template, not here.

I am also puzzled by your statement that individuals are mentioned on this template. As far as I can see, no individuals are mentioned on this template, although organisations (made up of individuals) are, just as in Template:Antisemitism.

In response to other comments, POV issues can be dealt with by editing the template. They are not a reason for deletion. --NSH001 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the big red heading "Islamaphobia" does not render as such when the template is linked in a article like this [2]? Are you certain about that? Leaky Caldron 23:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What renders is the content of the template. I could move it to Template:Mickey Mouse and it would still display the same (via the redirect created by the move, if its name in the articles transcluding it remains unchanged). --NSH001 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare for instance this. Considering islamophobia is the reason for the existence of the EDL it looks reasonable to have it there. Anyway, that is still not a valid reason to delete the template. // Liftarn (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inherently POV template with much room for eventual disruption.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Scholars discussing the term point out to the fact that there is no widely accepted definition of Islamophobia that permits systematic comparative and causal analysis (Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an Emerging Comparative Concept), that it is a vague term which encompasses every conceivable actual and imagined act of hostility against Muslims (Johannes Kandel, Islamophobia – On the Career of a Controversial Term), that the disadvantages of the term Islamophobia are significant (Robin Richardson, Islamophobia or anti-muslim racism – or what?) and that applying it is an exercise in negative characterization, a fact that makes [it] invaluable for political purposes, but potentially misleading for analytical and interpretive ones (Andrew Shryock, Islamophobia/Islamophilia: beyond the politics of enemy and friend, Indiana University Press 2010, p.3). Ankimai (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And you could find other sources saying something to the contrary. This is an argument you should make on talk:Islamophobia; whatever is the consensus there should reflect on this template. --NSH001 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as Jesus myth theory shows a template can do a lot to improve an article especially if the definition is flaky as all get out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Clearly pov collection of articles that are labeled "phobic" and (presumably pov) as a result of that labeling. Assumes that anything said about Islam is "phobic;" that Islam is beyond criticism, unlike the other major religions. "Phobic" is rather pov. But Palestinians are not labeled as "Israeliphobics," for example. Nor is any other anti-religious attitude. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2012 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Out of date aeronautical chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, probably way too specific, unlinked on help pages. Bulwersator (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this should be attached to all file description pages for aeronautical charts. Charts over 2 months old are illegal to use (well, some last longer). For instance, File:CartasNavegacionAeronautica.jpg has a custom notice, but it should use a notice for all aeronautical charts, so we don't need to make a new custom box on each file description page. The design of the notice at File:CartasNavegacionAeronautica.jpg is better than the one in this template, so perhaps, overwrite this notice with that one, and then place it in all chart file description pages. (Yes I know this particular image is on commons, but I suspect we have these on en.Wikipedia, so in the case of the ones on Wikipedia, they should use this template). 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have asked WPAviation for input. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If any aeronautical chart images are on Wikipedia, they should all be marked "Not For Use In Navigation", regardless of age. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Covered under the no disclaimer guideline. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a flying license would attempt to flight plan using charts obtained from the internet apart from the subscription service offered by Jeppesen or similar.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering that you don't need a license to fly an ultralight in the US, IIRC, I would say that it is possible some people are using it, and that not all jurisdictions in the world license at levels that are below ICAO treaty boundaries. We also have a cleanup tag for out of date information {{outdated}}, so... since aeronautical charts expire... they would be outdated, and in need of cleanup otherwise. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "no disclaimers" is about articles, if this is used on files, then it'd be like other file page disclaimers, since most file pages are only disclaimers -- FUR, PD, CC-BY-SA, etc. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not used and not really needed this is an encyclopedia not a flyers website and support comments by Nimbus. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We already have general templates for flagging out of date content. There's no sensible reason for a separate one here, and "should not be used for navigation" on a Wikipedia-uploaded map is hardly different from a label on a toy Batman cape saying "caution: cape does not enable user to fly". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plastic bags things come in say "this is not a toy" (and have a nice picture of a guy suffocating with a bag over their head, and a circle with a slash through it on top of that image)... many things say "do not drink" or "do not eat" even if they're industrial materials. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bags four-packs of toilet paper come in say "This is not a toy", for pete's sake. The cake is probably taken by the English egg cartons, though, that a friend from England mentioned are labled "may contain eggs"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 24 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a box for closing discussions, polls, etc. It should be documented into the various polling/discussion templates. Particularly, {{discussion-top}}/{{discussion-bottom}} pair, that unlike {{archive-top}}/{{archive-bottom}} and {{polltop}}/{{pollbottom}} pairs, does not provide for a box for summarizing the result. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This should arguably be used instead of the various bits of copy-pasted code used presently for outcomes in closed box templates, but it plainly hasn't taken off and a far better solution would be to merge the box templates themselves (there is very little reason for having ten different codebases for templates which vary in almost no details except whether they collapse and what colour the background is). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful template. It is used in closing discussions. I, for one, have taken to using it of late. Thumperward's point about there being a plethora of templates like this is correct. However, that is a wider discussion evolving all such templates. --RA (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL. Just noticed that I created the template. --RA (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Outstanding Children's Animated Program (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Strange, unused redirect. Really redirect/delete. Bulwersator (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

either redirect or delete. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Children's Animated Program. Brambleclawx 20:23, 31 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G7. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, without links, probably duplicate of sth used Bulwersator (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of Oyak_Renault#Current_squad Bulwersator (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAS Hamedan F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of PAS_Hamedan_F.C.#Players Bulwersator (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is being used on several articles to give external links to topics on CNN. External links should only be given to specific information which is not suitable for inclusion in the article. Having selected external links to CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, etc goes against WP:EL - people wanting further information should be using google news (for example) to get a full range if differing opinion from a full range of news sources. Use of these templates is problematic, because where will it end? If we have one for CNN, and one for Al Jazeera, and etc etc we need to have it for all news sources to comply with NPOV, etc. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that having a formatted template for a specific external website is bad in itself (we have loads of them): it's that this doesn't point to a specific article, but merely to a "topics" page which is by definition going to have changing content. That's a no-no in most cases per WP:EL. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alas - precedent now exists for such usage per discussions at WP:EL/N, WP:RS/N etc. Unless we wish to reopen the discussions which held that such a link for an undoubted RS source is proper, the removal of the template is totally non-utile. At this stage, in fact, removal of this template would, indeed, be non-utile. It is currently transcluded on ten pages. Collect (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Can you link to such a discussion? This is WP:ELNO #9, and potentially #13 and #19 as well (the only current transclusions are on biographies for figures unpopular in the United States, where a US cable news category page is likely inappropriately indiscriminate). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Template:C-SPAN (for example) is currently used for a great many BLPs without any controversy, and "unpopular in the US" is a non-starter. I, in fact, had opposed all such ELs in the past - but the consensus on one discussion was to allow them, so I am in favor of stare decisis here. Collect (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be off-base here, but my understanding was that C-SPAN was a matter of public record rather than a news service as such. That's quite different from CNN, which presents content from a specific editorial perspective. "Unpopular in the US" is most certainly an issue when a template is primarily being used on biographies of figures from or involved in the Middle East, given the general perception of US news media coverage of such topics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A purpose of External links and Further reading is to provide additional information on a subject, including that from various viewpoints. This often includes major news sources from all over the world in the language of the Wikipedia (in this case, English). I doubt any Wikipedia article only includes the relevant CNN topic link, although that is what is being implied with the "unpopular in the US" meme. Not every person or subject has a topic link in very major news media source. That is up to the news media source itself. The purpose of EL/FR is different from the purpose of an inline citation, which is why ongoing coverage ("changing content") is a plus, not a negative. A topic, curated by news media staff, is also very different from a general search of that same news media which would include, for example, a different person with the same name. Example: topic vs. search. Google News is even more different, and much worse, as the results depend on web personalization and adaptive hypermedia as well as the rest of its hundreds of algorithms regarding consideration of dates and relevance. Google News may be useful for something in the news that day, but certainly not for anything in the past. 75.59.230.22 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the EL section is to provide unique content above that which could be included here. Unvetted news links do not fall into that category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, this is nothing more than a search of all the news stories on CNN's website, which is really no different than say using template:Google restricted to say news. we simply don't link to search results in the EL section on WP, so this violates current policy (see Wikipedia:ELNO number 9). Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having specific and useful external links to support an article is better than this shotgun type approach to an offwiki search widget. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:04, 30 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template that simply puts a "/" (slash) between two numbers. Does not save any typing. — Edokter (talk) — 17:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as template creator). It's helpful to indicate that {{frac}} should not be used to replace it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like WP:POINT. Delete. — Christoph Päper 21:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:MOSNUM#Fractions provides that {{frac}} should not be used in mathematics or physics articles (although I hadn't previously been aware of physics.) What should be done is to create an option on {{frac}}, perhaps add a "style" option which has "style=inline" (for FracText), "style=stacked" (per what is presently at {{frac/sandbox}}, if fixed to handle all the options), and "style=tilted" to handle the current default. But the {{frac}} template already some complex options, which I have been unable to attach additional options to. Until that's done, what needs to be done is to mark {{frac}} as deprecated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frac is not deprecated in any sense of the word. It's use in math articles is debatable; I cannot find any discussion leading to this rule. The reason it exists is to make fractions stand out from the text, and because it is not possible to display a stacked fraction in text (something I hope te remedy). — Edokter (talk) — 23:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to {{frac}}, which should add a display parameter to choose a suitable display format. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An author-side switch makes no sense and users can already add

    .frac>sub, .frac>sup {vertical-align: inherit/*=baseline*/; font-size: inherit/*=1em*/; line-height: inherit/*=1*/; position: inherit/*=static*/;}
    

    to their stylesheets, which should reset any visual effect {{frac}} may have. — Christoph Päper 10:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An author-side or article-side switch makes perfectly good sense; a reader-side switch does not make much sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody would type {{frac|1|2|3|style=inline}} just to get “1 2⁄3” displayed. Likewise nobody will use {{fracText|1|2|3}} to get the same, it’s easier to remember ⁄. People do use {{frac|1|2|3}}. — Christoph Päper 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it easier to remember ⁄ (⁄) ? It's such an obscure thing that it is unlikely to be remembered, unlike the greek alphabet ones. --- it might be useful to implement a no-parameter version that just prints out "⁄". 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don’t know whether proponents – is there more than one? – of {{FracText}} actually want ⁄ or plain old / instead. As far as names and abbreviations go, ‘fra(ction )sl(ash)’ is just as arbitrary as ‘frac(tion in some style we here call )Text( and camelCase is important)’. — Christoph Päper 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know if there are other proponents, but there are other users of {{tfrac}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except FracText is documented (and I just documented ⁄ to it) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although it didn't get implemented correctly in {{FracText}}, the < display:none>+< /display> makes as much sense in this template as in {{frac}}. Let me see if I can fix it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, it's no longer there. Never mind, then. Still needs a nowrap, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For your consideration: the sandbox version of {{sfrac}} now diplays stacked fraction porerly. See Template:Sfrac/testcases. — Edokter (talk) — 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a reason to Keep this template, if there are 2 parallel templates {{frac}}, {{sfrac}}}, there's no reason why {{tfrac}} shouldn't also be there, to allow editors to change between formats. ({{Fraction}} is specialized; I don't consider it parallel to {{frac}}, even though it has the same parameters.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this template takes longer to type. Why would one want to type {{fractext|1|2|3}} instead of just 1 2/3? I also see no point in the 'conversion' argument; it allows people that prefer 'flat' fractions to convert existing proper fractions, but not the other way around. — Edokter (talk) — 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Edokter, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2011 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete (G5), creation by a sock puppet of banned user KnowIG (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox wheelchair tennis event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

completely redundant to {{Infobox tennis event}}, which has also more parameters and maybe even copied over from there. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment see the prior discussion for Infobox wheelchair tennis player, which was merged with tennis player. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do whatever as long as when a wheelchair tennis only event is staged we don't end up with the clunky and somewhat silly men's wheelchair singles when we know it's a wheelchair only event. Dotdotdashdash (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we can add any missing features to the main template. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I already added them to the template and update the documentation too. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 22:33, 19 December 2011 (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.