Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

Template:Magicnums

None of these numbers are notable; all have been recently redirected to Magic number (programming)#Magic debug values. Navigation template not needed if there is only one page to which one can navigate. Gracenotes^T § 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, navigation templates which have one article are useless, and a bunch of pages redirecting to one article is the same. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Amarkov. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The result of the debate was CSD G7. I get the idea, folks - though a warning of this TfD would have been nice. crz crztalk 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bite

Unnecessary hampering on new page patrollers. This template harms Wikipedia as it only helps increase the pages for speedy deletion backlog. Cowman109^Talk 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to make CSD more m:Instruction creep than it is now. If it's crap, it goes. That's what speedy deletion is about. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If you are going to rebuke an established user DO NOT USE BOILERPLATE. It is patronising and inflammatory. Either take the time to write a message, or don't bother!--Doc^g 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obnoxous and judgemental template, if people want users who come here just to create vanispamcruft to be welcomed warmly they can do it I guess, but I'm not going to. I'll stick to maintaining the quality of the project, which sometimes means deleting new articles. If someone wants to discuss this with me, a boilerplate template is about the absolute worst way to start the conversation. --W.marsh 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, we shouldn't ABF and just stick a warning template on someone's talk page. If anything, a note should be personalized, asking someone to wait a bit, otherwise we're violating WP:BITE on the NP patrollers, defeating the purpose of the template altogether. --Rory096 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the fact that boilerplate is really really annoying for established users to get, this is based on the questionable, at best, assertion that tagging an article for speedy deletion right after it is created is necessarily a case of WP:BITE, or even that doing such a thing is bad. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:24, 6 January 2007 (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 page.

Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka

No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". There simply are no citations given in these articles as such. While I'm not disputing whether or not the incidents took place, categorizing them as "State terrorism" is the POV of individual Wikipedia editors and that makes this template a clear violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source... Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. (unpublished meaning not published by a RS).

As per these policies, Wikipedia editors cannot arbitrarily decide to call these incidents "State terrorism" and create such a template, and therefore it should be deleted.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename (People Lets Compromise ) No respected agaency has deemed the actions of the Sri Lankan government to be of terrorism. There is a blurry line as to who decides it, but it is plain fact that no Wikipedia editor has that power. With power comes responsibility. Be Bold, but use that with responsibility. Do not create absurd topics arbitrarily. But unlike our politicians let us resolve this through dialog Dasiths 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This template was nominated few months agao and a massive sock puppetry was uncovered because of it. Closing admin should see all the arguments. This is a case of WP:POINT. More to come. Thanks RaveenS
Delete terrorism is a loaded POV term. --Doc^g 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry this is about the template not about Terrorism. If your argument is about terrorism as a term then it should be addressed at the correct XFD. Thanks RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, just to balance the random accusation of WP:POINT. And, of course, the fact that "State terrorism" is an extremely biased term, which should never ever be used in describing specific events. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Terrorism along with State terrorism are nuetral terms just like Genocide and Holocaust. Again we are here citing from credible sources per WP:RS if a WP:RS or sources say an event is State terrorism then what policy in Wikipedia prevents an editor from writing about it ? Thanks RaveenS 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's incoherent. A reliable source can still be POV. I'm guessing that the goverment of Sri Lanka would have a different POV. We can record that 'according to x, this is terrorism' but we can't declare that it is. That;s never neutral. Can I create 'State terrorism in India/Pakistan/USA'? I bet I can find reliable sources that would call some of their official acts 'terrorist'--Doc^g 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again This is about a template not about State terrorism further WP:NPOV alone cannot be used to make deletions in XFD.RaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per RaveenS. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would either of you care to explain why this is WP:POINT? Or how the fact that there was massive sockpuppetry is relevant at all? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Because the above nominator has an edit history that shows he is against most the of the articles linked by the template. More with evidence later RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template is irreversably POV, as it looks at the whole Tamil-Sinhalese conflict from only one side. Also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Khoikhoi 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again POV alone us not a strong reason to delete content from wikipedia. May be you can improve the templateRaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per RaveenS --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh. Let's assume the nominator is indeed doing this WP:POINTedly. Even then, you have 3 people saying to delete it who are NOT making a WP:POINT, so you really can't just keep it per WP:POINT. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The whole template is WP:HOAX and WP:POV..Wikipedia has been used for cheap LTTE propaganda and the incidents mentioned in the template fully confirmed this.Lets take this as an example..A Tamil girl was raped by some Army soldiers and the Government filed a court case and sentenced them to death..But the editor still calls this "state terrorism" !! Isn't it obvious the editors hidden desire to defame the Government of Sri Lanka no matter what good they do ?? --Iwazaki 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This template contains potentially libellous and unsubstantiated allegations against a sovereign government which violates wikipedia's NPOV. This template is currently being abused as a banner advertisement which can be pasted on pages regarding sri lanka so that the government can be defamed by pro-eelam and LTTE supporters around the world. For example take the following links in the template,

Taraki_Sivaram - His murder is still unsolved, and there is no proof to substantiate that he was killed by the government. The LTTE itself is accused to have been behind the murder[1].

Chandra_Fernando - Again it is stated in the article "He was killed by unknown gunmen in June of 1988 in his own church". If he was killed by unknown gunmen, how on earth can this be a link for state terrorism in sri lanka? There is so much controversy regarding his death which can be verified by reading the controversy section.

N._Raviraj - the LTTE is accused of the murder, and there is no evidence to suggest a government hand in his killing. Again there is much controversy regarding the perpatrator of the killing.

All the above allegations of state terrorism are examples of original research, are completely unsubstantiated and should be deleted.

As such I wish to state as per the above examples, that this template contains completely unsubstantiated and libellous allegations against a sovereign government, and that the template is being used as a banner advertisement which can be pasted over as many pages to try to defame the government of Sri lanka. Letting this template survive would create many conflicts as to what exactly to put in it, and who decides what exactly constitutes state terrorism etc, and it should be speedily deleted as it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR amongst others.Kerr avon 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The template is an excellent model for other pages dealing with similar issues to emulate. Inclusion or exclusion of material should be taken on a case-by-case basis. After a cursory, random examination of several of the pages, i would say that most of the material is strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups. Some material, however, should be removed; for instance, the Krishanti Kumaraswamy case is clearly not classifiable as "State Terrorism", and has no place in the template. Most of the instances, however, are clear instances of state terrorism. Those people here protesting the page's existence are clearly pushing a particular point of view based on political disputes rather than Academic rejection, and their opinions should therefore be marginalized as inappropriate for Wiki consideration. Stone put to sky 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Dear stone, Its not only Krishanti Kumaraswamy, all the rapes mentioned in the template can easily be categorised as WP:HOAX.Look at this..Not a single citation is given but editor still have it in this template..Clear indication of his WP:POV,isn't it ? When a soldier committed a rape, how can we categorize it as a "State Terrorism" ?? There was an incident here in Japan ,where an US marine rapped a girl from Okinawa. Can some one call this a "State Terrorism of The USA" ?? If a Chinese soldier commit such a crime ,can you categorize it as "State Terrorism"?? The desire of the editor is quite obvious..When ever a rape happen in SL he's going to have it in Wikipedia under the "State Terrorism".Can you make any sense out of this ?

Also, None of the Organizations you mentioned above ,say State Terrorism exist in Sri Lanka.Not a single nation, including the USA and the UN ,say "State Terrorism" exist in Sri Lanka..So academically I think this whole thing is WP:HOAX and borne due to the extreme dislike the editor had towards the Sri Lankan and Its people.

There are human right violations, esp when you have a brutal Terrorist Organization like LTTE , Some of the counter actions by the Government may have caused civilian deaths..During the war, Air force may missed targets and kill innocent people accidentally ,Is this "Terrorism"?? And if the LTTE is using Human Shields , and civilian die due to this, how can we blame the State ?

I would appreciate if you can take a look at what user Kerr avon wrote above.He had pointed out many incident,which may have had LTTE hand in it, but still ended up in this template which shows the true desire/nature of the creator of this.

Also, please remember ,most the cited sources are far from being neutral..There are sites such as "Tamil Nation" ,"Tamil NET","Sangam " ,"Tamil Canadian" etc..These are extremely PRO LTTE sites !!

The whole template can be easily rejected for its failure to keep the Academic Standard of Wikipedia..Thanks--Iwazaki 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have argued many times before with the keepers of this flame: colleagues RaveenS, Travb and Stone, this is not the way to present contested material. It renders events in an inherently POV fashion by its title and linking of material. Leading to a constant battle. There is a perfectly acceptable and peaceful way to present such material so that it adheres to WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. Far more controversial material than this has remained rightly untouched and undeleted before, because it was created within policy. This isn't within policy. At best, the inference of guilt is tacit, at worst it is shoved down our throats without any counterpoint or attribution. --Zleitzen 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Again as requested countless number of time assume good faith WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA keep discussion to the template not to editors. ThanksRaveenS
Strong Keep After a random examination of several of the pages, I also have the same opinion that most of the material are strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups. DoDoBirds 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Possible Single purpose account or sock puppet - user:DoDoBirds, contribs[2], has made few contributions to wikipedia and his account appears to be used primarily for voting in AFD's and TFD's.Kerr avon 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Per nomination, Iwazaki, Kerr avon. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - "Alleged State Terrorism" or something. The LAnkans call the LTTE's actions terrorism/militancy and the LTTE calls the lankans actions "state terrorism". Things like Black July definitely belong though.Baka man 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - So if renamed you will vote to keep ? RaveenS 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Japanese Blitzkrieg in Korea

It's not being used and the title is complete nonsense. --Wikimachine 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moveto2

Delete Template. Created by a user to put at the top of Death Cap to announce the intention to move the article. Already have Template:Move that should be put on the talk page. Don't need another template to clutter the article itself, especially when the change has little impact on the article itself. --Bobblehead 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]