Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 4



Template:Dmoz2

 * 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 both --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This template uses a website search, which violates guideline WP:ELNO item 9. Qazin (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - violates external link policy. Terraxos (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This nomination does not denigrate the use of DMOZ category links, or template:dmoz, which are encouraged by the guideline as a deterrent to link spam. Qazin (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it can help provide more accurate results for subjects that do not mirror DMOZ categories. The Open Directory Project has long been encouraged as a solution to extended disputes over external link sections; we should not remove a helpful tool. Keep in mind that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy, and as such "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I would suggest that this template is a good example of a common-sense exception. --Ckatz chat spy  06:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree completely, but its conflict with the guideline invites reversion by sincere and diligent spam fighters, making its legitimate use contentious and difficult. However, a strong consensus to keep it will provide a good argument to add a specific exception for dmoz searches to WP:ELNO 9, which I would then be willing to propose there. Qazin (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no common sense to it since the same argument can be made for a newspaper search page. The Dmoz1 template serves a very good purpose.  But making a template that directly violates a guideline, and the spirit of the guideline makes no sense at all.  (And unlike Google, the thing isn't used on talk pages so keeping it around for that is silly.)  2005 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm inclined to agree with Ckatz. DMOZ is clearly not commercially bias, if often not very helpful. Probably worthwhile ot our Readers now and then (not obviously a problem) and perhaps worthy of an exception. ww (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since there are no contributors to dmoz2 to notify per TfD guidelines, I have notified all active past participants in the similar dmoz TfD discussion, and the dmoz talk page. Per guidelines, I initially notified all talk pages of articles using dmoz2. I later found that a number of articles use the dmoz2 search without using the template, so I notified their talk pages also. I hope that covers most of the interested parties and stimulates discussion. Qazin (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should not normally be used in article-space per WP:ELNO#9, but can be used on article talk pages, and possibly in project space.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - DMOZ templates reduce spam and are clearly explained in WP:EL, a widely accepted standard and style guide, as a valid and useful external link. With all due respect, this nomination is a waste of time if you can't change consensus at WP:EL first. roguegeek (talk·cont) 11:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I originally thought this template worked much like dmoz, but upon further inspection (which I should have done in the beginning), I now feel like this is a violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID #9. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

However, Dmoz2 is different. It provides a link not to an ODP category, but to a search results page at ODP, which on its face violates WP:EL. Also, Dmoz2 includes a "suggest a site" link (i.e., an invitation to submit a URL to ODP), which I think is an inappropriate bit of promotion. Furthermore, Dmoz2 is used (as of this writing) in only 4 articles, which leads one to ask whether it serves a useful purpose. Examining those 4 uses, in one case (Cancún) the template lists the entire ODP category path as a search term, with the effect that the search produces zero results, but the "suggest a site" link works. In Batman the Dmoz2 template is useful, as it produces a list of several different ODP categories related to Batman (movies, video games, cartoons, etc.); it would not be possible to find this collection by linking to any one category at ODP. However, the Batman "suggest a site" link does not work properly because the link does not point to a category. In Nuclear-free zone the link points to a search results list, but it's apparent from the search results that ODP doesn't have a category or much in the way of useful content about this topic. In Web chat, the link points to a search result that lists several different relevant categories; however, that article would be better served by a direct link to the single ODP category Computers:Internet:Chat. My bottom line: Keep the template, but delete the "suggest a site" element from the template and add template documentation that explains that Template:Dmoz should be used for almost all links to ODP, and that this template should be used only in instances (such as Batman) where ODP has several very relevant categories that cannot be identified by linking to a single ODP category. Also, remove this template from Nuclear-free zone and replace it with the Dmoz template in Cancún and Web chat. (I am itching to edit the template and articles, but did not do so yet because I wanted them to be available to illustrate my comments.) --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've think I've only used this template to link to categories so that use doesn't technically violate WP:EL#9. But in any case, these are "links to be avoided", not "links that should never be used".   In my experience, the dmoz template helps reduce spam problems in articles and provides useful information to readers.  Wrs1864 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete - I'm sorry, I just noticed. This TfD is about the dmoz2 template, not the dmoz template.  I have only used the latter and it appears that the dmoz2 template does violate WP:EL#9 and seems to me to be on much more shaky grounds. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I'm including dmoz3 in my opinion, it was added to this TfD after my comments above.  Second, I think GRuban makes a strong argument below about why the dmoz "see also" sections maintained and selected by them are better than any category searches that we add here. so I'm changing my opinion to straight "delete". Wrs1864 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Very Weak Keep, but with editing of the template and documentation Delete. [Edit conflict: Wrs1864 posted while I was typing.] When I was invited to this discussion, I thought that it was about Template:Dmoz, which provides a link to an ODP directory category related to the article topic. I think most of the above comments are in support of that template. Template:Dmoz clearly should be kept.
 * Changed my opinion from "very weak keep" to "delete" based upon further reflection and subsequent comments. Contributors might continue to create links to Dmoz search pages, but they should be encouraged to do so by the existence of a template. --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Great analysis of the four Dmoz2 uses! Unfortunately, the use is a little more pervasive than it at first appears because of 28 more articles which use the same search link without using the template, which don't appear in the backlinks. (This list also displays 63 more uses in non-article namespaces as well - I couldn't figure out how to filter those out of the external link search). I didn't look at these in detail, only to notify their discussions. Qazin (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, I boldly added Template:Dmoz3 to the discussion. It is similar to Dmoz2, and it isn't used anywhere. Delete Dmoz3.--Orlady (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Disclosure - While reviewing the Dmoz TfD discussion, I was reminded by another editor's disclosure that I should perhaps disclose that I am also a DMOZ volunteer editor. I can't imagine how this TfD could effect me as a DMOZ editor and it was not a factor in making this nomination, but in the interest of full transparency I am now disclosed. Qazin (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Having commented in the original dmoz deletion request that it was such a useful template, this one is not. However, since there is a google template, it may be kept for talk pages only. I don't see any difference between dmoz2 and dmoz3, so the later should be deleted. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Both. The template directly violates the external links guideline and thus should never be used, and immediately removed any time it has been used. There certainly can be no justification for allowing a template to exist that can never be used. 2005 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. This is exactly the sort of thing that we ''don't' want in external links:  something that we have no idea what will actually turn up when you click the link!  Search results are deprecated under WP:ELNO #9 for good reasons.  Anyone that actually wants to use this under WP:Ignore all rules or "common sense" is perfectly capable of adding a search link without using these "handy" templates.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain While strongly in favour of dmoz I don't see a strong reason to keep dmoz2 and dmoz3 - the ODP search is really a subsidiary function of the Open Directory; its proper use is more to find category pages than sites. The primary interface of the Open Directory are the category pages. Should dmoz2 and dmoz3 be kept we should remove the suggest links as the argument for the add cgi is an ODP category path not a search term. (Disclosure: I am an Open Directory editor.) Tschild (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - You raise a very interesting point ("... its proper use is more to find category pages than sites ..."). The conceptual framework of the ODP is similar to that of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) in that "the basic classes [(categories)] are organized by disciplines or fields of study....not by subject" (DDC 21st ed., p. xxxii). Therefore, "there is likely to be no single place for a given subject" because any subject will "fall under several disciplines." The DDC 21 illustrates this by showing that the subject of "clothing" is classified in its various aspects under armed forces, arts, commercial manufacturing, customs, health, home economics, home sewing, product safety, psychology, and social welfare. "The guiding principle of the DDC is that a work is classed in the discipline for which it is intended," therefore different works on the same subject fall under completely different classes. Similarly, in the ODP different sites on the same subject can fall under completely different categories depending on the site's treatment of the subject and disciplinary focus. The DDCs "Relative Index assembles the disciplinary aspects of the subject of clothing in one place" by listing the various discipline categories under which the subject's various aspects fall. The subject search of the ODP is analogous to the Relative Index of the DDC in that it lists the categories in which sites on a given subject are currently indexed by the ODP. The ODP takes it one step further by also listing indexed sites and their categories below the list of categories. Qazin (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ckatz (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 11:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, much as per Tschild's argument. The main reason for the continued existence of any web directory, such as the ODP, as opposed to web search engines, is to organize things in categories. Linking to the appropriate ODP page is sometimes useful, but we should pick the best ODP category, and trust that it will link appropriately further. Play to its strength, not its weakness. The categorization and internal "see also" and "related category" linking is really the point of the ODP. For example, for Batman, we should link to http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Comics/Titles/B/Batman/ which has prominent "see also" links to the animated cartoons, the live action movies, the games, and the toys, which in turn similarly link to all the other categories the http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=Batman&morecat=1 search provides. If we treat it as a search engine, we'd be better off linking to Google and company, since they list more sites, and has a better search. We've decided not to do that, for good reasons. (Former ODP editor - long time ago. Hi, Orlady. :-)) GRuban (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Gruban's reasoning. Garion96 (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I took a look at current DMOZ searches that don't use dmoz2. A DMOZ search results page lists up to 5 categories at the top of the page, showing the number of results in each category. There may be results in other categores, but only 5 are listed. The search results are listed below the category list. For each search, I identified how many of the 5 categories have the subject name in them (subj cats) and could be used in place of the search, and how many do not and probably should not be used in place of the search (non-subj cats). I show hits for each of these (hits), hits in the 5 cats, total hits for all dmoz, and hits in categories that aren't listed in the 5 categories (other hits). I also uncovered several instances of possible abuse (note 4).

Notes: 1. search string contains category filter; 2. No matches in subject category because the only item doesn't have subject in description; 3. 1 of 2 results is a mis-match; 4. Possible abuse because site name appears to be used as search string; 5. Unusual results merits investigation; 6. Hit means a match; 7. Uses both dmoz2 and non-template search. Investigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazin (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Search #23, the topix search, is cited in the article to support the statement that the Open Directory has a huge number of links to topix.com. That is a primary source that verges on original research (but the statement is true, and it's better sourced than many other statements that have been included in Open Directory Project). --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete both. The original dmoz template makes sense, as it links to a human-crafted category. These link to search results which, being machine-crafted, may or may not bring back suitable results. Further, the search engine built into DMOZ is so poor as to be practically useless. Besides, listings in DMOZ that match the keywords will rank highly in the search results for any of the major search engines. (Disclosure: I am a DMOZ editor). &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Recent death

 * 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 keep --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see two problems with this template: So I propose to either delete this template, or (if there'll be no consensus for that) change the template documentation to instruct our editors to use it only when Template:Current could be used as well. --Conti|✉ 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) In 90% (or 95%, even) of all cases, the template is simply not useful. The template tells the reader that information regarding a person's death "may change rapidly as more facts become known", which is quite misleading. Sure, information "may" change rapidly, but in nearly all cases, they don't. In most cases, there's simply nothing further to report after a person's death. And even if there is something to report, rarely will any information change "rapidly". So what, exactly, are we trying to tell our readers with the template?
 * 2) It is not being maintained. I just spent half an hour removing the template from 85 articles about people who died more than 14 days ago. That's more than half of all articles that contained the template. Sometimes the template was used in articles for more than a month without anyone removing it. Not to mention that there was no kind of rapid change in any of the articles that I edited.
 * Keep It's flawed but its useful. There have been a number of situations where the circumstances of death and details about the individual changed rapidly -- Cory Lidle and Steve Fossett come to minds -- and this template does alert a reader to the situation. Is it used perfectly, no, but that's reason to improve processes not delete the template. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two articles are pretty bad examples for your cause, actually, considering that neither articles ever used the Recent death template in the first place. Both used Template:Current instead. It was used at Steve Fossett because he was missing, but not confirmed dead yet. I'm not sure why Template:Recent death wasn't used at Cory Lidle, since both templates applied to that article at the time, but only Template:Current was used. Additionally, Cory Lidle was edited heavily for just about 5 days before editing calmed down again. If we'd use this template only on articles where information actually does change rapidly, the template would be used at 1-2 articles at the same time, at most. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but it just doesn't seem that useful to me. --Conti|✉ 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Flawed but useful sums it up well. Articles do tend to change rapidly as more details of a person's death become known and as obituaries are published, and it is well worth marking articles likely to change in that way. Rewoerding it to indicate that it's not just details of the death that may change may be appropriate for that reason, too. If a major problem is maintenance it would be very easy to get a bot to remove it from any articles where the date of death is listed as more than a month earlier. Grutness...wha?  23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to some articles that did change rapidly after the subject of the article died? I've removed the template from 85 articles, as I said above, and at most those articles received 10-40 edits the day of the death, and that was it. After that, those articles didn't get more or less attention than any other article. And that's nothing we need to inform our readers about. --Conti|✉ 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I know full well that I edited a few articles once I saw details in published obituaries. ISTR that Hone Tuwhare was one such. Have a look at the swarm of edits in January this year, which lasted for about two weeks after his death. Grutness...wha?  01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At the date of his death, the article was edited 15 times. The next day it was edited 6 times, and the next one it was edited once. I wouldn't exactly call that a swarm of edits. These are the changes in the three days mentioned. Do we really need to tell our readers about a mild increase in editing? IMHO, That article is a good example where the template isn't really useful. --Conti|✉ 01:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're looking at "the date of his death" from the UTC viewpoint. He was in New Zealand, which is where most of the edits were - and that's 12 hours ahead of UTC. Once that's taken into account, there were 13 edits on the day of his death, and a further 13 over the following two weeks. Compare that to the nine edits over the entire previous year. Even if you count the UTC time as the day, there were still more edits in the following two weeks than in the previous ten months. I'd call that a sharp increase in editing that lasted for more than just the day of his death. Grutness...wha?  01:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that's definitely a sharp increase, relatively speaking. But I'm still not convinced that we need to tell our readers about it as long as that sharp increase means "26 edits in 2 weeks". 260 edits would warrant a notice for our readers, but 26? Nope. --Conti|✉ 02:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The use of this template is flawed. It is intended for use in articles where "information pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events may change rapidly", however, it is routinely added to almost EVERY death. It just creates a mess that someone has to eventually clean up. In the unlikely event that information does change rapidly (for example, Alexander Litvinenko) then Template:Current is sufficient and more appropriate. WWGB (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The problems with this tag are legion, a look here will explain why this editor does not feel this template serves the encyclopedia well. Unschool (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't really add anything. If someone who is very notable dies today, then chances are their article will be protected against vandalism.  It's being over-used to highlight one thing about a person's bio.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The usefulness of this kind of template is assumed as a matter of faith. Information can always change. It's patronising to shout this out to our readers in this special case. In reality this template merely adds a distasteful taint to proceedings. Flowerparty ☀  08:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I find this template very useful, and adds a lot to the article, becaue it is a recent event, but more so a recent death, which makes no sense to want to delete this template.--Sugarcubez (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Strong keep While less-traveled bios will not benefit as much from this, often edited articles need this template. Cosprings (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? WWGB (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep but change documentation, add a "day" field, and include an automatic "update after 2 weeks from today's date" logic. This may require that it become a subst: template but that's okay.  If the template is not changed, it's easy enough to create a bot that will sweep all articles that use this template the middle of every month, check for anything that's not the current month, and add "update after|today's date" to the end of the template.  People watching the article should see the change and act on it if necessary. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong merge with the current template. Create an expanded template for current that mentions the person recently died.  This would reduce the number of templates.  The lack of usage on above mentioned articles suggests to me that a merge would be better.  --199.254.212.44 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - See no point in this template. It should be clear in the lead. Besides, of course information may change rapidly, this is a Wiki after all. Garion96 (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the fact that after some day from the person's death this template should be eliminated from the page of the article. But I think that this template should rest because it's effectively possible that news about a person's death may change. Gianluca91 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per davidwr — OwenBlacker | Discussion 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment And what is the definition of "recent"?  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Lugnuts As a rule of thumb, "Recent" means either in the last week or that a significant number of edits that would not have occurred but for the person's death have been made in the last week and those edits have been happening pretty much continuously since the death was announced. In other words, "recent" is "until the noise dies down, plus a few days" or "a few days," whichever is longer.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as an imperfect but very useful tool for both editors and readers. - Dravecky (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, the template adds biographies to Category:Current events and Category:Recent deaths and the related changes of Category:Recent deaths is immensely useful as a watchlist of articles about people who have recently died, articles that receive frequent bursts of editing. The language of the template can be changed. The contents of the article can change rapidly, due to the death being reported in the news. And I really didn't know the time limit to keep the template on a page was 14 days. Why 14 days? Isn't a month also "recent"? I suppose editors could add Category:Current events and Category:Recent deaths to the bottom of articles like Michael Crichton manually. But recent death is quicker to type at the top, and when the template is removed, the categories are automatically removed. Editors need to stop ignoring the related changes tool when nominating things for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quicker to type? That's your argument? Seriously, since when do we allow for conspicuous self references purely for the convenience of a handful of our editors? Couldn't a list of recent deaths be generated using persondata or something? That would be far less intrusive for the 99% of readers who are not following related changes. Flowerparty ☀ 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can willfully ignore everything else I said, I'm confident you'll be able to ignore this "intrusive" template when you come across it. This template is as intrusive as *any* other current events tag or temporal template, which this is. Category:Living people has over 307,000 articles in it. They're not going to live forever. It may seem trivial to you, but it *is* quicker to type "recent death" at the top of the article than go down to the bottom and type "Category:Current events" and "Category:Recent deaths". One of the purposes of templates is to save time for editors, by transcluding commonly used text. Another purpose of templates is to provide information to readers. This template lets readers know that a person just died. When a notable person dies and that death is in the news, the Wikipedia article often undergoes big changes. The size and look and language of a template can be changed. If a reader finds this template intrusive, they're free to follow the link to this TFD from the template itself and say so.
 * It is true that you don't need a template in order to add Category:Current events and Category:Recent deaths to an article. But if the template is deleted, editors will be adding Category:Current events and Category:Recent deaths to articles manually, and separately. Then instead of taking half an hour to remove 85 templates from 85 articles (which nobody told Conti to do anyway), Conti will probably be complaining about removing 170 categories from 85 articles -- and if some other editor has gotten to an article before Conti and removed Category:Recent death but not also Category:Current events, Conti will be rummaging through Category:Current events, wondering why all those people are in there. Those two categories are tied to this tag. When the tag is added, the categories are added. When the tag is removed, the categories are removed.
 * The template is not just for people who follow related changes. I don't know why you assume readers do not want to know that a person just died or that such information is intrusive. --Pixelface (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, templates like these are supposed to be solely for our readers. Any templates for our editors go to the talk page instead. Category:Recent deaths might useful, but as you said, it can just as well be added (and removed) to the article manually. I don't see how that's any easier or harder to do than adding and removing a template.
 * 14 days was an arbitrary number chosen by me. Editing in all articles in that category has been resumed to a normal amount after that time. One week is a much better time for removal, tho, since nearly all articles about the recently dead change back to normal editing after just a few days. Only a very few examples (I'm sure Michael Crichton will be one) have rapid editing for longer than a handful of days. --Conti|✉ 21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, it would probably be extremely simplke to get a bot to remove this template from articles if it's been left on for more than a set length of time. I realise that there may be cases to be made for longer or shorter periods (in the case of articles like Steve Fossett there could be a case for very long "recent" periods) but two weeks sounds fair. Grutness...wha?  05:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This template benefits editors *and* readers. Putting this template on the talk page would make it so the related changes of Category:Recent deaths would only show the changes to the talk pages of people that have recently died, not edits to the articles of people that have recently died. Things that happened over a week ago can still be considered "recent." Of the 85 articles you removed the tag from on November 4, the oldest date of death I noticed was September 25. That's 9 days over a month. Most of the death dates I saw were less than a month ago. I seriously don't see the big deal with this tag being in an article for a month (or more if the death is still in the news). Then you can look at Category:Recent deaths and see all the notable people who've died in the past month. It's fascinating. Now, someone wanting that information *could* also look at Deaths in 2008 and Deaths in October 2008, but categories and lists complement each other. And categories can be used as watchlists with the related changes tool. It's just as easy to remove Category:Recent deaths as it is to remove recent death, but the template has the added benefit of notifying readers, at the top of the article, that the person just died and that the contents of the article may be in flux. --Pixelface (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Somewhat flawed in its wording, but it serves a purpose.  If it's just deleted, people will use current instead, so delete is the same as merge.  Merging in with current just substitutes one slightly confusing template with something that's even more confusing when used for this purpose.  I don't see what's wrong with having this template on an article for two weeks or more, even if the article is only minimally edited in that time.  Someone needs to deal with the maintenance task of cleaning up the old ones.  Okay, WP has a lot of such tasks.  I've seen cleanup and contradict tags that are many months old.  Perhaps someone should have a bot for finding these and dealing with them.  Randall Bart    Talk   20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I concur with davidwr. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per PixelFace above. I recognise the problems with this template, particularly the fact that it tends to remain on articles long after their death is 'current' - but for the value it has in keeping track of edits to pages of recently dead people, it's worth keeping. Perhaps adding some sort of automated 'remove after X time' function would improve it. Terraxos (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This template provides a quick header for articles in a state of flux and explains that not all information is necessarily available. Just because the template is there doesn't mean it should be used every time someone dies. Conversely just because it is used sometimes doesn't mean it has to be used every time. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found the template useful at Michael Crichton. It just makes sense to post that information front and center for a famous person who just died.  The "information may change" part is silly and probably should be removed.  Maybe it can be removed after two weeks with an automatic program, if someone can design that. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I have always found this template and other current/future events to violate WP:NOTCENSORED. 95% of the time the person/event is NOT changing rapidly and it is common sense that nothing is set in stone.  Reywas92 Talk  00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.This template does not at all imply that Wikipedia is censoring the current article. It instead implies that government officials or the family of the deceased may be keeping some important information confidential from the public, or that there is currently an investigation into the death of an individual and we currently do not have some important details.Spitfire 19  (Talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree strongly with the nominator's first argument - the full details of a person's death are rarely, if ever, known immediately afterward. This is especially true when the deaths are unexpected (accidents and murders). In such cases, new information comes to light for weeks, sometimes years, afterwards. I also disagree partially with his/her second point: there certainly needs to be a standard removal point for the template (14 days sounds good to me), but this is a point of contention, and no such period of time has been established. I've seen many editors argue that the template should stay for at least a month, and even one that thought it should stay for six months. faithless   (speak)  02:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "Current Event" template could be confusing to people who haven't heard about the death. I'd rather err on the side of too much information than not enough. Planninefromouterspace (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Unschool. This template is made of fail. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I don't agree with the nom. If you really see this template as a problem, why not have a bot programmed to remove it from pages it's been sitting on for a while? I don't see how you fail to note its usefulness. It alerts unsuspecting individuals that the page they are viewing is about someone who just died. That's good enough for me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Template:Current serves the same purpose, and whilst being less descriptive, it has a better track record of being maintained properly. -- Jon Dowland (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rephrase. The "information about death may change rapidly" bit may be silly in some cases, but in general articles do need to be reworked once their subject is dead, if only to change things to the past tense.  Perhaps the subtext should instead imply that the article is being edited in light of the person's death and may not be up to its usual standard of quality.  &mdash; Brent Dax 14:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Unschool, this can be obviated with the Current template, there are far too many inherent problems with this specific template as noted. JBsupreme (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The story about a living person may also change rapidly. Add a death date is enough to note about one's death. luuva (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful enough to outweigh its awkwardness. I'm no programming genius, but I wonder if a bot could be created (in the same way as the ones that remove outdated protection templates) to remove the template, say, 14 days after it was added? Black Kite 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Very useful, although perhaps add a date field (eg: This article is about a person who died November 6th, 2008). Also, maybe a bot could remove the template a week after the person died.  David WS  <sub style="color:lime;">(contribs)  21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as it is a very useful template. I agree that it could use some updating to include a date template (as suggested above) and perhaps have a bot assigned to remove any that have been in place for more than 7 or so days. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Conti is right, most of the time the template is not actually useful. Splette :) How's my driving? 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Brentdax. This has been discussed before. What has changed? It's useful, although a date parameter to aid in more prompt removal would be very useful, especially if a bot would get programmed. Sometimes thinks do change rapidly after a death and other times it doesn't.  Royal broil  05:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not perfect, but rather useful; usually more appropriate than the current event template. Maybe, someone could set up a bot that automatically removes the template after, say, 2 weeks? --Hapsala (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - yeah as has been said, it's not useful and generally the articles don't change rapidly. Rusty8 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn: I choose to withdraw this template, it is useful. 121.96.114.195 (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) — 121.96.114.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The template serves an important purpose, given that articles about notable folks who have recently passed away seem to see a spike in traffic and thus a potential spike in edits, potentially from readers who may not be familiar with our guidelines for verifiability and reliable sourcing.  Alerting folks that the information in a particular article could change considerably or rapidly is a reasonable course of action, and the template should be kept as such (although there is certainly grounds for improvement, which can grow out of the discussion above).    user:j    (aka justen)   13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The "recent deaths" page is linked on the main page. When a user clicks on that page, some want to find out why John Doe died. However, they have to know this information may not be true, just coffee-shop talk. And since this is Wikipedia, any user can add this kind of information. They must know that the details probably aren't completely in yet. I !vote for a diefinite keep for these reasons. It's flawed, but it's just like current disaster. Information, most likely, will change.  TN P  (formerly Jonathan)  03:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The template adds nothing that cannot be stated more clearly and with less ambiguity in the lede and the relevant section of the article, along with appropriate citations. Functionally a copy of current. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - May be flawed but is needed in cases where disruption may occur: suspicious deaths, murders; it is important when dealing with a particularly high-profile death.  Grsz  11   →Review!  05:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should probably be rewritten, similar to prod, so that "old" ones are easily detectable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If someone dies, the death date will appear on the very first line of the article, where it should per the manual of style. If "information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change", it should say so in the article where these things are mentioned, (backed up with sources) just like any information of speculative or uncertain nature in any article should. Also, as the box is now used, on the very top of the article (the most important place), it may give the casual reader the impression that the circumstances around this particular person's death are somewhat special, even if they in most cases aren't. The lead section should be a summary of the article, beginning with explaining who the person was and what he/she was known for. It is very rare that the most important thing about someone is the uncertain circumstances around his/her death. And even then this information should be incorporated in the lead as encyclopedic prose, not inside a big flashy box. --Shanes (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete My initial thoughts were towards keeping this, as I have used it often in the past, without much thought. On reflection, I am not sure what use, if any, it actully serves other than the very rare cases (Steve Irwin comes to mind) where there is heavy editing immeditely after a subject's death. In those very rare cases then current is more than adequate and probably more appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that it should be kept but could be changed. I say this because based on the person's death the info could change rapidly but sometimes the info comes out a year after the death like Steve Fossett or within hours like Bobby Murcer or Cory Lidle. So it could be changed to mention that depending on the situation the info could change rapidly or slowly.-- Iamawesome 800 '''Hey! —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep very useful template; the problems can be resolved by editing the template, not by deleting it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this useful template; I agree with SqueakBox's comment. EOZyo (мѕğ) 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If something has problems, we should change it, not delete it. Of course, almost no one here can, only freaking administrators can, but... Tezkag72 (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per davidwr. The template can be changed but the premise is very helpful for an encyclopedia.  It alerts the reader that significant changes in the article might be underway if the death was controversial or unexpected.  Note that problems created by inappropriately using the template do not reflect upon the template itself but the users who use it wrongly. Themfromspace (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Kurdish Literature
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 no consensus --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This navbox appears to have been created by a tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. The template relies on a nationalistic definition. Most of the entries are not linked. If we included every item of Kurdish literature the box would be unmanageably big, I would say this is a job much better done by categories. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

keep Buch of intidimation tactics by the above user. 1) tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. Sounds like someone pushed the above user to make up such lies.  One should check his Wikipedia record against mine to see who is exactly the tendentious editor.  2) Next claim: template relies on a nationalistic definition. Again what is so nationalistic about mentioning bunch of poets who wrote in a language? Here are other types of these templates: which were created even before this. Most of the entiers are not linked There are many templates like this: Turkish Literature for example. Half the enteries are linked and 40 of them are mentioned in one article in BSOAS. If we included every item of Kurdish literature the box would be unmanageably big, that is true to an extent, but then the font can be made smaller and I think we are speaking about prominent and historic poets. So It will not be that big. The template is actually informative. If it grows too large, then it can be categorized such as the french literature portal. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Comment: Please look here: and click on different countries. Many of them will have such templates:..etc. So either all such templates should be deleted or none of them.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and rely on categories. Wikipedia has no mandate to define canons. Flowerparty ☀ 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The template Kurdish culture contains a section on Literature, which links here: Kurdish_literature. This is the way that Jewish Literature is handled as well. For example, see Jewish culture. Note the languages mentioned: "Yiddish, Hebrew, Ladino etc." This might be a good way to handle this issue as it gives leeway for Kurdish literature written in various languages and doesn't have the possible political implications. I wonder if the author of the template was aware of the Kurdish culture template? The characterisation of "tendentious" for the author of this template is unfortunate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Flowerparty's observation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * comment Please see this, and many more. These templates had existed a long time, and it invalidates the reasoning by the nominator who is claiming that this is off track.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nepaheshgar's comment. Obviously Azerbaijani Turks is not "Turkish" literature, nor is "Persian" literature synonymous with Iranian literature.  It is a highly informative template, and that's our purpose here.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:WAX to User:Nepaheshgar. Let's try to focus on this template instead of similar templates.  -- Thin  boy  00  @123, i.e. 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment No I have been having issues with other articles with ChrisO. He has pushed one of his friends to put this for deletion.  If there was a problem with such templates, then tempaltes that have existed for a few years should be put up for deletion as well.  So when I created this template, it was based on other such templates.  The nominators comment though are basically ChrisO's point of view. It is only fair then all such templates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Turkish_Literature],, be put up for deletion.  It is interesting if there was a problem with such templates, they have not been put up for deletion (and some of them have existed for at least two years), yet all of the sudden that I am having a problem with ChrisO, he shows up and one of his friend's makes a comment that is really his viewpoint.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous personal attack. For the record, I have never had any contact with any editor about this template, nor have I propositioned anyone to nominate it for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment* okay my apologies. I was debating another issue with you then and this came up.  So no harm or personal attack intended.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. As somebody who has written many articles regarding Kurdish poets and writers, I find the template quite unnecessary and full of mistakes. At the moment, a quite large section of List of Kurdish people has been dedicated to famous and renowned people in Kurdish literature, which makes the current haphazard box unnecessary. We also have categories for Kurdish poets and Kurdish writers. Moreover, the current template is full of mistakes such as Ahmab Beg Komashi   which should read as Ahmad Beg Komasi. These kind of mistakes indicate a very poor command of Kurdish language. Also there are no articles for many of the names mentioned in the box, normally articles are written first and then they get added to a category/list or template, not the other way around :) Those names which have an article are simply picked up randomly from the existing Kurdish poets and writers categories. The editor who has come across a list of Kurdish writers in a new source (BSOAS), is advised to add those names to the article Kurdish literature under the Gorani section. Heja Helweda (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment the above user has had serious history problems with me so the vote is not good faith. But I know Awraman dialect to a good level and I read poetry in it fluently.  That was a typo and it has been fixed.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be far better if you discuss your rationale for not deleting the template, rather than engaging in personal attacks. The main issue here is that we already have categories for Kurdish poets and Kurdish writers, and a section of List of Kurdish people has been dedicated to Kurdish writers, so there is really no need to create yet another template. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor argument.Heja Helweda (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Persian literature, Azerbaijani Turkic Literature, Urdu poetry, Hungarian literature, Turkish Literature, etc. Presumably these types of templates are useful and somewhat standard, and the motivations of the creators and current contents are irrelevant. If someone were to nominate all of these templates for deletion, with a rationale based solely on the value of the concept of the templates themselves, then I would be willing to re-evaluate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayjg. Cannot see why Hungarian literature should be kept and Kurdish Literature should be removed Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above two "keeps" seem to me to be classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. The existence of other templates which may or may not have similar problems has no bearing on whether this template should be kept. "Other stuff exists" arguments are quite irrelevant to that question. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes the rationale of the nominator wrong obviously, since he makes baseless accusations for nomination. If he was fair, he would have deleted stuff that has existed at least three years ago.  So the correct course of action would be to nominate all such templates for deletion.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Answers:1- We may not judge about editors, but their edits. 2-Why? 3- That's a weak point but that does not mean to delete the template :at must, only delete the entries that are not linked 4- Almost any navbox is doing so : then we may always use categories instead of navboxs .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The opening says : 1- This navbox ...have been created by a ... editor in order to pursue his agenda.2- The template relies on a nationalistic definition.3- Most of the entries are not linked.4- If we included every item of Kurdish literature the box would be unmanageably big, I would say this is a job much better done by categories.
 * delete per Heja and Flowerparty. If the template is to be created, it should be divided into two as "Template:Gorani litaterature" & "TemplateSorani-Kurmanji literature", since we have here Template:Turkish literature and Template:Azeri Turkish literature, even though Turkish and Azeri languages are mutually intelligible. The entries in the template should also be checked and only the notable ones should stay. Otherwise, it's better to rely on categories. E104421 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Catwikiproject
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Unretiring slowly...!) 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate self-reference, widely used on category pages to promote wiki-projects. There is a suggestion on the talk page to use it on category_talk pages instead but this is being ignored. It would be redundant to our wide array of standardly formatted project-specific talk page banner-cruft anyway. — CharlotteWebb 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepys, We've ALWAYS done that on articles, so what's the big deal about doing it on Categories?ViperSnake151 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're thinking of portal links (which are actually considered content pages)? I'm not aware of any templates intended for linking to wiki-project pages from articles, or of any reason to do so. Information to the effect of "this article is in the scope of this wiki-project" is no more germane to the general reader or re-user of our content than saying "this article was the subject of a 2006 ArbCom case" or "this article is currently being discussed on IRC and at the village pump". Reminders of this sort belong on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 19:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I think CharlotteWebb is right here. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - templates intended purely for Wikipedian collaboration should not be in areas of the project intended for readers (which the category namespace is). If I'm a reader who clicks on (for example) Category:Chess, it is of no value to me to know that a corresponding WP:WikiProject Chess exists. These templates would be fine on talk pages, but not on category pages. Terraxos (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Should not be on pages intented for readers. Garion96 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.