Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 3



Template:2007 Way Out West

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

These templates are only located in one article, Way Out West Festival, to replace the lists that were previously present in the article, see. These navigational templates are useless when only used in one article and the information can be better presented in the article in lists or tables. Aspects (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with simple lists or a table as suggested by nom. This is not how collapsible navigation panels should be used. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and re-replace with lists. Airplaneman   ✈  23:52, 12 August 2010 (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:TIMESTAMP

 * 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 Merge. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:TIMESTAMP with Template:Currentdate.

Now that safesubst exists, this substitute only template becomes redundant. I suggest merging the two by adding safesubst to Currentdate and then deleting TIMESTAMP. Thanks.  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   265° 23' 45" NET   17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, although I could see retaining one as a redirect to the other. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2010 (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:Today

 * 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 Merge. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Today with Template:Date.

Now that safesubst exists, this substitute only template becomes redundant. I suggest merging the two by adding safesubst to Date and then deleting Today. Thanks.  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   265° 23' 45" NET   17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, although I could see retaining one as a redirect to the other. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (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.

Cup winners

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the rationale used in IIHF World Championship winners, which stated that it is "navbox cruft" simply listing the winners. It would seem the same logic would apply here. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the same reasoning at the other discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I added the fact that FIFA World Cup winners was included in this nomination to Plastikspork's notification at WT:FOOTY. Rationale: I can see some people reaching the conclusion that a navbox for every competition is cruft, but that a navbox for winners of the biggest single-sport competition in the world is not. Regards, --WFC-- 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for adding the note at FOOTY. I have just joined several more which fall into the same classification (East Asian, ASEAN, SAFF, AFC Challenge, Arab Nations, and Gulf). Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listing the winners in a navbox doesn't seem redundant, imo it is very informative just like the rest of the navboxes. Note that there is a variety of navboxes listing winners in different competitive areas. - Sthenel (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED actually disagree and say that navboxes shouldn't be used for winning awards. That succession boxes should be used instead and that all links in navboxes should be found on the article the navbox is being used on (assuming the article is complete). This isn't the case, you wouldn't find the 1932 winner of some award linked to the winner from 2009 etc. This is navbox cruft. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a poor way to format, and navboxes should not replace article content. This is a history list and this format actually hinders navigation as it becomes much more difficult to go to the season/competition the reader is looking for.  In most cases, these navboxes are entirely redundant to other templates.  i.e.:  is redundant to .  Both list the tournaments held, just in different formats.  Resolute 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, for reasons given above. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was hovering between not (properly) commenting and a weak keep, but Resolute's rationale has changed my mind. Clearly redundant. --WFC-- 00:29, 6 August 2010 (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:Too-many-snitches

 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor created this template at feeling aggrieved for being reported for being in breach of a sanction. Serves no useful purpose and is in breach of AGF and CIVIL. User:Uncle G sums it up better very well at WP:ANI and says: ''Triton Rocker came off a block, immediately edited Squealer, Grass (disambiguation), Rat (disambiguation), Squeal, NARC, Nark, Narc, Informant, and Dave Snowden, in that order, and then started on this. The blatant nature of the attempts to provoke here is only equalled by their sheer childishness.'' HighKing (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates Userboxes, is divisive, uncivil and does not constructively contribute to building an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is divisive and non-constructive. The very concept of a "snitch" is alien to Wikipedia, where we are all openly collaborating. The idea that raising breaches of policy or sanctions is wrong is disruptive, and wider adoption of this position would encourage bullying. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Divisive template does nothing to foster a collaborative spirit needed here on wikipedia. Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, and trout creator for . --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * HighKing's first attempt to have this removed was quickly refused by another admin. I was vindicated. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course, as per talk page. Are you telling me snitching does not go on? Or are we just supposed to pretend it does not go on?
 * provides very useful links. Especially the one that mentions the "list of editors dragged into the blackhole of HighKing's British Isle deletion campaign". That is what this is all about. It is not about policy and the welfare of the Wikipedia community. It is about him trying to damage or remove another editor who questioned or |opposed his nationalistically inspired campaign.
 * The links highlight my commitment to editing on the basis of good references and adding citations for content that is flagged or has none.
 * The Informant topic included 21 new references alone. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Editor needs to learn how to behave in a civil manner in order to make a constructive contribution (of which s/he is more than capable).  Continuation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA breeches above does not bode well -- Snowded  TALK  05:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As the nominator. --HighKing (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A harmless bit of fun that may be useful elsewhere. LevenBoy (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close For no other reason that this process is being used as a continuation of the British Isles dispute and as such both parties need to stop stalking each others actions. I believe it is clear that both the creation of the template and this nomination are not signs of good faith by Triton Rocker and HighKing Codf1977 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a very public discussion at AN/I about this editor, and the comments in the nomination are not mine, but from a sysop. How this nomination could be classed as "not signs of good faith" are beyond me, seeing as every uninvolved editor here has nominated for a deletion and can see through the reasons why this was created.  I'm not even involved in this spat beyond this nomination, and it's getting old and tired to keep banging away at the conspiracy drum all the time.  There's only one set of editors that keeps up the nationalistic comments and tries to case everything in a political light.  For me, and others who might be paying attention, it far more noteworthy to note those that nominated to Keep, and to wonder at the motivations....  --HighKing (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For future reference, TritonRocker correctly points out that userboxes should be discussed at MfD, instead of here. However, since there's been substantial discussion at this location, I think that moving it to the proper location would be counterproductive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is stated that In the template namespace, userbox names must begin with "User " (e.g. Template:User Brazil or Template:User en).  This clearly isn't.  --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because it isn't named properly doesn't mean it isn't a userbox. If it quacks like a userbox... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, and in truth, I wasn't aware that a userbox could use Template - had I known I'd have nominated at MfD. --HighKing (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Serves no purpose other than to try and wind-up other editors. Bjmullan (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to point out what is motivating this people and why. is another Irish editor working in tandem with  on his anti-British Isles campaign who posted this "Shite ... From a hardened Irish Nationalist" immediately after HighKing posted note of this TfD, here. They and User:Snowded are working together.


 * Some people find the truth hard to face. --Triton Rocker (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And some people find it hard to quote a person correctly. For the record my post was "Shite Shame your edits couldn't be as reliable as British Motorcycles....that's right they where shite as well.... Bjmullan". You are the one that labelled me a hardened Irish Nationalist (whatever that is). Bjmullan (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator pointed out, was created partially in angst towards a longstanding debate (which I'm not involved in and will not comment on directly). In any case, it is divisive and thus violates Userboxes.  elektrik SHOOS  11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - serves no useful purpose, only provokes division and resentment. Also contrary to policy; let's avoid making Stop Snitchin' a guideline here, please. Robofish (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2010 (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:Kosovo-note
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was keep. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This template is used as a disclaimer for the term "Kosovo" everywhere such term can be found in Wikipedia. The term is supposed to replicate in two sentences what is being said in the Kosovo article. This is a unique disclaimer note that I have found only for Kosovo in the whole Wikipedia, for all projects that I have seen (inclusive this English one). I don't see the point of bringing a disclaimer wherever the word Kosovo appears. In the world there are many controversies, but we don't have a note on all of them. If someone wants to know more about Kosovo, he can read the Kosovo article. Two sentences might be synthetic, but they can't be as precise as an article. This note was already brought to AfD and strangely survived it, because no consensus was reached. I was reviewing the cons to the deletion and found them very weak as none of them addresses Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. found in Template namespace.  S undefined ulmues (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've previously objected to the frequency of use of this template, although I've never questioned its value in the right context. I first found it being used at Morinë, a town in Albania on the border with Kosovo. User:Tadija explained its purpose on my talk page:
 * "Morinë is a settlement in eastern Albania, on the border with (disputed province of Kosovo / Serbia / disputed Serbian province of ..) No, instead all of those just Kosovo with note. You see? It is related, as it may be border with Serbia, not Kosovo."
 * Whether it was required there I couldn't really decide in the end, and I guess it's up to consensus at a particular article as to whether it is used. It's certainly useful, though, in making things a little easier to conform with WP:NPOV. Night w (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You still fail to mention why is that we don't have similar templates for the thousand of controversies that exist in the word, and to name two that are close in nature, why we have no templates adjacent to Northern Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh. And also how we are complying with Wikipolicies on templates by keeping this template around in the thousands of times that Kosovo is mentioned. --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The template works in favour of rather than against Kosovo. Because of the nature of the situation and the mixed international reactions and outlooks, it is simply inappropriate to either call the region "part of Serbia", or to present Kosovo as an outright sovereign nation like Japan or Paragauy as if "everything is normal"; but by having the template, it allows us to insert Kosovo and then not have to bore the reader with information regarding Serbia's continued claim. It's the thin end of the wedge: remove the template, then Albania borders Kosovo, full stop. Kosovo? Well that borders Serbia, not the rest of Serbia or Central Serbia, but plain Serbia; if we accept this, we can amend the article to call it a "country" in spite of the controversy its suggestion has caused since February 2008, and then what shall we say on the Serbia page? At the moment, its border with Albania is disputed, but remove the template and you can change that last line to "borders Macedonia and Kosovo in the south" and this plays right into the hands of one of the parties in the dispute. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. See my comment to Night. w. --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Please note, that Northern Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh are never presented anywhere as countries, only regions or as entities of some other kind. Kosovo does not have the template everywhere, only where it substitutes a country. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not everything in Wikipedia can be neat and clean and perfectly consistent with everything else.  There are many examples where the solution for one crisis is the wrong solution for another crisis.  If editors have found this template useful, then it should be retained, whether it is like anything else in Wikipedia or not.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  If the template is not being used, then it can be deleted, but if it is useful and is being used, then retain it.  --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intended to maintain NPOV - any arguments over how to describe Kosovo should be kept to just this template and the Kosovo article. OK, so maybe its usage isn't perfect, but Wikipedia would be so much worse without it. As for why we don't have similar notes for other disputed regions - that is not a reason for not having this one. Bazonka (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intended to maintain NPOV, this was agreed to be best possible solution for the Kosovo situation. Also per Night w and Evlekis. -- Tadijaspeaks 09:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Without it many statements become controversial and biased (per Night w), and it exists to maintain neutrality. As for why there are no similar templates - it is because the need for them hasn't arisen - perhaps yet. It clearly serves it's purpose as it is used (per Taivo). --Biblbroks (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is useful and it helps maintain NPOV. Lets say Kosovo becomes a UN member in 5 years time for example, then we should consider it's deletion. However for the indefinite future it should be kept. IJA (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wish people would stop re-nominating this. The policy statement you mention simply does not apply - the text of the note technically becomes a part of the article upon inclusion, but it is not an intrinsic part of every article that includes it. If we subst:'ed it into every article, we'd still have to maintain each copy. That's the point of using a common template. Any other approach is unworkable compared to this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2010 (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:Heroscape Races
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was Delete. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unused. Created for a series of articles on non-notable subjects. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Used. Appears to be a spite nomination because users' edits were reverted on certain articles. The template is used by many articles that are undergoing revision, which the user took upon himself, once again, to delete without seeking consensus or discusion, pages to which he himself has never even contributed. Vote: Do not delete. (The Matrix Prime (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC))
 * The nomination was started when the template was not in use. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understandable. However the template is now in use - doesn't that make the nomination moot now? (The Matrix Prime (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete- the only articles that use this template are a walled garden of Heroscape cruft that itself should be substantially trimmed. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not everything needs to be in an infobox. This looks like in-universe cruft. Articles transcluding the template are up at AFD. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:35, 11 August 2010 (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:Yes (yellow)
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was Delete as there are no objections and redundant as indicated. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are partial and Yes-No usable for the same purpose. — Christoph Päper 13:14, 3 August 2010 (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:Csn
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be someone's pet project. I don't see why it's so hard to just put the commas in yourself. We're all (mostly) out of elementary school. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with Axem's viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment this is even wrong, since not all English jurisdictions use comma as a thousands separator; several use spaces instead of commas, and a few even swap the comma and full-stop (ie. 1234.56 == 1,234.56 == 1.234,56 == 1 234.56 == 1 234,56) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2010 (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:List of Colors
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was rename to Color topics and keep. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this lame template for? It is misleading at best. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nom's explanation - it's not clear what this list is for, why is uses these particular colors (since when are teal, purple, and olive primary colors?), or why it refers to certain colors as secondary colors, in contradiction to the article that it links. And what is the formatting concept?  It looks like just a jumbled mess.   The fact that it is extensively used is something I'll work on. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They are primary subtractive colors and I wasn't involved of this format. And be more specific on how it looks like a mess because it looks just like any other template besides the revealing of what the colors look like which I think is kind of neat. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you agreeing that in it's current form the template is kind of lame, using nonstandard interpretation of "secondary colors", and claiming that HTML colors are "major colors"? Can you imagine any sense in which "olive" and "teal" and "purple" can be considered to be primary colors?  Does any article or source support that?   Do you have a suggestion for how it could be made useful?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I might could agree with you that olive and teal are not major colors (but not purple becuase that's a very well known color) but I am not going to lose any sleep over it besides they are mostly there becuase of the color patterns that reveals the darker or lighter version of the major color in itself. And no I don't think it looks lame. And fine if you don't like the subject "major" then change it to HTML. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that back. Don't do that because like I said before they are not the same thing and not all the same colors. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Originaly my notions of major colors was the one that had many different individual of shades. What the new editors came in and did is add some that are already certain types of shade of that major color. For example Olive is basically just a shade of Yellow. So that approves Yellow being a major color but not Olive. So yeah I thought a few new additions of colors was unnecessary but I can tell it was because of those patterns they put there. By the way if adding the color was bothering you then why not make it a navbox on the Primary colors, Secondary Colors, Additive colors and Subtractive Colors articles and change the name to different type of Colors or something. It will be smaller but maybe you will get the point of it then. And then you can have the colors on the Web Colors template or something. Becuase I agree listing the Colors are the least important part of the template. Not saying it's not important but it is the least important. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Originaly my notions of major colors was the one that had many different individual of shades. What the new editors came in and did is add some that are already certain types of shade of that major color. For example Olive is basically just a shade of Yellow. So that approves Yellow being a major color but not Olive. So yeah I thought a few new additions of colors was unnecessary but I can tell it was because of those patterns they put there. By the way if adding the color was bothering you then why not make it a navbox on the Primary colors, Secondary Colors, Additive colors and Subtractive Colors articles and change the name to different type of Colors or something. It will be smaller but maybe you will get the point of it then. And then you can have the colors on the Web Colors template or something. Becuase I agree listing the Colors are the least important part of the template. Not saying it's not important but it is the least important. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's used on 18 articles about colours. The nomination only insults the template, and doesn't explain what is misleading about it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions aren’t a vote. Do you have any reasons for keeping it? –jacobolus (t) 06:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah until the nominator removed it from the articles. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a vote, don't patronise me. I think expecting some kind of actual explanation for deletion is reasonable. The reason for keeping it is that other editors find it useful, and I don't see how it is misleading without further explanation. I don't strongly care one way or the other, but a weak deletion argument immediately makes me want to keep it. OK? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I expected people to look at it and decide. I've since added a bit more explanation.  Can you take a look and see if there's any value to this template?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to patronize you. I'm just asking if you actually have a reason for suggesting we should "keep" the template. All you've said so far is that you "immediately want to keep it" because Dick's request to delete it wasn't sufficiently explanatory. Fair enough. Now that he and I have expanded that request, do you still think it should be kept? If so, can you explain why? -jacobolus (t) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Not sure how useful this template is, but it seems extensively used on a number of major articles. The nomination should offer a more thurough discussion of why it should be deleted. NickCT (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree. I want to know what's misleading about this template. It looks like it serves it's purpose quite well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it see it was you (aka ) who created the template and placed it on 14 pages last Oct. 9. Perhaps you can explain the purpose that it serves. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I created it to be navigation box for the colors and articles related to colors. I did not mean for it be misleading. A few changes have been done to it after I used it. For example I only used Blue, Green and Red as primary colors at the time and only used more well known colors. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: There is no reason to list as “major primary colors” examples such as “lime”, “navy”, “maroon”, and “fuchsia”. If a template listing “major colors” is needed, some Reliable Sources need to be found supporting the choice of colors. Possible choices might be Berlin & Kay’s set of basic color terms (white, black, gray, red, yellow, blue, green, brown, purple, pink, orange) – though there has been a great deal of controversy about these over the years – or the categories of the ISCC–NBS system making up the first level of the Universal Color Language (pink, red, orange, brown, yellow, olive, yellow green, green, blue, purple, white, gray, black). I can imagine no reasonable explanation for the organization of the current template. Frankly, even a template with better categories would be of at best minimal value. I support deleting it altogether. –jacobolus (t) 06:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not needed in this template because it should be already supported by the article information which should have reliable sources. If not it should be corrected not deleted. Remember a template's main purpose is navigation of articles and this template does a decent job of that. If not the colors alone then the certain type of colors. The Primary, Secondary, Subtractive etc. should make things easier to navigate. It should not be deleted because you don't like it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be reasonable enough. Except that the content of this template is not supported by article content, sourced or otherwise. –jacobolus (t) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any of that yet. So if you have seen any of those fix it instead of complaining! Because when I originally created this it was true to the articles. I took it from the articles and everything. Whatever was primary colors I put as one and I only put the notable secondary colors there then too because I didn't know every secondary color. Other editors did the rest.Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven’t seen any of what, yet? I don’t understand. Where is the article which supports the organization and content of this template (in its current or any prior form)? Just because it’s a template doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to live up to Wikipedia standards of usefulness, relevance, verifiability. –jacobolus (t) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original version is also totally messed up, with it's odd notions of "major" and of "additive colors". Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be upset of this notion of "major" colors. If so that can be totally corrected. This is supposed to list the typical average colors from the primary colors all the way to the secondary colors. Any other color (unless we've missed one) is just another different form of the color that is added on the template. That's why I stated "major" colors. And it also states what kind of colors they are. For example Blue, Green, Red are additive primary colors of course! It also shows what colors are subtractive colors which are colors that are blended by the additive colors. Which you should know. And that is only a example of the Primary Colors list. The articles does not disconfirm this. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It’s quite a simple question: What’s your source? If you don’t have a source, then this violates No original research. –jacobolus (t) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That mostly refers to articles. You hardly cite templates. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, you agree that there is no source which would support this template, as it exists? Wikipedia policy is quite clear: “Wikipedia does not publish original research”. –jacobolus (t) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is there to to source? This is for navigation purposes. Never mind just don't answer that. Becuase I want it changed since you feel so highly about the certain way it's done. So be involved in that discussion instead. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just discovered that these are the HTML 4 named colors (see w3.org page) -- plus orange, brown, pink, and violet. A template saying that, without overlaying the funny interpretations of primary and secondary, might make some sense on the selected 16 color articles, I suppose.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it has any advantage on those articles either. There are plenty of places on Wikipedia where named HTML colors are described. –jacobolus (t) 06:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, apparently there’s also a Template:Web colors for those. Frankly, I think that one should be deleted too, but having two of them is clearly redundant. –jacobolus (t) 06:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not redundant. Because a Web color is not the same topic. Besides it doesn't link Primary Colors, Secondary Colors or List of Colors. The only thing similiar is it's got a few of the same colors. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jhenderson777 on this point, and still lean towards keep for this template.  NickCT (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you agree with him that "it doesn't link Primary Colors, Secondary Colors..." then you better look again. This is very broken.  And he still hasn't explained what it's supposed to be for, or what these colors are singled out as "major colors" when there's no support for that in sources or in linked articles.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

For those who participated in this debate. Please join Template talk:List of Colors on a new idea about the template. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like a much better idea. Go for it.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusion - nobody has provided a reason or rationale to keep this template, other than that it appears on some color pages. Even the orignal author says it has been mangled by others, and has failed to suggest any purpose for it or reason to keep it, and has proposed instead making a new completely different template of a different name and purpose to use instead.  That sounds OK, so let's delete this one.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually deletion won't be necessary. I requested a speedy deletion on the original name but the template's still there with a new look and new name. We both had strong arguments on both sides so I worked a way to make both of you happy. We just worked out our differences and the outcome was a win win for the both once we were all fair and neutral about the situation. And that's the real conclusion. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I think I will just let the old name be a redirection. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's going on: here: 18:18, 7 August 2010 Jhenderson777 (talk ?
 * Renaming and Speedy#G7. Author requests deletion deletion while a TFD is going on here? -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just renamed it and rechanged it per the discussion page of the template. And I already said I changed mind of speedy deletion and keeping it as a redirection. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And even if the redirection page got deleted. This would have still have been in TFD. I probably would have changed the name to it's newer name on here but it will still be on here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It apparently serves as a unifying Navbox on the theme of color. The discontent expressed above can be resolved by refining the content.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and refine per RJH. Also rename it from "List of colors" to something a little more appropriate. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The renaming has already been done. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per RJH: most reasons for deletion are suggestions for be improvements. It is a regular navigation box. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2010 (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:Non-free Robert Richardson image
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was Delete. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Template is used only only three image pages and can easily be replaced by a much wider-used template. The need for this template is unnecessary as Robert Richardson is not even notable enough to have his own article and only three of his images are even featured on the encyclopedia. – Dream out loud (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see a need for this template. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Airplaneman   ✈  23:54, 12 August 2010 (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:Muslims and controversies and Template:Muslims and controversies footer
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" 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 discussion was Delete. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it disturbing that there should be a Template:Muslims and controversies but not a Template:Christains and controversies or Template:Jews and controversies? It's hard to see how this is anything but an attempt to write religous bigotry into Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest we delete with extreme prejudice. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Yes, it is not a worthwhile template. There are two similar sidebar templates: Template:Criticism of Islam, and the one you are bringing up:  Template:Muslims and controversies .   The former is okay, since criticism of religion is a notable field of human inquiry, and there is an article named Criticism of Islam (and there are parallel articles Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, etc).  However, the template you mention has several major problems: (1)  There are no similar templates for other religions, yet all religions have their fair share of controversies.  (2)  the controversies listed in the template are very anecdotal (very specific to individuals) not about the faith as a whole  (every religion has its nut-cases: do we need a sidebar to list them?);  and (3)  the WP community has never created a corresponding article Controversies related to Muslims ... if the topic is not sufficiently notable for an article, is is definitely not notable enough for a sidebar template ;  and (4) the purpose of this template is better served by simply using a less-intrusive Category, and, indeed, there is already such a category:  Category:Islam-related controversies.  --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - see similar template that was recently deleted after discussion: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_5 --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Complete misuse of the word controversy. Most links point to articles about topics where there is no prolonged public debate. This template severs nothing apart being a good example of a random collection of stuff that vaguely shares some connection. Mootros (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Here we go again. Previous TFD was a keep: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_5. Please deal with the arguments there. This is a useful template to link together related topics that keep appearing in the media. And you're welcome to create "Jews and controversy" and so on, if you can group meaningful articles together. The Criticism of Islam template has its own place and this one has its own. We split them because they were getting too long when kept in a single template. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping the Muslim controversy template, but deleting the Zionism controversy template strikes me as a very worrisome example of WP:Systematic bias - the fact that most WP editors come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds is something we need to bear in mind. The Muslim controversy template appears to be  simply a list of articles about inane things that people who happened to be Muslim said or did.  Is there a secondary source that discusses all of those controversies and relates them together?  If not, it is synthesis to collect them together.  Again, the existing Muslim controversy category already meets any need that this template is trying to fill.   --Noleander (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not systematic bias, maybe you missed reading this in the zionism TFD: "where editor is further engaged in POV warring.". I suggest you should contact the admin who deleted the template, get a copy of it in your userspace and take the matter up with everyone who took part in that AfD. Jsut because that template was deleted and for whatever reason, it doesnt mean this template too should be deleted. We cant talk about that without actually seeing the template. Also we can always recombine all the articles into what we had before, a single "muslims and controversies" template, which is what we used to have before. As I said the templates were split for ease of navigation because they were getting long. As to you saying "the fact that most WP editors come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds is something we need to bear in mind", that doesnt apply to me and many others, and its not relevant. Further, then allow me to that you and others who are voting for deleting this template come from a Muslim background ('NickCT' has a "khan" template in his userspace and so on"). So our personal beliefs aren't relevant. You have to look at the arguments. As to you saying "categories" are sufficient: Why? Does not the same "biased grouping" argument that you give for the template also apply to the category? Its not bias. Wikipedia has templates of all kinds grouping articles with common themes, issues or subject areas together in a way that is helpful to the reader. To get a template like this deleted is to put blinders on the reader so they wont be able to see other related articles. Once again just because we can have categories, it doesnt mean we should get rid of templates. Might as well then start getting rid of templates all over Wikipedia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Noleander. It's hard to see this as anything but a WP:ATTACK on a particular religous sect.  I don't see how this template can be considered encyclopedic, and as such it would seem to contravene WP:NOT.  "Worrisome" puts it mildly.
 * I did read through Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_5, and admittedly there did seem to be strong consensus to keep. As a counter to that I'd say that 1) consensus can change, 2) many editors arguing to keep were not doing so on the basis that they thought the template was free of POV issues, 3) Several editors offered arguments like;
 * "Most muslims do not know about their own religion."
 * "Very helpful, especially for muslims, because it seems that most of them know only the bright side of their religion "
 * I think we can dismiss these arguments out of hand, no? NickCT (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those particular arguments are not appropriate.  I think the key question we need to ask is: "What is the difference between a WP category, and a WP sidebar template?"   Categories are relatively non-intrusive, and can link-together articles that are only tenuously related, such as Category:People from Long Island.  But sidebar templates are intended to be used for a cohesive topic that is an area of study, such as Template:Philosophy-sidebar - and every sidebar  template should have a "parent article" that summarizes the topic of concern.  The list of islam-related controversies we are discussing here is clearly category-ish.  There is no academic area of research on the topic, and there is not even an article on the topic.  The existing category  Category:Islam-related controversies meets the need of the template, so the template should be deleted.  --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another cogent point Noleander. Anyway you look at it, this sidebar doesn't make sense. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - this is a no-brainer, isn't it? The only purpose seems to be to provide people with a heavily biased list of unrelated anecdotes. Would you have a 'blacks and controversies' template, listing various stupid or unpleasant things that happen to have been done by black people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stax68 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'blacks and controversies' is a good analogy I was considering making myself. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the template were re-cast as a religion-based template, there is still no precedent for this kind of "list of controversies" as a sidebar template. The wider WP community has already created (and kept) WP categories Category:Judaism-related controversies and  Category:Christianity-related controversies, but note that (1) those are Categories, not a Sidebar Templates; and (2) those categories contain meaty articles like Crusades and Jesus and Messianic prophecy, not just minor anecdotes about individuals. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, but I also strongly suggest we move this to Template:Controversies related to Islam and Muslims for NPOV. This template obviously serves a different purpose than Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar. The latter concerns criticism to parts of Islam like views on homosexuality, antisemitism, etc, but the former mostly concerns specific events that were controversial. It links to different articles than the ones in Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, so because there's no overlapping, "the former is" not "ok". On a related note, The Satanic Verses controversy may need to be moved to Template:Muslims and controversies. I agree with Matt57, this is a useful template that links together related topics. Also one last thing, when you put sidebar templates up for deletion, use, not    エムエックスさん   話  14:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What criteria do you think should be used to decide (for a given list of related articles) whether the articles should be represented as a Category vs a Sidebar template? --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the technical note エムエックスさん, but I don't think your argument really addresses the core complaints that have been raised for this template. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion, "Template:Controversies related to Islam and Muslims" is a better name. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I believe a category can better handle the function of this template. Templates are good for strongly bound topics while categories can better handle weakly bound topics where the association may be subjective. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP guideline on sidebar templates - is at Categories, lists, and navigation templates. It says (regarding sidebar templates): "The article links in a navigation template should have some ordering, whether chronological or otherwise. Alphabetical order does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links. ... all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it?  If the answer is "no", a category or list is probably more appropriate." --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - Is there any WP process (maybe an RfC?) where we could generalize this issue to include other religions? For example, we could create new tentative sidebar templates (based on Category:Judaism-related controversies and  Category:Christianity-related controversies) and then consider all three sidebar templates as a group.   That seems like it would bring in a wider spectrum of editors, and get a more consistent result. --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noleander - Respectfully, I might suggest that, if anything, we want to have fewer Religon-related controversy category/sidebars. They are so prone to WP:ATTACK and WP:BATTLEGROUND, that I imagine they do more to mislead the average WP user than inform. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. I was just brain-storming, trying to think how to get a broader spectrum of editors involved in the discussion.  I guess we can just wait another week and see how many editors weigh-in here. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your thinking. I think we are getting a reasonable response though.  As you say, let's give it another week. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a ragtag collection of cherry-picked recent "media scandals". This is not a coherent grouping of topics. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - Thank you for the policy link. This is what I was looking for. Yes a fine example of WP:RECENTISM this template! Mootros (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The word controversy should not be used in an encyclopedia at all. It is the weasel with a POV. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The word controversy shouldnt be used on Wikipedia? Really? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should not be used for naming or expressing/structuring main topics, unless you are talking about a prolonged intellectual debate held in public, not a short-lived media sensationalisation Mootros (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the word should be present. I wrote should not be used as in "using to classify topics". Calling something a "controversy" does not add a single qualification. Notability is always decided on other grounds. In fact, open Muslim and click What Links Here: hundreds of Muslim-related articles, easily 50% of them are "controversies". Because about every Muslim-related discussion/book/topic can be called that. This is how science works, every tropic of research has this. The template does not reflect this, it just picks an arbitrary group, which is where the POV comes in to live there permanently. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. 1) Per a request from User:Matt57, I have created a temporary copy of the deleted "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism" template at User:RL0919/TempRestore (just the version that was deleted, not the entire page history), in case seeing what that looked like helps clarify that earlier deletion. 2) The template discussed at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009 December 5 is not either of the templates currently nominated. Due to page moves, the template covered in that discussion is now at Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, and new content has been created at the old page name. 3) As the person who closed both of those prior discussions, I stand by both of my closing statements as representative of the consensus in those discussions and (I believe) in the community more generally: There is nothing wrong with having a neutrally construed navigation template that links to articles on criticism and controversies, but the content should be chosen on objective grounds (e.g., the linked articles should about criticism or controversy described as such in secondary sources) and should not be used to label subjects (especially living people) as "extremists" or "controversial" for purposes of pushing a specific point of view. Whether either or both of the nominated templates meet these criteria is something I leave for the discussion to work out. --RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring that template about Controversies related Zionism here: User:RL0919/TempRestore.  The fact that that the Zionism template was deleted, but the Controversies related to Muslims" template was kept, illustrates a serious inconsistency  in WP, and perhaps bias.  At best, it just shows how decision-making can be inconsistent when only 10 or 15 editors participate in a given discussion.   The fact is:  Islam, Judaism, and Christianity already have useful "controversy" categories, and we should rely on those, and not create provocative sidebar templates which contain a set of loosely-linked articles that no secondary sources have associated. --Noleander (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks for reinstalling some template. What point are you trying to make? If relevant, you could & should have linked to the arguments, not the template itself. Dragging a dead cow from the canal? Whatever, admin RL0919 is declared biased from here. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think RL0919 is uninvolved: user Matt57 asked some admin to restore a deleted template (only admins can do that) and RL0919 responded. I think Matt57 was just trying to make more material available to editors so we can make the best decision.  That "Zionism" template will be deleted soon, after this dicussion is over. --Noleander (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Admin RL0919 uninvolved? Where are the arguments? H/she angled up an old template, without the arguments~, let alone the closed discussion for deletion? And exactly what did User:Matt57 ask, where? All wiki-discussions all over again. Sure. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Matt57 requested the temporary restoration of the old template in this edit to my talk page. The prior TFDs are linked in the discussion above, but in case you are having trouble finding the links, they are here (for the template I've temporarily revived at Matt57's request) and here (for the template that was formerly at the same name as one of the templates in this nomination). --RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to RL0919 for the restore. The templates are similar in some aspects such as the listing of controversial events. Putting Osama Bin Laden as a critic of Zionism made it look fishy. But it looks like the same arguments used to delete the Israel template could be used to delete this one too. The problems with the Israel template could have been fixed (Osama Bin Laden as a critic, e.g.). I dont think there's a problem with these templates. They're grouping issues together. We always 'group' issues together in other ways all the time, in the See also and by using categories. I think its wrong to delete this template and leave categories in place. Yes the topics are controversial but they are all related. We make templates for related articles all the time. I think its helpful to have related topics for example, for the media related controversies. What do you say, we could just delete all the controversy related articles on Wikipedia and only then we'll have peace here from those who are offended and want these pages and templates gone, how's that. Then we'll only be left with articles on Apples and musical instruments. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully support inclusion of controversial material in WP. My delete vote was based on the fact that "Mustlim controversies" is a sidebar template.  WP has four ways to present a group of articles: (1) Navigation Template (as a sidebar at top of article); (2) Navigation Template (at bottom of article),(3) Category, and (4) List,   I've ordered these in decreasing order of visibility to the user.  My objection to this "Muslim controversy" template was that its list is presented as  a very prominent sidebar template.  Sidebar templates tell the reader that the grouping is a topic unto itself (that is, there is an academic area called "study of muslim controversies"; or similar).  The guideline  Categories, lists, and navigation templates supports that view.   "Muslim controversies" does not meet that requirement, and hence is misleading to readers, and that is why it should be deleted.  I would have no object to this list in another format: List, Category, or footer Template.  In fact, this list already exists as a Category. --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents - While I think lists/categories on WP can be very helpful, when the list/category is mostly subjective, they cause more trouble than good. For instance, a category of cities in Michigan is non-subjective and good.  Any category starting with "contraversies" or "critics" are bad b/c they beg the question "What exactly constitutes a critic/contraversy?".  Frankly, I think calling Osama bin Laden a "Critic of Zionism" is pretty accurate..... no? NickCT (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noleander, categories are less visible than navigation templates. Obviously having something near the top of the page or even in the middle (templates) is more visible than something at the bottom of the page (category). The guideline you linked to actually says "Faster to navigate than a category". Clearly categories make it harder to navigate between similar articles. The only valid point that you could have quoted from that guideline but did not and I'll do it for you, is "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a POV". That can be fixed by fixing any POV issues that can be brought up on the talk page. The first part of the template is about the well-famous Islam/media/depiction-related issues (cartoons etc). This is not pushing a POV, these are all related articles; likewise for the 2nd section. Having a category for something doesnt mean we should not have it as a template. As I've said before, saying that including something in a category is OK, but including it in a template is not, is not consistent. There's no requirement for the theme of the template to be an academic area. We group articles into templates if there's a common theme to help the reader find other similar articles. The attempt to delete this template was strangely coordinated. There were 3 strong "delete" votes (2 del + 1 nom) within one hour of the nomination for TFD. If you ask me there's a POV push to delete the template because it is seen as offensive as related to personal beliefs. Wikipedia suffers a lot constantly due to these agendas. I suggest everyone should put aside their personal beliefs and not hamper the development of the site and look at things from a neutral point of view. Currently I dont see any POV issues with the template but if you see any, you can take that up separately in a discussion (RFC) and and so on, so changes to the template can be made. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sidebar templates are much more visible and easier to use that Categories. And it is precisely that higher visibility that raises the bar for Sidebar topics:  If we are going to present a big, colorful sidebar to readers of this encyclopedia, the sidebar's topic must be super-notable and super-neutral.  More so than mere lists or categories.  "Muslim controversies" has no article, has no project, has no scholarly focus:  it is just a ... list. --Noleander (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote before: (1) List, (2) Category, (3) Navigation Template (at bottom of article), and (4) Navigation Template (as a sidebar at top of article). I've ordered these in increasing order of visibility to the user.. Now you're saying Sidebar templates are more visible than categories. Its not a "big" "colorful" sidebar. There's no requirement for the theme of a sidebar to be notable. The fact that all the articles link in it are indeed 'super' notable is enough. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two statements are consistent. I was referring to the order left-to-right (as read in the sentence).  I'll revise that text above to eliminate the confusion. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - It's been 1 week since the TfD was opened. I count 7 for the proposal to delete and 2 against.  Is this sufficient consensus to close the discussion and delete? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a group of admins that sweeps thru these TfDs about 10 to 15 days after they are opened and does the cleanup. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info Noleander. You are an endless source of knowledge. NickCT (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I don't think this template directly violates our policies, but I think it's the sort of thing that's better done using a category than a sidebar template. As it is, it has an unduly prominent position in these articles and draws a possibly unjustified connection between various independent incidents. Robofish (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - with a rename to something that is less POV. Codf1977 (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As it has been mentioned already this template is a more or less random collection of media "scandals" that involved Muslims. There is no other unifying principle to them.  What this template does provide is one stop shopping for articles which hilite Muslims behaving badly. The clear intent is to pass the meta-message of look, look at those krazy, kooky Muslims. There is no other way to look at it. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (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.