Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 4



Module:Sitelinks

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 11. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sitelinks
 * 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).

Template:Works by Haseena Moin

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) few entries, fails navbox purpose. Störm  (talk)  09:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Works by Haseena Moin
 * 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).

Template:Hate in Canada

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC) I had originally proposed moving this template to a different title, but it became clear to me during the move discussion that it would be better to delete or completely rework it. It includes a subjective listing of "bad groups"; it used to also contain a list of "bad people" ("proponents of hate"), and is currently transcluded on a number of BLPs. I have no doubt that, e.g, the Canadian Nazi Party is an evil organization, but listing it in a "Hate" template is POV and OR. Cheers, gnu 57 23:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hate in Canada
 * Keep, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Each link in this template has a documented history of xenophobic ideologies in one form or another. I see no difference between this and Neo-Nazism or Alt-right, both of which include links to people and organizations with a documented history relating to these topics.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Describing a person or a group as neo-Nazi is a statement of fact; calling them hateful is a moral judgment. It's OR to lump groups with "xenophobic ideologies in one form or another" together in one "hate" template. gnu 57 04:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep — Perhaps you would prefer the template be named "Hate groups and the ultra-right in Canada"? The title "Hate in Canada" is definitely vague and unhelpful in conveying what the categorisation is. The categorisation of course, is that the listed organisations are hate groups. I also do not understand the argument that there is a distinction between labeling the Canadian Nazi Party "evil" or "hate[ful]". What determines whether a value judgement about a group or person is POV/OR or neutral? Perhaps I misunderstand, but my interpretation is that calling a group like the Canadian Nazi Party evil is fair, but "hateful" is too opinionated. If an organisation openly calls for or promotes the discrimination of another group or person because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. they are by definition a hate group. This kind of conclusion isn't far-fetched, because if "hate" is an unfair moral judgement then that implies you can interpret discrimination and ideologies such as Nazism as loving or neutral. People can dance around these beliefs and say what is hateful is just a subjective call, but "hate group" is (at least in my view, if you want to call it that) an objective label, so if the issue is with the use of "hate" then the template should be moved, not deleted. Centre Left Right  ✉ 01:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, like any normal person, I agree 100% that the Canadian Nazi Party is both evil and hateful. But I would not want its article to state "The Canadian Nazi Party is an evil and hateful group", because I am generally opposed to putting moral judgements of persons or groups in Wikipedia's voice--even when well-deserved and almost universally held. The work-around in article space is to attribute the judgement, i.e., "[Example group] is listed as a hate group by [some authoritative source]". (It appears that the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is an SPLC-equivalent for Canada, but I don't know if they publish a formal hate-group list.) I don't see this sort of attribution as FALSEBALANCE, since it doesn't involve "...but maybe some other people might disagree". The problems here are that (a) the format of a navigation template doesn't allow for attribution. (b) WP:NAVBOX says "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article", but most of the linked groups are not called hate groups in their own articles. (c) Suppose that I wanted to make the case for adding another item, say, the Protestant Protective Association, Immigration Watch Canada, Vote Marriage Canada, or a Canadian affiliate of the Tamil Tigers. Would it be necessary for me to provide a source saying "This is a hate group"? Or could I just argue "Its ideology means it's a hate group by definition"? That's a clear avenue for OR. Cheers, gnu 57 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly major restructuring First of all the scope of this template has to be made explicit to be "Hate groups in Canada" the title is a bit confusing but I understand it as that is the intended scope. Calling a group a hate group has to be properly sourced and looking at three random articles in this navbox none mentioned hate groups. If it isn't sourced it does not belong per WP:V. If all enteries are properly sourced in article I'm fine with this being kept. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Molandfreak. I appreciate gnu's view that "hate" can be a moral judgement, which is true, however all of the groups, incidents, and topics included in the template are described by reliable sources as hate groups/crimes/etc, or the groups are described by RS as subscribing to ideologies which RS describe as hateful. Original research is a red herring here: we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, likewise we don't need a source to specifically say for each group organized around adherence to an ideology of hatred that it is a hate group. As for attribution, it is possible to attribute links in a template with a noincluded reflist, but it's a bit complicated and not really necessary, assuming this template doesn't include and isn't used on BLPs (which require WP:MINREF). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:38, 12 May 2020 (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).

Template:Greek myth (Olympian)

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Greek myth (Olympian) with Template:Greek mythology (deities).
 * Greek myth (Olympian)
 * Greek mythology (deities)

While admittedly the destination template is large, as such is there any clear reason for standalone template with this content? PPEMES (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge per nom. While the destination is large, it already has the same links. If it is deemed to large, then the solution is splitting the template, not having duplicate smaller copies. I also see that Greek religion is another template that has most (all?) of these links, and a page like Aphrodite has all 3 templates. --Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. These templates have very defined scopes. One is about the nine muses, one is a super template stretching over a page. I feel readers will suffer from removing the small and well-defined template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2020 (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).