Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

The result of the debate was : no consensus for deletion, but there was a consensus for a major cleanup and a resultant rename to take place. M a rtinp23 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against red links. The template itself refers to WP:CONTEXT, which is a policy against irrelevant links - regardless of their color. This template should be either deleted or renamed to something like {{Context0}} and reworded so it fits the policy. — Sebastian (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So should it be deleted or renamed? Those are two different things and it seems you're not clear on what you want done with it so why nominate it for deletion? There is a policy against irrelevant links, which is what this template more or less addresses. I'm also not aware of any kind of naming policy required for templates, as there are comment templates like "Template:Notyours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which isn't called Hello, I'm Crossmr. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. .I choose redlink because it was descriptive of what the template was to address. If you think it should be reworded to reflect a clearer message, you could be WP:BOLD and reword it.--Crossmr 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I apologize if it is not customary to nominate a template here unless one is uncompromisingly for deletion. If you ask me, I prefer deletion. I see no use in renaming+rewriting, since I don't use this template anyway. (When I find out-of context links I just remove them and I personally never found a need to write to whoever created them; at least not in standard cases.) But maybe others do, in which case I'm fine with renaming and rewriting.

So if I have to choose for one or the other, then deletion it is. That also would keep the discussion of how it should be renamed out of this page. We always can recreate it with different words and under a different name. — Sebastian (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of templates I don't use, but I don't nominate them for deletion. Nominating something for deletion is to be used in the case where something has no merit at all. It has as much merit in addressing the policy it does than any other template which addresses any other policy.--Crossmr 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nomination was not the fact that I don't use it. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: As it is, the name "Redlink" (along with the wording, which has been improved since) is bound to mislead people into using it against redlinks, which is not Wikipedia policy. Therefore I argue that the name and the mention of redlinks in the template has to go. — Sebastian (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've fixed the template to at least roughly correspond with the policy it cites, but disagree that it should exist - redlinks are entirely appropriate if an appropriate article simply doesn't exist *yet*. Chastising someone for daring to create red links unless they are doing it completely inappropriately seems an over-reaction. Possibly original author thought that Wikipedia was not supposed to contain redlinks? --Stoive 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author, and it was created because I found several users (and spent many weeks cleaning up their mess) who were over-linking articles, and linking unnecessary things which added nothing to the articles at all. The template was never used just because someone created a link to a non-existent article. Its to be used in the situation where someone had a chronic habit of creating unnecessary links. Just because you or someone else hasn't encountered people like that doesn't mean those people aren't out there. I encountered enough to eventually create a template. Wikipedia is a big place.--Crossmr 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have a template for ridiculous overlinking, even if all the links are blue. --ais523 10:43, 22 November 2006 (U T C)
So you agree that the name "Redlink" does not fit? — Sebastian (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name's inappropriate, but it should probably be kept as a redirect for historical reasons; the redir can always be {{rfd-t}}'d later if needed. --ais523 09:37, 23 November 2006 (U T C)

How is this page in any way referring to "overlinking?" ~~See the last discussion and why this template was previously deleted as inappropriate.~~ Ansell 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and rename. Bad wording as it is, but salvageable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or change to the point of unrecognizability. As it is, it's just a bad guideline. -Toptomcat 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did the person who created this forget the basis of Special:Wantedpages? Cbrown1023 03:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many of the arguments at this discussion. Meaning - redlinks aren't that big a problem, unless the user is being disruptive about it, or obviously didn't bother searching for a good alternative link. riana_dzasta 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and rename since it does theoretically serve a purpose as a reminder of policy, its just that what that policy is needs to be clarified. Tewfik^Talk 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an appropriate warning. There is no policy, and IMO should never be a policy, against wikilinking to possible new articles. I have de ja vu about this discussion... Ansell 10:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or rename/fix. I was encouraged to speedy close with G4, as this template seems very similar to the {{redlinks}} template deleted following this discussion. However, the other template was more along the lines of a {{cleanup}} tag, where this one is more of a user talk notice like {{test0}}. With that in mind, I think this avoids a speedy closure. That said, though, I think this is the same spirit of template, and I'd really rather have a generic template for "overlinking" such as this sort of thing, which could be useful for either purpose. Thoughts? Luna Santin 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an excellent idea, methinks. riana_dzasta 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is overlinking an issue which is worth having a standard template for. If it is a minor problem then not having a template will force people to think before "warning" others for it. Either way, this template does not fulfill that function and a totally new template should be devised for that purpose. Overlinking generally seems to link to non-redlink articles strangely... Ansell 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Overlinking is an issue that I've encountered on more than one occassion. The worst was when I found someone who'd spent about 2 months quietly overlinking dozens of articles. It took me about as long to finally clean them up. How spread of an issue it is, I've no idea. Changing this to a generic over-linking and not just redlink template is fine with me.--Crossmr 15:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete M a rtinp23 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure if it's appropriate to have templates with such limited scope (only 2 or 3 pages), especially if it's only calling existing infobox templates. Also, they may make it difficult for anon editors to fix info on them because they exist in templatespace and not mainspace. Axem Titanium 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst: and Delete, misuse of templates. --humblefool ® 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Place on respective pages and Delete... per nom. Cbrown1023 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
subst: and Delete, especially External links. Tewfik^Talk 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea of this seems to be to spread links to unencyclopedic images, and a link to a wikipedia user page, highly inappropriate for articles. --Martin 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wikiproject that some folks are setting up, where a cartoonist user has been illustrating some articles for us. Keep, and if you have a problem with the idea as a whole, take it up with them. --humblefool ® 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'd prefer it if the link to userspace was on the Talk page. --ais523 10:44, 22 November 2006 (U T C)
This template is being used on articles, if it was being used on talk pages or something I wouldn't care, but that is not its purpose. If a cartoonist wants to illustrate articles then fine, but a template to spam them around is totally unacceptable. Martin 10:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of the cartoonist creating the illustrations, if no one gets to see them? -- Zanimum 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no OWNing please. Maybe just remove the "by {{{2}}}". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the offending part, so changed to Keep. An MfD for the entire project is appropriate if your issue is with the images. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any location for a discussion about this entire matter? The Wikipedia illustrations have been generating heat, but without a place to talk things through the best we can do is fling around accusations and defenses and raise a few blood pressures. I'd quite like to found and oversee one, but #¤%& it, I'd also quite like to pass some upcoming exams. --Kizor 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illustration? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That project is about illustrating articles, this template is about spamming cartoons onto articles. I'll say again, it is totally innapproriate for it to be used on articles. Martin 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cbrown1023 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They act as engaging summaries of the articles, for those wanting to skip or review the lengthy format of our full-text content. -- Zanimum 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think the template should be changed to a talk page banner and moved to the talk pages. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many people look at the talk pages? Really, only contributors to Wikipedia, "I love you Britney" fans, and people trying to find a dispute for a news story do. -- Zanimum 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this whole thing could have been avoided if anybody had bothered to actually ask me, the creator of the template. I would have directed them to User:Danny at whose behest I created it, and it would have spurred me to actually create WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia which various off-wiki business has impeded. More details later. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is pretty darn close to an Official Project, if it isn't actually already so. Note that the cartoonist is using the Wikipedia logo in their illustrations... Why is that? Because either they're way off the mark, or they have Board Permission for it... (1 guess as to which it is...) So trying to remove templates that facilitate this project seems a bit off to me. Perhaps the nom didn't know this but this is, in my view Speedy closable under IAR. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think formal logo usage permission has been given, however Danny, Anthere, and Angela (though she's not board anymore) have all commented on them on [3]. Also, I found out about them from Andrew Lih's blog, Andrew's pretty tight knit with the foundation. -- Zanimum 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Andrew's comments to the blog... "As for the trademark, Brad Patrick the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has engaged with conversations with the creator, so it appears they have worked something out. You may want to contact him directly though." -- Zanimum 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a self reference and should be on a talk page or, preferably, not here at all. I agree entirely with Martin on this. --kingboyk 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No more a self referenece than {{Spoken Wikipedia}} is... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure how the images are "unencyclopedic" considering they are taking facts from our articles (that would make our encyclopedia articles unencyclopedic... :) ) The project should have a Wikipeda:WikiProject page though if you are worried about the link to User space. Ansell 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment You all did notice the Wikipedia Logo on the cartoons right? This is about as Official of a Project as they get. I pointed that out before and I'm at a loss why anyone is still suggesting delete. Move around appropriately, sure. Create a different template or a project, sure. but Delete??? Please don't drive away a talented contributor who is helping out WP in a novel way. I have to wonder, though, is there anything behind this nom that is not apparent? ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just condescending. Maybe they think that adding pictures is a bad idea? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used at all, the three pages it linked to have been merged since, it's now redundant. --Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above
Delete per nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Chris talk back 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all bar Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992. M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) All non-World Cup TP[reply]

No more reason, please read why previous one was deleted, only World Cup and CURRENT club TP should be used. A notable players would play more than three "A" event, but no need to create tp for all, it is useless. --Matthew _hk t c 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew _hk t c 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please vote for Template:Turkey Squad 2003 Confederations Cup (in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 17). Matthew _hk t c 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --Angelo 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are out of hand. -- Mattythewhite 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chile 2000 did not survive tfd.
Delete all, per consensus. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all EXCEPT ONE (or maybe a few) - Denmark 1992 Squad.. Let's not overlook the fact that Denmark were the Euro champions that year, and I think that we should make an exception for squad templates for the winners of these said competitions, since they can provide a good insight into the era.. If there are any other templates above that regroup the squad of winners of these competitions, they should be spared too.. Baristarim 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use the hide/show function and leave in the pages. Is useful for crosslinking player articles.--Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Cbrown1023 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all apart from Denmark Euro 1992 - per Baristarim. HornetMike 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Denmark Euro 92 per others. – Elisson • T • C • 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why deleting Template:Turkey Squad Euro 2000 ??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.141.71 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has been replaced by Template:Prokofiev Concertos --Wormsie 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. Cbrown1023 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template. Removed from the only article it was in as it doesn't add much and is difficult to read. Not to mention scrolls at lower resolutions. Francis Tyers · 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Must ^TC 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by TexasAndroid. Whisp e ring 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to advertise the vulnerability of an article to vandalism, thereby encouraging readers to vandalize it. The rationale for the deletion of this template is discussed in general terms in WP:BEANS. Indeed, to avoid encouraging vandalism to vulnerable pages, only administrators can view Special:Unwatchedpages, a page which performs essentially the same function as Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism, into which this template classifies articles. John254 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... there's so many problems with this template on so many levels, but I'll focus on one: Who decides what the cutoff for "vulnerable" is? Delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BEANS. Besides, this could be applied to every unprotected article on Wikipedia. And it's ugly. :) --Xtifr _tälk 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in actual use anywhere in the mainspace (the only mainspace article where I found it at all was Orange roughy where it was mistakenly used to refer to the fish as a vulnerable species, not the article itself). --Metropolitan90 08:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G7 and associated cat. I created this in good-faith, but I want it becoming an animal conservation template, etc. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could suggest this at the village pump (or on the approriate wikiproject)? M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - due to the lack of use, and the previously deleted template, I'm deleting (and also, Jeu de Paume does not seem to be the smae as tennis) M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wasn't there another TfD about this a week ago? In any case, I don't understand where the name of template is coming from: No, it was not competed at a single Olympics, the devil is in the details :)). It has been competed in every single Olympics ever since: "Jeu de paume" is old French for tennis, it literally means "the game of the palm" :)) I don't know the exact details of how or why this would have been introduced as a "seperate" sport, but it might be that at one point in the early history of Olympics, the French word was used instead of tennis, since IOC has both English and French as official languages. So you might as well merge it to relevant tennis templates, "Jeu de paume" was not a different sport, it was an earlier version of modern tennis, that's all.. Yes, human linguistic history is weird :))) Baristarim 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last week's TfD was for {{Olympic Games Jeu de paume}} (lower case 'p'). They should both go! As for the meaning, the IOC results show it as a distinct sport from tennis at the 1908 Games. There were competitions in both. See real tennis for details. Andrwsc 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with real tennis template as there was a comp in 1924, then delete. --Bob 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy close; nomination is very confused on how templates work. --humblefool ® 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such word in English language as "nutritionalvalue" and therefore the concocted word "nutritionalvalue" is not verifiable, not notable and flat out nonsense. Additionally, this is just an incomplete template that servers no purpose and it is misleading in its current state as any nutritional amounts are only "recommended" and not absolute amounts and as such should be supported by sources and references and should indicate if they are RDI for male, female, child, infant, etc.--Mike Sorensen 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What the heck? Template titles are almost NEVER notable. And what do you mean, the information is only reccommended? It is an objective fact how much of something a food contains. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Amarkov. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia and not "Make-it-yourself pedia"If we go by your "what the heck" guidelines then we will open doors to more spam, and ignorance, as it will allow people to create their own nonsense words and then claim that they should be in wikipedia because they don't have to be notable nor conform to standarts of English language.--Mike Sorensen 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as being misleading the template contains info such as "Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 2 mg - 133%" which is a nonsense because the 133% is at best a recommended nutritional amount as stated by some regulatory or advisory panel or group. As those guidelines vary from country to country and from one research paper to another, (not even mentioning from one human being to another) stating any numbers in a template about nutritional values should be supported by references . The word "recommended" , that is not even mentioned here, is rather important in this case. Therefore in its current state the template is misleading and useless. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with English words "Nutritional Value" and there is no need to create some concatenations of those words.--Mike Sorensen 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I love this. Allowing people to make templates whose TITLES are not notable will open Wikipedia to spam? As for your "misleading", that can be easily changed to specify who is doing the recommending. Deleting templates because of their TITLES? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed, the template ALREADY SPECIFIES who it is giving the information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You "just noticed that the template ALREADY SPECIFIES who it is giving the information". In that case please show me, using the links provided in the template, a statement that specifies intake of "Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 2 mg - 133%" . An intake of any nutrient is recommended for specific, age, gender and health status. So male, female, child, etc. will all have different RDI for every nutrient including Riboflavin. --Mike Sorensen 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination cites invalid reason to delete. At worst it should be renamed, but camel case NutritionalValue isn't a significant improvement. Let it be. pschemp | talk 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as an invalid reason for deletion, and someone explain what notability and verifiability mean to the nom. I'd hate to see what he thinks of such horrific names as {{nsd}} or even {{disambig}}. Those aren't even real words either. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Concocted words, incorrect spelling, and inaccurate or misleading information are very valid reasons for deletion, or at best for a major rework. Do you sometimes wonder why wikipedia is being ridiculed and criticized ? Because it contains nonsense words and incorrect information. Why don't we call this template Eyuiyhuygtsefwse ? This seems as good of a word as any other nonsense concocted one.--Mike Sorensen 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as {{nsd}} or {{disambig}} are concerned they are just code words used for wiki flow and organization and not a core content of the encyclopedia.
Please see our Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. In particular, we are not a source of medical advice, and that includes nutritional values for e.g. diet purposes. That is not to say we shouldn't list them, but not using the exact terms as a medic would is not a reason for deletion. (Radiant) 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be ill-advised. Template names are not required to be standard English words, because they do not display as such to readers but are only used "behind the scenes" by the editors. Anyway, "nutritionalvalue" can easily be interpreted by readers. Minor alterations in spelling usually do not turn words into nonsense. --Metropolitan90 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, I honestly have no idea what the hell the nominator is on about. "It isn't a word, and therefore shouldn't be deleted"? What the...? {{Moresources}}? {{Sect1911}}? {{Bioguide}}? {{cleanup}}? {{copypaste}}? {{TotallyDisputed}}? {{Expandsection}}? Want me to keep going? Seriously... per everyone above. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete pschemp | talk 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rubbish Edit

Not necessary, rather nonsensical, and could be WP:BALLS itself! ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Attack template that characterizes edits as rubbish Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per attack (I've warned the user as well). Cbrown1023 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletepschemp | talk 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Child Edit

This is not necessary, could be divisive and is often untrue. WP:CHILD has nothing to do with the quality of edits made by minors, it just concerns their privacy. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as divisive attack template that violates WP:AGF. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per attack. Cbrown1023 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made irrelevant by the generic Expert-portal. See Hepatology for an example of it in use. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that one, fine by me, apparently I was a bit ahead of this evolution. I'll try to AWB-replace it before it get's deleted.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently that has been done, so let's nuke it!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm puzzled by the fervour of this discussion. The two templates ask for different things to be done. And besides, why would you recruit an expert from a portal? Recruiting an expert from outside Wikipedia makes much more sense to me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We can always update the wording on the expert-portal template (I'll do so after I write this comment). Thing is, we need a generic template as medicine isn't the only subject that requires experts. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool® 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major company pov.Longdong UK 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea what "major company pov" is supposed to mean... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless the "big four" classification can be dropped. It is somewhat POV. I will edit to this effect, but it remains to be seen if the edit stays or gets reverted... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is quite neutral to describe a business as "big"[4]—read Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for the explanation. This debate should be on Template talk:UK supermarkets about how to reach a consensus on the wording, not to delete the template altogether. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- read Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for the explanation - that's not even referenced! Please do not revert to the previous wording. It's definitely POV. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99.9% delete delete now. Jer10 95 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the comments above. toresbe 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be legit --T-rex 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is nominator's only contribution to Wikipedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and replace with Magic Words. --humblefool® 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating {{PTalk}}, {{PWikipedia talk}}, {{PPortal talk}}, {{PHelp talk}}, {{PCategory talk}}, {{PTemplate}}, {{PTemplate talk}}, and any of the associated templates I missed. Redundant with {{ARTICLESPACE}}. Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could you fix up the deletion notices so that other templates, such as {{WP Adventist}} are not included in cat:Templates for deletion. Cheers, Ansell 09:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with magic words as appropriate, and delete. Some of these templates are broken anyway (PTalk for instance), and even the nominated one forgot about the Portal namespace. --ais523 09:50, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Weak delete. Looks redundant. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after its current uses have been fixed up. Ansell 11:07, 27 November 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find attributing across different language Wikipedias uncalled for. The whole concept of displaying interlanguage links in the left margin should indicate quite clearly that infornation is likely to be shared across Wikipedias. Also, no other languages than German have adopted this procedure, which indicates that it is an anomaly. Alternatively, I would condone that the template be changed into a talk page template. meco 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I yield to the consensus seeing this should form a precedent for other languages and other Wikipedias. I do however still question the choice to place it on the article front page instead of on the talk page. __meco 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Attribution is used in a lot of other places, like for when we copy text from PD sources. Interwiki links provide no indication that the text was used to create the article, only that it exists. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I think this is an excellent idea. Ideally we would have a generic template that allowed you to attribute any language's Wikipedia by use of an ISO code field, so the same template could be used regardless of whether the translated text was from the de wiki, or the eo wiki, or the zh wiki, etc. --tjstrf talk 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, attribution template just like {{1911}}, {{Planetmath}} or similar. Note that WP:TIE asks for every translation to acknowledge its source on the article page. There just don't seem to be templates to do it for other languages. Kusma (討論) 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, GDFL Attribution. Agathoclea 10:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma and Agathoclea, unless someone comes up with a generic "translated from XX" template per tjstrf's suggestion, in which case I would say delete in favor of that new template. —An gr 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. - Ekki01 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Interwiki links are probably the best thing about Wikipedia. They allow you to learn so much about an issue beyond the entry at hand and beyond conventional dictionary functions. For instance, Germans call RCA cables "Cinch-Kabel" - different words, same things, and the German looks like it was taken from the English. The English for "Lebensabschnittsgefährte" is "significant other," though the English contains connotations of what Germans call "Bezugsperson" that are not in "Lebensabschnittsgefährte". In other words, Wikipedia has the potential to be an amazing multi-dictionary almost by accident. It even provides evidence of Saussure 's argument that bread is not the same as French "pain" or German "Brot" because each of these cultures has different images when they hear the word, and bread has a different cultural standing in each of these cultures. Wikipedia provides pictures, histories, etc., not just definitions, and for those of us who can read more than one language the comparisons are enlightening. There is always potential for different value judgements, which alone makes cross-referencing worthwhile. Finally, it is simply not true that "no other languages than German have adopted this procedure". See the Dutch, French, etc. cmorris35
- This isn't about interwiki links though; it's about a separate template identifying the article as having been translated from the German article. —An gr 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a Template:De. One of them is probably redundant. Punkmorten 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say Template:De is less useful, since it doesn't provide the name of the original German article or the date of translation. However, it's being used in hundreds of articles, and I for one don't want to go through them one by one and convert them to this template, which would mean not only adding the name of the German article, but also burrowing through the history to figure out the date of the German article that the translation is based on. —An gr 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Kusma and the others above. Badbilltucker 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template now has usage instructions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. Baristarim 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kusma. --Boson 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kusma and the above arguments. Olessi 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - How can we reference something from German Wikipedia if we don't have a template? Kingjeff 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to have this kind of source information, we need to keep in mind that a wiki page does not meet WP:RS. If sources are not provided in the source text, they need to be sought out independently (if they are provided, they can just be translated along with everything else). Not sure if that's what you meant, but thought I'd mention it. -- Visviva 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea is not to suggest that the German original is a reliable source. A translated page without any sources will still have to be tagged {{unsourced}}. (And this will usually be the case with articles translated out of German, since German Wikipedia seems to have some sort of phobia against sources.) But it isn't just "a good idea" to inform readers that the page was translated from the German article; it's probably required by the GFDL, since the original author of all GFDL-licensed text has to be traceable, and translating isn't considered original authorship. —Angr 12:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that can also be done through the edit summary (that's how I've usually noted it), or on the Talk page... however, I agree that this template is a good idea, and should be replicated for other languages. -- Visviva 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But wouldn't a great German article have sources like a great English article? Therefore, it should be perfectly ok to have this template. If an article in German Wikipedia doesn't meet the standards of policy, then it's thei problem, not ours. Kingjeff 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should, but might not. (From what I understand, standard practice on DE is to mention sources only in the edit summary, which creates a WP:V nightmare). Also, depending on the topic area and the weakness of EN's coverage thereof, it is often worth translating even articles that are far from great. -- Visviva 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to something that can be consistent with other languages. Am sympathetic to the argument that it should be on the talk page, but similar source templates mostly are not. May go create Template:From Korean Wikipedia now. :-) -- Visviva 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not useful, and could constitute nonsense. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see it applied before I make up my mind to delete it. __meco 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who decides what constitutes "too many templates"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, see Template:Toomanyboxes, a related, if more frivolous version of same. 68.39.174.238 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or see User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes if you aren't an admin. --ais523 11:49, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete We have {{skiptotoctalk}} if the boxes get that bad. Hbdragon88 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that the template should be deleted, but I don't think skiptotoctalk should be used. There virtually never needs to be that many templates on a page, and the unnecessary templates should simply be deleted instead (the large ones should be trimmed, as well). The skiptotoctalk adds another template and enables the keeping of frivolous templates. -- Kjkolb 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's too many templates, logic indicates that adding one more will not alleviate the situation. Delete. (Radiant) 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not as good as the userfied version I linked above, and inappropriate in most namespaces. --ais523 11:49, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Recreation of twice deleted and BJAODN'd template. --cesarb 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously, we had people who were too lazy to clean things up, and placed a template instead. Now, we apparently have people who are too lazy to even remove templates?! What next? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Jahangard 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has too many delete recommendations. Please add more. Chris talk back 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a magical template-eating template using CarnivoreFunctions. If CarnivoreFunctions haven't been invented yet, just delete. -- Visviva 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to me that if an article is overusing templates, a talk page discussion would be a better way to handle it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge M a rtinp23 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant with {{Infobox Football club}}. Rolando 13:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with {{Infobox Football club}}. My guess here would be that whoever designed their infobox doesn't know how to do parser functions, so someone decided they needed a separate infobox for teams with 3 color sets. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is an inferior duplicate of {{expert}}. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's hideous and useless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my eyes! Delete. Ugly, useless, what Night Gyr said. pschemp | talk 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. __meco 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gah, shoot it now! Redundant, and Ghu help us if it spreads! Xtifr _tälk 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure that the creator never passes their graphic design classes. Black on brick red? Ouch! --tjstrf talk 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, could we just redirect this to {{expert}}? It's not a bad alternate title. Plus, editorial solutions are generally better than all-or-nothing decisions that require administrator enforcement. --tjstrf talk 08:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought template redirects, while supported, were strongly discouraged. And the template is unused. Might be better/easier to just delete it while we still have a chance. Xtifr _tälk 09:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you certain? There are redirects for many of our most used tags like {{cn}}, {{bv}}, and {{template link}} to name a few. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but basically, it's a question of how likely the template is to need replacement someday. Core templates would be basically exempt, but {{expert}} might get replaced with {{expert-since}} if it was decided to track these by date (as has happened to several other cleanup templates). It's at the bottom of Wikipedia:Redirect. Xtifr _tälk 11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Destroy. Exterminate. [That colour scheme is really bad!] ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it quick. Chris talk back 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:100110100 with reason "there is already syntax for the NOTOCs." Does it really help to type {{notoc}} rather than __NOTOC__? TimBentley (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a template for __NOTOC__?100110100 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thryduulf 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh noes, I have to type 0 more characters to just use __NOTOC__. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just learned how to use the syntax command instead. Cyberia23 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep __NOTOC__ seems weird to use. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please don't hide magic words behind an unnecessary template that can be vandalized and uses 0.0001% more server load for no positive effect. Kusma (討論) 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. How is that easier to remember than the original syntax? Will just slow down database. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people know it and use it, and the case for deletion is unconvincing. Making things easier is worth a mere 0.0001% (one ten thousandth of a percent) increase in server load. If vandalism is a problem, just put it in permanent, full protection. -- Kjkolb 00:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant, worthless. pschemp | talk 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how does this make anything easier? ~~ N (t/c) 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many fewer people are aware of the "__" syntax for magic words than are aware of the "{{" syntax. Thus, there is a *slight* convenience factor here. -- Visviva 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless redundancy. —An gr 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and relatively exclusive template, with a bias towards American TV shows. I can't see it doing anything other than adding a massive list to whatever article it gets added onto. Wafulz 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it would be a useful template to American viewers of American reality shows, and they would be the primary viewers of these articles as well, so the bias would be lost on the target audience. It's a little peculiar that the template hasn't been added to any articles yet, however, assuming this will take place, my vote is to keep the template. __meco 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are too many reality shows to include all of them, so this is bound to be flawed either way. Each show can have links to its own series and to a general list of reality shows, but you don't need to put a link on every one to every other. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be useful. Reality TV has been a huge phonemena. The sub-development of a template should not be the basis for its deletion. Baristarim 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When considering the inclusion of all reality TV shows of even one genre, check out the length of List of reality television programs. There is really no way to keep the template's size practical without compromising its neutrality. --Wafulz 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shows should not be lumped in by genre. No bias against splitting this off into a separate template for each show, but this is going to get big really, really fast. Hbdragon88 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Category:Reality_television_series and subcategories for everything that could end up in here! Per Night Gyr, Create templates for each individual show as needed (like Template:Big Brother UK) --Stoive 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme burninate before it gets too big. Templates for each programme might be useful, but not a huge reality TV one. Especially since reality TV adheres to the Holy Roman Empire nomenclature (in being neither reality nor television). Chris talk back 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template, apparently used exclusively for vandalism. I'd nominate this for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure if it technically qualifies. At any rate, no pages use the template, and those that did (for vandalism) were reverted. Fieari 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Khorshid 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as WP:CSD G2 (vandalism). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep M a rtinp23 18:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a POV template for same reasons as Template:History of Turks. It is making POV claims that pre-Kurdish peoples were Kurds for 100% certain and this is also an ethnic template of which we dont see any others on WP. Also there is current country of Kurdistan and there are dozens of POV issues related to renaming this as "History of Kurdistan". We dont have "History of Aryans" or "History of Persians" or "History of Indo-Europeans" or "History of Germans" or "History of (put "stateless" group here)" etc. Khorshid 13:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Where it says non-Kurds are Kurds? It only have a section for early ancestors of Kurds. Second, why we should not have templates for history of ethnic groups? who told you Wikipedia does not need that? The nomination is clearly POV and biased. Nice try! :) lol Awat 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother! Please assume good faith! I have no bad intention. Khorshid 13:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's useful to organize and give an overview of articles about Kurds. Bertilvidet 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.per Bertilvldet.Must ^TC 15:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep useful and organized. Ozgur Gerilla 16:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks decent enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I agree, this template does have POV. It needs to be corrected. Chaldean 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - r u joking? If someone thinks that something is POV in the template please point it out and let's work together to correct it. But the idea behind the template is definitely valid, Kurds have not had a "typical" history, like the histories of certain sedentary nation-states, so it is definitely ok. Because of historical reasons, there are many Kurdish communities who have been living in even Georgia for centuries, so yes, the idea behind the template is valid. Baristarim 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would a "History of Kurdistan" template grasp the subject matter in its entireity since, the controversy over the exact borders of Kurdistan aside, Kurds, as a people, have not had the similar history as a bunch of land with human-made borders. Let's not forget that it is the humans that are important, not some random land whose borders were drawn in a men-only exclusive club in Europe.. Baristarim 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Template:History of Kurdistan. Great idea! Khorshid 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Change to history of Kurdistan, then it will match other templates.Khosrow II 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Yezidis in Georgia? They have been living there for a long time.. Please stop playing with wikipedia like this. Everyone knows that Khorshid nominated this template for deletion because of the debate going on at the TfD about Turkish history template. Khorshid also nominated other Kurdish related articles for deletion, so I really see this as a bad-faith nom. I really don't understand what the problem is.. Baristarim 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to history of Kurdistan. Anything before the Shaddadids in that template has nothing to do with Kurds other than the fact that the geographical location matches more or less. I wouldn't mind this template if it started with the Shaddadids.--Eupator 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually in the Corduene article sources available showing the relation between Kurds and Corduene. Ozgur Gerilla 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete M a rtinp23 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly on Main Page but now disused; according to the talk page, it's apparently useless now due to technical reasons. Kavadi carrier 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:hiddenStructure is one reason, the SEO-like nature of this another, and the robots.txt exclusion making this useless is a third. --ais523 09:54, 7 November 2006 (U T C)

Relisting to generate further consensus M a rtinp23 13:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and insofar as CesarB, who addresses the uselessness of the template at its talk page, and ais523 seem to know quite well whereof they speak. Joe 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instant delete textless no text at all. templates must have text. Jer10 95 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates must have text or pictures(opininal).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". cesarb 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. _→AzaToth 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the above guideline is indeed binding, I'll go ahead now and subst the template on all the pages where it's used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Go ahead and delete now, it won't be needed again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus back in March, but this time it should be deleted. Not useful for navigation, not necessary in any way, in fact not used at all. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, a half template someone never got to finishing 2.5 years ago; if it's really that critical to use (which it's not), it would take like 3 seconds to remake it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. And I don't understand the template's raison d'etre: "jeu de paume" means tennis in old French, why was this template even created??? Baristarim 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. I have also nominated a few more like this, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 21. Andrwsc 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus back in March, but this time it should be deleted. Not useful for navigation, not necessary in any way, in fact not used at all. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, useless and unused. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, a half template someone never got to finishing 2.5 years ago; if it's really that critical to use (which it's not), it would take like 3 seconds to remake it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. I have also nominated a few more like this, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 21. Andrwsc 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
speedy delete 1998 is the only years in this template.
templates with has years on it it must have peceeded by:1997 and Suceeded by: 1999.Jer10 95 23:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:Imidazopyridine. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused here. The version of the template that you didn't nominate contains more information (one more link, to ATC code N05), but I'm not sure what to make of the page that is linked. It looks like a long list of pharmaceuticals that is more expansive than the template, suggesting that either template is redundant to the list article? Can you comment? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:MTRStations. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I subst:'d this onto the template it was used on, as should have been done in the first place. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily it would be an editorial decision to remove this text from all Glock pistol pages. However there's a nested set of templates here, {{GLOCK uppercase}} inside {{GLOCK pistols}}, which is then transcluded into the articles proper. I don't believe this text is appropriate in the template; there's an argument, maybe, that it could go on the main Glock page. -- nae'blis 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inappropriate use of a template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the template. Could you give me arguments on why it is inappropriate? I’m open to it, I just want to know. If deletion is decided, what about including the text about uppercasing right in the {{GLOCK pistols}} content?
David Latapie (✒ | @) 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because including the text in the template makes it difficult to edit from the article, and impossible to modify to work better with the existing text in the article. subst:'ing it into the articles would get the text in there and leave the possibility of modification, but I don't agree with the phrasing of this template either. Do we really need a template for every company that names its products with idiosyncratic capitalization? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi David; I think a good analogous article would be SONY - the company is very consistent about using all capitals in their trademarked merchandise/publicity, but our article doesn't mention even mention it because it's a relatively minor marketing tactic (and the above all-caps version is just a redirect). I wouldn't personally oppose the text being included a mention on the Glock page, but you might want to bring it up on Talk:Glock first to demonstrate consensus. I think putting it on all models' pages is overkill, that's all. -- nae'blis 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note No comment as to the verbiage of this template, but it is being used to add a consistant message to many realted pages, that's what templates are for after all, no? It would also be trivial to make an edit link appear that would edit the template. If the argument is that the text should simply be added to the 25+ articles it is in, that just makes it harder for editors to "fix" things about it, as they would start a fork unless appiled to all articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Consensus on this issue has been reached elsewhere as well. --humblefool ® 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Squad 2003 Confederations Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unneccesary international template, for a fairly minor competition. ArtVandelay13 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To many. Matthew _hk t c 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the consensus at WikiProject Football is to allow templates for World Cup and current club only. Punkmorten 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 03:34 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep WhiteHero 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wearethebestfenerbahce 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deliogul 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There was another discussion on these types of templates here. There should be World Cup and club templates, and that's it. Allowing Euro, Confederations Cup, Copa America etc. templates will lead to footballer's pages being cluttered with unnecessary templates. For example, look at Shunsuke Nakamura's page. CanbekEsen 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Turkey doesn't participate in the Conf Cup every year you know :)) Baristarim 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Punkmorten. This issue was already discussed, btw. --Angelo 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These are getting out of control. -- Mattythewhite 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clutter. As said, Nakamura's page is full... Sam Vimes | Address me 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Punkmorten. sʟυмɢυм • т •

Keep Willie200 c 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Punkmorten and CanbekEsen. Poulsen 13:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an announcement for a recent policy proposal to semi-protect all policy pages. First, tags like this are arguably not the best way to announce a proposal (indeed, we have RFC and the Pump for a reason). And second, the proposal-as-written appears to have failed already, although some compromises are being discussed. At any rate we no longer need this template. (Radiant) 14:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should never have been created or added to these pages in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposal is a bad idea. Septentrionalis 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text of the template alone, "This is a template. This template serves no other purpose than to notify Wikipedians that that this is another template, part of Wikipedia's growing collection of templates," is a good enough reason for its deletion. This template serves no purpose. Except to add to the template namespace. Might even be a good WP:BJAODN. Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Preposterous 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and delete. We've got a nice collection of templates, and it's good to know someone's keen to add to it, but... Grutness...wha? 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unneeded attempt at humor. Neil916 (Talk) 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Grutness and Fbv65edel that this would make a rather good BJAODN entry. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that is an odd template
Delete, and replace with a template saying "This is no longer a template.". Eugène van der Pijll 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Ceci n'est pas un template}}? (Radiant) 09:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN and delete. If a template is never transcluded, is it a template? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it can be substituted instead. BJAODN sounds good. TimBentley (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an attempt to get into BJAODN, so let's leave it out ;) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's try to see the bright side of life. it's pretty funny in a existentialist way. :)) Baristarim 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. It's not obvious whether the template was designed to waste space, or to tag other templates that waste space; either way, it's been made now and we can't free the space up. --ais523 09:53, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Not sophisticated enough to elicit more than a pained groan. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not funny enough for BJAODN. Now if it had been more like this:

This is not a template. If it were a template, it would be part of Wikipedia's growing collection of template messages. But it's not, so it's not.

That might actually have been a little funny, especially with the useful links. But it's not, so it's not. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceci n'est pas une delete. Chris talk back 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Not a template.
Template: This is a template is not a template. if where a template, it has to have a box in any color. stub templates are acceptable.
Jer10 95 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. This template is a mess. The very idea of this template has a nasty pan-turkic bias - and the fact that it's only used on half the pages it's linked to (and not even the page that heads the template!) is a very bad sign. --humblefool ® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

File:Presidential insignia of Turkey.jpg

Insignia of the Presidency of the Turkish Republic (for the signification of the 16 stars, see [1]. May the fors be with you!)

One of the pictures that was used in that template. 'Grey Wolf' has been the symbol of Pan-turkism,even the azeri separatists in Iran use that

Delete This template is a racial template, and it does not match with the other similar templates, which are nation based, such as History of Russia, History of India, or History of Iran. Further more, other than the fact that this is race based, it is inaccurate, unacceptable, and misleading to group a whole bunch of people like this. The history of Huns has nothing to do with the history of the Seljuks for instance. The template says history of Turks, as if all Turks have the same historical background, which is false. Furthermore, what if there was a history of Aryans template, or a history of Arabs template? Would it be correct to group all Arabs or all Aryans (Iranic peoples, not Nazi's, LOL) into one template? Certainly not, as Egyptians have a completely different history than Iraqi's and Persians have a completely different history than Scythians. Deleting this would be the best suggestion I could give.Khosrow II 23:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates? Right off the bat, there is no one-size fits all policy on this. History of Turkey is not the samething as History of Turks, who have been an emigrating nation for millenia. History of Turkey comprises Byzantine, Hitite etc elements, where as History of Turks comprises many other elements. Turks, unlike some other peoples, have not been sedentary nations, so it is normal that History of Turks is quite a different subject than History of Turkey. Not unless, of course, you are claiming that Turks as a race have been living in Turkey since 5000 BC. Now, you wouldn't be doing that, would you? :)))))) Baristarim 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is common concensus that the picture for the template will be changed...

Strongly keep. because historically Turk is Turkic so if you say History Of Turks, its the same thing.Unsigned at 04:23, November 18, 2006 by User:Metb82Must ^TC 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. I really do not understand you ,guys, why you are so biased against the name of Turk and the history of Turks. I always come across this type of biased discussions. i.e., look at the discussion below: "I think we need to decided one and for whether to use Smyrna/Izmir or Constantinople/Istanbul in this article. I personally lean towards Smyrna and Constantinople, as there were in use in English during the time period and furthermore Ataturk did not officially change the names of the cities until the 1930s.- Alexius Comnenus There is no general use in that form in English: I advice you to go http://maps.google.com/ and type Symrna, you will see only one place in GA not in Turkey, instead, if you go and type Izmir , You will reach to Turkey and Turkish links. On the other hand, if you type Constantinople in http://maps.google.com/ , you will end up 28 links with USA not with Turkey. However, if you type Istanbul in googlemaps you will be absolutely directed to Turkey. In addition if you notice that I am using Turkey instead of using Turkiye (which I am opposing but absolutely widely used in English) and also not writing Yunanistan instead of Greece. This means I am seperating my objective and subjective. I advice to do so, otherwise we can not reach a consensus. --- Zkaradag" Being biased made you so blind that you can not see concrete evidences like above. However, since this is universal source of information, we have responsibility of being neutral. Otherwise, we can not make any cntribution to this project. I am making my PhD in University of Toronto right now, and I can post as many as scanned pages of books which accept that the roots of Hungarian and Turks are same just because of Huns (all of them are published in Hungary). In addition, there are journals named Turan printed in Hungary, too. Best wishes. Zkaradag...

Delete as per Khosrow II above. On what evidence is this template based on? History of Turkey has nothing to do with byzantines or Hitites. Turkey came in existance in 1923. Hence the history of Turkey CAN NOT comprise Byzantine or Hitite ???? etc elements???. What Byzantine elements does the History of Turkey have? You are confusing yourself with the geographic area. NOT Turkey... the area... shares history Aristovoul0s 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? Of course by Turkey I mean the geographical area, otherwise I would have used "Republic of Turkey". And history of Turkey has a lot to do with Byzantine and Hittites. There is a different article for the History of the Republic of Turkey. In the same way that "History of the French Republic" is not the same thing as the "History of France". I am sorry to say but, it is you who is confused about the notions we are using here. Baristarim 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what do the Byzantines and Hittites have to do with the Turks, other than common geographic area? with 'Turkey', we mean the 'Republic of Turkey'... with 'Asia Minor' or 'Anatolia' we mean the geographic area. i would be really interesting to listen something about the "connections" between modern Turkey and the Byzantines and Hittites... But, please, no Pan-Turko-Kemalistic crap of the style: the Hittites were early Turks, nor crap like the Byzantines are ancestors of modern Turks (such a case will be like: killing my father and begging the court to show mercy and let me inherite him, cause i am an orphan!). Hectorian 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's all take a chill pill here. You very well know that I have NEVER said that Hitites were ethnic Turks, it is extremely common knowledge that Turks entered Anatolia in 1071. That was not my point, I said "History of Turkey" and not "History of Turks" comprises Byzantine elements. The difference is similar to the one between "History of France", "History of the French Republic" and "History of French (people)". History of France also included Roman and Germanic elements, History of the FR republic however is clearly different. Turkey is not only Anatolia, Istanbul and Eastern Thrace is also part of Turkey while they are not part of Anatolia. And it is kinda funny that you should mention "Hittites were early Turks" since that is a very interesting look at the subject: If some people are claiming that "Turks (or Turkish) of today" are "Turkified native Anatolian populations", then it would be completely contradictory for you to disagree with the statement "Hitites were early Turks" since you agree with the fact that the descendants of Hitites were later Turkified by the Turkic tribes of Central Asia. :))) But even that statement would not be correct since it would be looking at history from the other way around: the academically correct statement is this: "Hitites were the ancestors of many people who consider themselves as Turks in modern-day Turkey". Hey, be careful - we could be talking about my great-great-great..-great-grandfather here :)) You should have said "Were Hitites early ethnic Turks?". By history of Turkey, I mean history of the geographical region, otherwise I would have said "History of the Turkish Republic" or "History of the Republic of Turkey". It is that simple. In fact it is funny that you should mention the Byzantines, since Ottomans have a much more legitimate right to lay claim to the Byzantine legacy than any other nation in the world. It is them that inherited directly many aspects of the Byzantine culture, lands, peoples and even language to a certain point. :)) Greece has a very good case too, so let's call it equal. :))) (don't jump on my flaimbait :)) Baristarim 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? in French: excuse moi? are u kidding me? since Ottomans have a much more legitimate right to lay claim to the Byzantine legacy than any other nation in the world? after a moment of silence for the honor of the slaughtered empire, i will ask again: what?!!! after Huns, Avars, Mongols, Bulgars.... their is a claim for the Greek Byzantines...?! 'bout Hittites, they may indeed be the Turks' great-great.... ancestors, as well as the Greeks, Armenians, Persians, etc, but the modern turks view themselves as 'central asian migrants-settlers-nomads', so, they can calim nothing! and my comment on them was the Grey Wolves' theory, that the Hittites, as well as the Sumerians, the Celts, and (dear God!) Homerus (!) were proto-turks... So, it was not adressing to u, but to anyone who may believe in such crap;-) Hectorian 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean.. There are a lot of weirdo theories out there.. :)) Baristarim 06:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. This template and history reviewed by a pan turkish hand being one of them. Unbased theories with the sole aim to alter history with a turkish POV. See how you got confused? Imagine a casual reader. Is this what its written in Turkish school books? That Byzantines/Hittites elements and e.t.c. are part of Turkeys history??? The area is called turkey now, but that DOES NOT mean that Troy belongs in Turkish history or History of Turkey. Arguments like that are wrong. Turkey is 1923 and afterwards. What amazes me is that i see no Iranians supporting their history from these Turkish claims... Unbelievable!!! Aristovoul0s 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you are really assuming here.. I never denied that Troy for example was an integral part of Ancient Greek history. Please read my posts carefully, I had enough of being called a Pan-Turkist by people who are not able to see the points that I am trying to make. When I say "Turkey" instead of "Republic of Turkey", I mean the geographical area.. There is a similar difference between "France" and "French Republic, "Russia" and "Russian Federation" or "Russia SSR", "Greece" and "Greek Republic".. One is the land, the other one is the political structure. Turks have entered Anatolia in 1071, so obviously Hitites were not Turks.. What I was trying to say however, was that "Turkey", as in the geographic area, carries elements of Byzantine/Hitite history. I didn' say that "Turkish" history (as in race), includes Hitites. Please read my comments carefully before insulting people. History of "France" also includes Roman elements, and yes that is what is thought in French schools. Schools in France also teach that "History of France" also includes Germanic, Catholic elements.. FYI, I didn't grow up in Turkey, so I never had my "brainwashed" by Turkish "propaganda" and "that stuff that is taught in Turkish schools".. Please try to understand what I am trying to say, my example about France is the one you should be talking about.. Please refrain from calling people "Pan-Turkist" etc at every single opportunity. Baristarim 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a violation of WP policy as a racial template and makes a false claim that all Turkic peoples are connected, that they are all the same, etc. This is going beyond nationalism and into very bizarre areas of racialism ideology similar to the Nordic myth. See also History_of_Turks for more background on the racialistic nature of this template and the nationalistic nature (from the Turkish (Turkey) ideology). For the History of Turkey, a good and legitimate template already exists: Template:History of Turkey. Khorshid 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which policy you are talking about since "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates do exist (the latter talks about religion AND race). So that argument falls flat out. Actual contents of the template could be discussed, but there is nothing wrong with the underlying idea since, as I said many times, History of Turkey is not the same as History of Turks because Turks have been an emigrating nation. Baristarim 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read my other posts about the difference between History of Turkey not being the same as History of Turks. So following your logic, we can assume that Turks have been living in what is now Turkey since 5000 BC, before Armenians, Kurds and Greeks... Hmm, that's interesting :)) Without Gokturks, there would be no Seljuqs, without them Sultanate of Rum and Anatolian Turkish beyliks would not have existed, and as such Ottomans would not have existed and Republic of Turkey would have never been founded. I don't get it.. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that history of Turks as a people is not the same thing as History of Turkey since Turks have been emigrating for millenia? Baristarim 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template is not racial and therefore no reason to delete. It doesn't give any racial messages. It only gives people easier navigation for Turkish history. All Turks are connected in somehow; by history and cultural roots. Template doesn't claim that all Turks are united nor they live together right now. Through out history, important Turkish states had existed. And template tries to show this important goverments. Even if they are not connected directly, they are connected in the historical and cultural base. It gives some clues how and where Turks had been. For these reason, there's no racial or pan-Turkist approach with this template. Also be reasonable, it is not logical to give racial messages by a navigation box. The only reason for Khosrow suggested it for deletion is his personal reasons. Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu are Turkic states. When we put this navigation box next to Iranian sidebar; they didn't like it and they removed it. The reason they gave was "there is too much template". This explanation is given by Khorshid. The anon user is me: cagataycebi — cagataycebi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

LOL, what do you mean this template is not racial, is it not based on a race? I'll let you answer that for yourself.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then; let me answer: Turks have common roots of their languages as Heja Helweda said. Nobody in here looks for genetic relations except you.

Yeah a great LOL Khosrow since you have been trying to prove to all of us that "Kurdish history" template is not about the Kurdish people as a race but Kurdish people as a group (???). Unless I have learned my English in Mars, they pretty much mean the same thing. Baristarim 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is large Turk history and the owner countires have templates like "History of Turkey", "History of Kazakhstan" etc but there is also very much Turkic state under Turkic management nevertheless population's largely native people, this template very needed for history of Turks. If the template would be deleted some vandals will show Turkic states as Iranian, like what Khosrow II and others done in Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu etc, this is no lesser than to show Germany as Turkish state or Andorra as Spaniard. Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:81.215.112.148 who voted on this page is an anon, and possibly Zapardojik himself.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP User is not Zapardojik. It is me! Wikipedia is a free enviorement. Therefore most of the time I don't get log in. You can check cagataycebi as much as you like.

Note also that, above claim was not made by an admin, nor was it verified by check user. (I am not an admin either). Baristarim 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I said possibly. Also, I have confirmed it. I replied to this anon on a talk page and Zaparodjik answered me. Also, their editing is connected and similar in fashion. But I have talked to an admin about anon voting, and it turns out that votes by anon's dont get counted anyway.Khosrow II 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying possibly and then you are sayin "I have confirmed it". How can you confirm something that's possibly? How can you confirm something that's not true? If your cultural knowledge is no different then your conspriacy theories, then we should not argue any more. You are trying to mislead people by claiming we are the same persons. Very well my friend, learn my name: cagataycebi

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, I don't know.. In any case, don't forget that wikipedia is not a democracy, it is about concensus, but only if the concensus is formed after an academic debate. So it doesn't really matter how many votes one "side" gets :)) There are no "sides". Baristarim 04:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, as far as I know, Turkic people are all related through common roots of their languages, hence the connection between Turkic people is not a false claim. I suggest to rename it to the broader term Turkic History.Heja Helweda 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming their histories are the same is a false claim. Secondly, history templates are based on nations, not races. The huns had nothing to do with the Seljuks, the Mughals and nothing to do with Ughyurs, etc... Secondly, the Huns were a confederation of peoples, not just one group, although Atila himself was a Turk, so whose to say a person can bunch up the history of the Huns with Turkic peoples and not with Iranics, or other Indo European peoples who joined the Huns. Also, the same case with the Mughals, whose to say the Mughals (Mongols) were Turkic or a part of Turkic history. Couldnt they also be part of Indian history, or Pakistani history, or Pashtun history, or Persian history? This is why racial templates do not work.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite.. There is a "Jews and Judaism" template where is mentioned the history of jews throughout centuries and in many different countries. As an emigrating nation, Turks also have a history that has been divided over time and geography. Why is this so hard to accept? This attitude is really offending you know, nobody is trying to be disrespectful to Iran or aything. Go ahead and create a history of Iranians template. I would have no problem with that. But as I pointed out below in my vote, history of Turkey and history of Turks are not the same thing for historical reasons. Baristarim 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is a religious group, not an ethnic group. We are talking about a template based on race, which is misleading and innacurate.Khosrow II 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews, however, are an ethnic group. There is Judaism, the religion, and Jew, the race. I have met Jews who have become catholics, but they still call themselves jew in the racial sense. Woody Allen who is atheist, still calls himself a Jew.

Nobody is saying they have the same history, but it is undeniable that their history has been and is interconnected. Turks are an emigrating nation, therefore it is normal that history of Turks are not the same thing as history of Turkey. There is also a template about the Kurdish history in the History of the Kurdish people. Look, history of peoples and nations are not similar to one another, some are sedentary, some are stateless, some have been living in their lands since writing has been invented and some have emigrated. So, what can be true for one nation might not be true for another. There is no rule that we cannot have a template about the history of a race. And, as I said, as an emigrating nation, there can be a history of Turks template since their history has been divided over time and space for centuries. Baristarim 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is anything racist or offending to somebody else please point out what it is. I don't understand what is wrong with having a history of the Turks template. Turks are a people that have emigrated and settled in various places, unlike many sedentary nations. Therefore it is relevant enough to have a template to cover the different phases of that journey. Please, tell me why it is so offending to you? I really would like to know. I haven't created this template, but if I had, I am sure I wouldn't have created to offend anyone, least of all Iranians, with whom the Turks have had an intertwined history for millenia. Please keep cool people, what makes you think that there is this Turkish conspiracy out to get someone?

As for the use of Turks instead of Turkey - it is a very legitimate choice since, as I explained above, they are not the same thing. History of Turkey includes Byzantines, Kurds, Hitites etc. History of Turks is the history of an emigrating nation. Turks are not a historically sedentary nation, and since Turks arrived in what is now Turkey only in 1071, the logic is that they must have existed before 1071 too. And that in other countries, regions etc. History of Turks is distinct from that of the country of Turkey. There is also a template called "Jews and Judaism" where is mentioned the history of Jews in many countries. Is that racial too? Who can pretend that history of Israel is the samething as history of Jews (Jews in the racial sense, not religious sense)?? So please people, take a deep breath, relax and be assured that there is no Turkish conspiracy out there to get any Iranians. :))Baristarim 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic peoples are not all the same people, and they do not all have the same history. Having a history of Turks is based solely on POV, as people have to choose and determine what is Turkic and what isnt. Its a template based on POV.Khosrow II 03:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why do we have a Kurdish history template? Or a Jews and Judaism template? Nobody is saying they have the same history, but saying that they are all interconnected. Without the Seljuqs, there would not have been Ottomans and without them there would not have been Republic of Turkey. Seriously Khosrow, why are you so offended? Believe me, nobody is trying to belittle Iranian history or anything, why do you find it so wrong that Turks talk about their history? Turkic people are not the same people, true, but they are all interconnected and they are all branches of the same tree. The language structure for one attests to that. And it is not based on POV, some people might think it is, but I see a very legitimate academic work behind this. Are you claiming that Turks of Turkey have been living in Anatolia for the last 5000 years? If not, you also have to see that their history transcends time and borders of today. Nobody is trying to lay a claim to Iranian lands or culture u know :)) Baristarim 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to make Wikipedia a better place, that is why I find it so shocking that it is always the same people who seem to be starting trouble for no reason with ridiculous things. Kurdish history is about one group, not a whole race. The Turkic history template is simply misleading and inaccurate. Tell me, how are the histories of Huns and Mughals connected? They are not. This template is just a sad attempt to portray a nationalistic feeling. This has nothing to do with Iran or Iranian culture at all. If this template stays, then I will immediatly create an History of Indo Europeans template, because, according to you guys, its ok to bunch up a whole racial group into one template, whether their histories are related or not.'Khosrow II 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go ahead. Study of the history of Turks is not a sad attempt to do anything, it is a very legitimate field of study because history of Turkey and history of Turks are not the same thing. As I said, Turks have emigrated to Anatolia after 1071, where were they before then? I will repeat one last time, that history of Turks as a race has been divided over time and space, whether some people like it or not! And as for the Kurdish history template. What does that mean that "it is about one group, not a whole race"?? Are you joking? Kurdish people as a group is the same thing as Kurdish people as a race. Or is Kurdish people as a group different than Kurdish people as a race?? If there is a difference, what is it? Look, you have said that there weren't any "history of people/race" templates, I just showed you that there are, Jews and Kurds. And Jews have their own country, but what is important is that a major part of their history has passed outside of Israel. Look, there is no one-size fits all policy on this, it is case by case. As an emigrating nation, history of Turks template has a very legitimate raison d'etre. I also don't understand this Turkic/Turk argument. There is no such thing as "Turkic". That is an invented word. What exists are "Turks" and "Turkish citizens" (citizens of RoT). There are many Turkish citizens who are not Turks (Kurds, blacks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians etc), and there are many Turks who are citizens of other countries. I am not at all saying this to pretend that Turks of today have many similarities nor to launch a crusade to reunite all the Turks of the world. But please understand that I, along with some other Turkish editors, find it very offensive to be treated as pan-Turkists or racist for pointing this out. Please tell me, what can I, or some other Turkish editors, do to assure you that there is no pan-Turkist crusade going on? I seriously mean it. Look, whether you believe it or not, I don't like pan-Turkism. If there were any such edits, I would revert them. Well, in any case, I don't want this vote to become a debate between me and you, so I will end my lecture :)) cheers! Baristarim 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: what i said about Turk/Turkic was not an attempt to pretend that the history of Turks in Turkmenistan is at all similar to the Turks of Turkey. They are completely different to a point of irreconciliability, as evolution of languages attest. What I was trying to say however, the similarities that still exist prevent their complete separation into different races. But just know that, I was not trying to pretend that they should be reunited or something. I only use Turkic as an adjective, not to define a different nation. As for the connection between the history of different Turkic states et al. I cannot pinpoint the exact connection between Huns and Mughals maybe since I am not an expert, but what I do know is that a majority of the states listed in the template are extremely linked to one another to the point where they wouldn't have existed without the other in a historical timeline. Ottomans, Republic of Turkey, Seljuqs, Turkish beyliks, Gokturks and other smaller states are connected in a timeline, just like the dynasties of China or Iran. If there were no Seljuqs, there would not have been Anatolian Turkish beyliks, and therefore Ottomans would not have existed, and as such there would not have been Turkey today. So there is your connection. Baristarim 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems straightforward enough to me. I know these things can turn into nationalistic quagmires but, jingoism aside, it makes sense as a template. I'm not really certain that it's needed, but I don't see any reason why it needs to be deleted, either. Kafziel ^Talk 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a navigation template which simplifies surfing through Turkish states in History. It has nothing to do with ethnocentrisim, please assume good faith. It's not an article, its entries just shows that the mentioned state contains somewhat related with Turkish history, that's it. If we consider the templates from the negative side, we should also nominate other templates for deletion also. I still do not understand how a navigation template turned out to be nominated for deletion. The template can be improved in the futute, if you want to contribute, better to state your comments in the talk/discussion page, rather than voting for deletion. I support keeping this template. E104421 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a racial-based POV template to lump many pages to Turkey, based on outdated racial theories. For example, Khwarezmian Empire or Ghaznavid Empire have nothing to do with the history of Turkey, they didn't control any part of Turkey, to be a part of "Turkish History". They might have had "Turkic" elements, as in related to Turkic people, but that's disputed and racialist in nature. --Mardavich 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actual contents of the template could be discussed, but there is no policy against "history of people/race" templates, as shown by "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates (the latter talks about religion AND race). As such, there is no need for deletion. History of Turkey as a country is not the same thing as History of Turks. History of Turkey also includes Byzantine, Hitite etc. elements, whereas, as an emigrating nation, "Turks" have a different history. Not unless, of course, you are claiming that Turks have been living in Turkey since 5000 BC :)))) Baristarim 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Why do this iranian gang sabotage all Turkish related articles? Keep of course...--Karcha 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Khoi khoi 02:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP your personal attacks at once or you will be blocked. Khorshid 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see any personal attack. Is there? To whom? Please stop to put unmeaningles tags here.Mustafa Akalp ^TC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turkic history is not the same thing as Turkish history. This template is Pan-Turkist.--Euthymios 11:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed about panturkism.What is the relation with this historical time line template and panturkism?Mustafa Akalp ^TC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice several things. Several users who insist on keeping this article are doing several consistent things: a) They are lumping all Turkic people into one group, b) assuming that all Turkic peoples have similar or related histories, c) assuming that several of the kingdoms/tribes/empires listed in the template were a part of Turkic history.

Yes you are right.They have same ethnic roots.(Template is not include all, it will be more developed)Mustafa Akalp ^TC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what are wrong with all three of those: a) When they say Turkic people, do they mean linguistically or ethnically, because there is a huge difference in that area? How is it possible to group a bunch of people together, and also maintain that the template is not based on race? b) Turkic peoples did not share a common history. The history of Huns is completely different than that of the Mughals, and the history of Seljuks is completely different than that of the Ughyurs, etc... How can the template say History of Turks as if all Turks share a common history? That is misleading and inaccurate. c) If templates are going to be race based, then whose to say that the Mughals were Turkic and not Indian or Persian? Whose to say that the Huns were Turkic and not any of the other many ethnic groups that made up the majority of the Hun confederation? This is another reason why having templates based on race is unacceptable, because its based solely on POV.

Another thing another User is bringing up, is the Kurdish template. This is a sad attempt to try and justify his reasons. The Kurdish template is not being put in every Kurdish related article, only in the Kurdish people page and history of the Kurdish people, where it is relevant. Secondly, the template is not race based, its based on one ethnic group. The title should be modified, but it is incomparable to this racial template we are discussing now.

Just a quick question Khosrow since I am that infamous "another User" (u can use my name u know :)): What is the difference between Kurdish people as a group and Kurdish people as a race??? Unless I learned my English in Mars, they pretty much imply the same exact thing. :)) And this template is not being put into places where it is not relevant. If some is doing some thing like that please notify me and I will personally remove it. We can work together against ultra-nationalism, but there is no basis to assume bad faith in a way that will stop people from working together. Please assume good faith, there is no weirdo Turkish conspiracy going on. There might be ultra-nationalist Turks out there, but as you will agree, there are also ultra-nationalist Greek, Armenians, Chinese, Americans etc as well. So please don't categorize and try to attack others by implying that they are racist. Baristarim 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole template reminds me of the time when another User tried to start a Wikipedia notice board for Turkic peoples, which got deleted quickly and was plain absurd. If this template stays, whose to say that more racial templates wont get created. If I create a history of Aryans template, whose to say that it gets to go into the Mughal article or not... Racial templates are solely POV based, which is their biggest problem.Khosrow II 12:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates for deletion as well in that case. Or, for the latter, please delete the racial elements from it since there are many sections where there are clear indications that that template also talks about Jews as a race. Baristarim 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not a racial attack. You are trying to manipulate people by labeling it a 'racial template'. For god's sake, what is a racial template? We only give the names of some important Turk states in history; we don't offend any one except Iranians. Iranians cannot deal with it because they like to label Turkish states as Persian. Wikipedia users can check my arguments if they look Seljuks, Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu articles. They are all Turkish tribes but if you look into articles you will see History of Iran. Check whole Internet, try googling, try reading some articles; the only people label Seljuks, Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu as Persian are Iranians. Template is not racist; but yourself. Turks didn't happen to exist in Anatolia in a moment. They came from Central Asia. And in this long journey they conquered and ruled many states. Conquering and living in other geographical areas doesn't change cultural roots of tribes. There are 250 Million Turkish people in the world who shares the cultural background. (I don't say Citizen of Turkey; I say Turkish.) We didn't put this navigation box as "History of Turkey". We prepared it as "History of Turks". You cannot limit Turkish cultural history just in Anatolia. And try to read something else rather than Iran Encyclopedias...

Anon, do you even know what this debate is about? Whats racist? Whats Persian? What are you talking about?Khosrow II 13:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Once again I forgot to log in. But it is good to see you have changed your behaviour. You don't claim that I am someone else. Yes I know very well what's going on; and I see and understand your manipulation techniques. You vandalised Seljuks, Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu articles many times by removing navigation box. And at these vandalising behaviours you didn't even bother to explain or discuss why you removed History of Turks side pane. Yesterday you made your last move and tried to delete template. Your friend Tajik once tried another approach, by changing titles of Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu articles. If you are looking for a racist, don't bother to look around; it is much more near to you than you can imagine.

By the way, I did say my reasons, right on the talk page of the template and in my edit histories. Also, keep going with the personal attacks if you like, I dont mind, although admins might. Everyone should know that this user just now created an account, seemingly his only purpose to join Wikipedia was to be involved here.Khosrow II 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the discussion pages of Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. I don't see a name as Khosrow. By the way, I didn't just create the account right now. It's probably older than 6 months. Admins can check this information if they like to do it. I don't get log everytime when I like to add something. Also there's another thing: you're the one who constantly label us as racists. Think again: Who insults who?

Please tell me when I ever called anyone racist? Also, if your account is as old as you say, how your edits only go back a month? This is ridiculous, why am I even arguing with you here? You have already worsened your position by your comments anyway. Oh I get it, your the creator of this template...Khosrow II 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, you have been using the adjective "pan-turkist" at every single opportunity to desrcibe the acts of many Turkish editors just because you don't agree with them. You might have as well used the term "racist": so stop beating around the bush, act like a man and admit the fact that you have been implying that scores of Turkish editors are racist from the get-go. Baristarim 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A response to the anon: it's really sad that Wikipedia does not have enough informed and learned administrators to control all the nonsense that is being created by certain Turkish nationalists in here. They even change the CORRECT spellings Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu (yes, the Q sound is an original Turkic sound) with the WRONG Anatolian pronounciation Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. Since the Anatolian population (= modern "Turkish" population) is overwehlemingly Non-Turkish in origin, original Turkic sounds (such as /x/ and /q/) have been lost. That'S why modern Turks say Han instead of the historically correct Xan, and why they say Kara instead of the correct Qara. The Aq Qyunlu were an original Turkic tribe from Central Asia, and their languages was CERTAINLY original Oghuz Turkic. That'S why the CORRECT spelling of the titles should be QARA, AQ, and QOYUNLU - these are also the spelling used in scholarly articles (see Encyclopaedia of Islam). Tājik 02:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik, you might be right about this, or not. That I cannot say since I am not a specialist, but can you explain to all of us why the correct transliteration of a thousand year old name in modern English (only one letter of it at that, Q OR K) is relevant to this debate??????? Baristarim 19:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the articles do not pertain to the Turkish people at all, but to various Turkic peoples. The template heading itself links to a disambiguation page.…·ΚέκρωΨ·… 15:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between Turkic and Turkish people? Please can you explain the difference briefly? People do not describe themselves as Turkic, they describe themselves as Turk. Turkic is a relatively new term that doesn't correspond to this meaning.User:81.215.116.237

A Turk is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey regardless of what language they speak or what race they are. A Turkic is a speaker of a Turkic language.--Eupator 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man; but you don't have any idea about what a Turk is. For example, we call Göktürks not Gökturkic. By the way, people don't say "I am Turkic". Turkic is a term used to group a language family. But Turk is something like Greek or Irish. Every Turk is not citizen of Turkey. They don't have to be a citizen for calling themselves Turk. Turkey is a country; Turk is a term for describing historial, cultural roots. The people who are working to delete this template cannot understand this little thing. Turks didn't happen to exist in Anatolia by miracle just in one night. They came from Central Asia and seperated in years. But it doesn't change their cultural and historic union.

KEEP, proposal of deleting of a template is a radical nationalist approach. A template is template, nothing else. In this manner, more than half of the templates can be deleted. Especially Templates related with Greek/Greece, Persian, Slavic, Christianism. Please stop this absurd and nationalist approach to attempt deleting a Template.Regards to all of you.Mustafa Akalp ^TC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then I suggest to create another POV-templated called Aryan nations and their history and then attach to it all kinds of nationalist claims and pseudo-scientific nonsense. We attach to it all kinds of Aryan dynasties and nations, from the ancient Proto-Indo-Europeans up to the Aryan nation USA. After all, it's "just a template", right?! Tājik 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead then.. Who is stopping you? Such templates exist for "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" (the latter talks about religion AND race), so your argument falls flat out.. What is important is that it should be done academically, but there is still no basis or reason for the deletion of this template. Baristarim 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is incorrect. It's Turkic history not Turkish. The fist four items (Huns) are disputed and shouldn't even be on that template. In addition, we have no such template for any other linguistic or cultural group, why do we need this?--Eupator 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read any of my comments above under my vote. And it is sad because I pointed out that such templates do exist, for Jews and Kurds. "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates. History of Turkey is not the same thing as History of Turks because Turks have been an emigrating nation, not a sedentary nation. There is no one-size fits all policy on this, actual contents of the template could be discussed, but the idea that this template doesn't or cannot have serious academic work behind is ridiculous. Baristarim 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Were the Khazars Turkic or Turkish? Not to mention that the turkic character of some empires listed there is disputed... And, agreeing with Eupator, maybe it would be better to have an article about the 'history of the turkic languages', which would be in all legitimate, and not list all turkic-speaking (or not) states that ever existed in such a template. Hectorian 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, read this: "Remarkably, the Khazars, a people of Turkic origin, converted to the Jewish religion sometime in the 9th century, beginning with the royal house and spreading gradually among the general populace." This is from The Khazars. Another one is here: Khazars ancient Turkic people who appeared in Transcaucasia in the 2d cent. A.D. and subsequently settled in the lower Volga region. from Khazars (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition) I can give another source: Who are the Khazars?. If you like, you can check A Resource for Turkic and Jewish History in Russia and Ukraine. Like it or not; they are part of Turkish history. (Not history of Turkey!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.116.237 (talk • contribs)

Part of Turkic not Turkish. Is it that hard to understand the diff? Hectorian 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that western people use the word Turkish to represent Turks from Turkey. And they use Turkic for showing a language family or for Turk tribes. But this terms are not clear. Turk is something else. Turk is used to show a cultural and historical bound. In this article, writer used Turkic term as an ethnic identity not for pointing the language family the use.

Look, did any of you here read what I wrote in my vote about history of Turks not being the same as history of Turkey and the difference between Turk as an ethnic group and "Turkish" as a citizen of Republic of Turkey? I still cannot understand why some people find this so offensive. Why is hard for some people to accept that Turks can talk about their history? Turks are an emigrating nation, therefore their history transcends time and space, as I pointed out in my post above. This attitude is particularly racist since Kurdish history and Jews and Judaism templates do exist. Are the same people who are voting for deletion ready to nominate those templates for deletion as well? Seriously people, this is not cool. The only criticism I see is some of the content of the template, but otherwise nobody has been able to show why such a template shouldn't exist. I repeat, history of Turkey is not the same thing as history of Turks, not unless of course, you are claiming that Turks have lived in what is now Turkey since the time of the Sumerians. If not, just let it go. :)))) Baristarim 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note about Turkic/Turk/Turkish diff: I understand the logic behind the underlying arguments, but the word "Turkic" is still an invented word (as far as racial, and not linguistic, matters are concerned). Nobody in this world calls themselves "Turkic". I personally never heard of or met anyone who did. As for languages are concerned, Turkic is used to refer to a language family (or group of family, whatever). Even if we accept such a difference, I still fail to see how we can assume from that this template should be deleted, since by the logic of Eupator whereby a Turkic is a speaker of a Turkic language, than Turks of Turkey are also Turkic (just simple logic to assume that Turks are Turkic :))), therefore still they have something in common, since Turkish of Turkey is also a Turkic language, if I have been able to follow Eupator's reasoning correctly, and as such Turks of Turkey are also Turkic. And following Hectorian's logic, we can assume that, since Turks of Turkey (aka "Turkish") are Turkic as well, and other peoples who speak Turkic languages are also Turkic, then they fall into the same group at one point or another. Look, what I sense is this unconsciuos fear of some that, somehow, someone will come up and try to pretend that all Turks of the world should be united and will try to conquer all Middle East and etc. I have one word for those people: there is no such conspiracy! You are focusing and giving too much importance to a bunch of ultra-nationalists in Turkey who are very marginal. What? You think I would give a rat's ass about uniting Turkey with tribes of Central Asia?? :)) There are many people who would like to create a "greater X" for their countries, but they are very marginal, so take it easy people.. Baristarim 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that my comment on turkic/turkish was clear enough... However, i have the sense that either some users really do not understand (Baris or whoever, do not take it personally-i am pretty much aware that people editting in wikipedia are clever and smart enough, however, sometimes regional, political and cultural differences may prevent them from understanding) or that I am the one who is "unable" to understand... So, how about an example? what if someone created a 'template:German history brief' and included in that the history of all the Germanic peoples? id est: Elizabethan England, Vandalic Northern Africa, Vikings, Kalmar Union, Visigothic Spain and Ostrogothic Italy? and maybe Crimean Goths and the Russian Empire (since it had at some points a Germanic ruling dynasty)? Lets be reasonable please... Now i noticed some changes in that template... Early Turkic-speaking dynasties or dynasties with a possible Turkic mix... and also, the inclusion of TRNC. One thing is for sure, if such a template will remain, i am in all legitimate to create a template 'Greek history brief', in which i will add all the Hellenistic states (Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleukid Syria and Iran, Bactria, Indo-Greek Kingdom, Bosporan Kingdom, etc etc) without even having to include the word possible... And of course, many more... Hectorian 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. If this template is kept we must create many more such templates including Template:History of Indo-European peoples with connection beginning from Hittites and Median Empire and Persian Empire and Greece and Rome all the way through to United States of America. Maybe we even put Atlantis and Hyperborea and Airyanemh Vaeja on there too. Khorshid 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so create them then. Wikipedia is inclusive NOT EXCLUSIVE. AS for the name issue that Hectorian raised. Valid point there about German/ic, in the sense that, the title should correctly address these concerns. I don't know who named the template "Turkish History Brief", but what matters now is the title of the template as it appears ON it. It is "History of Turkic Civilization" at the moment. The questions that you have raised about particular points, such as the inclusion of what state and not, the formal name it has in Wiki servers wiki:turkish history brief etc, CAN be discussed. Its current name is extremely academic and serious. But whatever the individual concerns about individual inclusions are, they are no basis for THE COMPLETE DELETION of the template. And as for this Indo-European template that some love to bring up and stuff. Well, I got one thing to tell you: If you can create a template, keep it academic and historically correct, then by my guest. Because as much scrutiny it would attract, the history of Indo-Europeans is a very valid field of academic study. And don't even try to make fun of this debate by comparing the history of Turks to Atlantis. First some people said "but there are no history of X peoples" templates, I showed you there were: "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" (the latter talks about religion AND race), now since some people have run out of arguments they try to make fun of this debate by comparing the history of Turks to Atlantis. Yeah well, bring better arguments, I have addressed every single point raised here, if there are any individual concerns about individual additions, they can be addressed, and they are not the basis for the deletion of the template Baristarim 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Mardavich"--Pejman47 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These template consists of different Mongoloid and Altaic (and possibly Tibetian) dynasties. Khosrow says it is a racial template, Heja Helweda says Altaic and Mongoloid peoples mentioned in the template are closely related to one another, Turkish party even say 'these are all one ethnic group'. But I regret to differ. 1) First I assume that the purpose of this template is to include various Turkic-speaking peoples who managed to form dynasties or political entities. But what the ones who did not speek Turkic do in the template? Were they Turks or related to ancestors of Turkic speaking peoples? 2) Then my other concern is that are all Turkicic-speaking peoples 'one' ethnic group? For sure not. They happen to speak related languages but are different ethnic groups, let alone to speak about 'one race', which aquires even closer genetical ties. Encyclopedia of Columbia under entry Turks states: The wide differences in physical appearance and culture among the Uigurs of China, the Uzbeks of central Asia, and the Osmanlis of Turkey (to cite random instances) make it impossible to speak of Turks as an ethnic or racial group. [5]. So the only significant connection among various Altaic speaking peoples is their related languages. 3) Furthermore, who said that we need a historic template for linguistic groups of peoples?! If so then we can start a historic template for dynasties or political entities of Aryan-speaking peoples which starts from Hittites up to Uniated States of America! Awat 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your concerns. I have not created this template and had no idea about it until its vote for deletion. There can be improvements done to the template, but there is no reason why it should be deleted. If there are specific concerns, they can be addressed individually. And as for the other suggestion about linguistic groups of peoples. All I can say is that it is a case by case basis, and if you can create a serious and academic template about the evolution of Aryan people from the Hittites to USA, please by my guest and do it, i will be the first to read it. We should be inclusive and not exclusive. In any case, the template is about the history of Turks, it is not entitled "Turks". Again, Republic of Turkey wouldn't have existed without Ottomans, and Ottomans without Sultanete of Rum and Anatolian Turkish beyliks, and they without Seljuqs and Seljuqs without Gokturks. Look, Turks are an emigrating nation, and it is normal that their history is scattered over lands and places that they have passed through, why is this is so hard to accept? It is not meant as an offense to anyone you know. In fact what is offensive is the suggestion that Turks as a people don't have the right to explore their own history and background, like Kurds do in "Kurdish history" template or Jews do in "Jews and Judaism" template. Baristarim 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your answer which I have given before: There is already the Template:History of Turkey. That is enough. This is nothing but a POV template promoting a wrong racialist theory. You should have been the first person to oppose this template if you believe what you are writing above especially since Template:History of Turkey already exists. Khorshid 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already addressed this concern: History of Turkey is not the same thing as History of Turks since Turks are an emigrating and nomadic nation. So your argument could only be valid if you were also claiming that Turks have been living in Anatolia for the last 7000 years. Turkish tribes, throughout the centuries, have had different, but interconnected, destinies of their own choosing. That's why there are Turkish influences all over Central Asia all the way to the Balkans. It is NOT racist to point this out.

I am sorry but I am not going to take too seriously the arguments of someone who claims that homosexuality doesn't exist and tries to sneakily argue that homosexuals are not prosecuted in Iran because they are gay, but because they "engage in homosexual practice" (?? I wonder where some people learned their English, since being gay and engaging in gay practice mean the same thing (for anyone with good faith and an IQ higher than 60)) [6]. So it is no wonder that you are trying to argue that History of Turkey is the same thing as History of Turks. The lack of logic and level of hate is simply astounding. Baristarim 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as response to your suggestion: I see the logic behind it, but it doesn't quite grasp the subject matter in the same way. Turks, as a people, have a different destiny and history than the Turks living in Turkey. Turks that had settled in Turkey had chosen a different path, as a nomadic nation, than the Turks of Central Asia. History of Turkey would discard the history of other Turkish (Turkic, whichever you prefer) tribes. Don't forget that the word "Turk" was not invented in what is present-day Turkey, but in Central Asia, so who are you to discard the history of whole peoples of Central Asia that still consider themselves as such but are different than the Turks of Turkey?? So if someone from Central Asia who calls himself a Turk comes along and asks that his history be included, what are we going to say? "Sorry, you are not from Turkey, so your history doesn't belong here, so get lost!!"???? Seriously, this lack of logic is astounding. Baristarim 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments confirms that this template is Racial. "So if someone from Central Asia who..." and also I think the picture, "the wolf", is somehow the symbol of Pan-turkism and azeri separatists in iran also use that, too. I think it is enough to show the intentions of the creators of that template--Pejman47 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? I only said that if there was some one from Central Asia that called themselves Turk.. The word Turk was invented in Central Asia by the way, so what is the problem???? For the picture, I agree, it should be removed as I said before. And what is important is the academic idea behind the template, not the people that have created it. As I said, if there are individual concerns, they can be addressed, but the underlying idea for academic study is still valid. Baristarim 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the ones who were not Turkic-speaking, or at least list them as 'ancestors' of Turkic-speaking peoles, and rename it to History of Turkic speaking peoples I see no serious problems to keep it. Awat 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is still POV. Where are the linguistic templates?? There are none because there is no reason for them and we cannot have a dozen ethnic and linguistic templates on a single page! That is crazy. Khorshid 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it turns to something like; History of Indo-European people, and then a template which includes:

Hittite empire.., Median empire.., Parthian empire, Romans, United States of America... :) : But actually if we remove the ones who were not Turkic and then rename the template to Turkic speaking peoples, it would not be as messy as it is now. Awat 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend please look at these discussions and the ones on the template talk. They would never be willing to remove them because we are dealing with the misguided racialist theory that all Turkics and Mongols come from the same place. In other words this is Pan-Turkism and this is true since Mongol and Huns are on there. Khorshid 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Individual concerns can be addressed, I haven't created this template, so I am sure there is room for improvement. OTOH, the underlying raison d'etre for the template is still there: History of Turks is not the same as History of Turkey. Also, please refrain from implying that others, especially people that you have never met, are racist. And lastly, There is no such thing as "Turkic" - if you can find ANYONE that calls himself "a Turkic", I will go out to a bar tonight and get my a.. f...ed All Turkics???????!!!!!!!!!! What is that? There is no such thing as turkics. Turkic is only used to refer to a language group. Get your science straightened out.. Baristarim 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template is necessary, but the picture should be changed. Kaygtr 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This i definitely agree, the picture should be changed. The picture has many political connatiations that have no relation to an academic study. Baristarim 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it is the name being disputed, that can be changed. Otherwise i do not see it implying all these empires or people were Turkish, only that they were part of Turkic history, but personally i do find the term "Turks" valid. For exmaple see the Royal Academy of Arts Exhibition (which i personally attended) last year entitled "Turks: A journey of a thousand years 600 - 1600" i.e. Turks are not just what you call people in Turkey, or those of the Ottomans. --A.Garnet 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That claim is not academic and that site is an arts site not a scholar paper. "Turks" today refers to peoples of Turkey and we already have Template:History of Turkey. What do you think about creating an Indo-European or Aryan template showing connection from Proto-Indo-Iranians to Scandanavians, Europeans, White Americans, etc? After all they are all connected and part of Aryan and Indo-European history. We should do it. Khorshid 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about art site? It's the official website of the exhibition for the Royal Academy of Arts in London, one of most prestigious museums in the world. And if that is not scholarly, then here is the book they published to accompany the exhibition --A.Garnet 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are joking yes??? Because it is a arts museum! It can be as prestigios as the Queen it doesnt change the fact that it is not Oxford or Cambridge. Also you didnt answer my question. By your logic we should create templates for Aryans/Indo-Europeans, Sub-saharan Africans, etc. Also then we would have to change the name of this template to "History of Altaic peoples" and include Koreans, Japanese, Bulgarians, Finns, etc. because all this is leading the flawed Pan-Turkist racialist theories. Prove me wrong. Khorshid 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please don't exaggerate.. It is a case by case basis, and it is not a linguistic template!! It is the history of Turks template, talking about tha history of Turks as an emigrating nation. Very good point by A. Garnet about that exhibition. It is a journey. I didn't say that you should create anything of the sort, but if you could do it academically, then be my guest, we should be inclusive, not exclusive. Baristarim 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word Turk has been recorded almost a millenia before the Ottomans. Can the same historical usage of that name be applied to the Finns or the Koreans? As for more scholarly sources, see The Turks in World History by Carter Vaughan Findley, and i quote from the book description "Beginning in Inner Asia two thousand years ago, the Turks have migrated and expanded to form today's Turkish Republic, five post-Soviet republics, other societies across Eurasia, and a global diaspora". --A.Garnet 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are using that quote out of context - it is not suggesting what you think it suggests. This author is clearly referring to Turkic peoples in general, not Turks of Turkey. Today the word "Turk" in the world use is always connected to Turkey. And you ignore my and others points. Khorshid 09:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not referring to "Turkic peoples" since he is using the word "Turk", if he were referring to Turkic peoples, he might have as well used the word Turkic, now couldn't he? As for the "world use".. Well, in the same way that "Aryan" in the "world use" is always connected to Nazis and their superior nation ideology? So with that logic, we should strike down all references to Aryans in Iranian related articles? And besides, people have a right to define themselves in any way that they wish, you have no right to tell someone in Central Asia or somewhere else that "no!! you cannot call yourself a Turk, it is not correct!!". In any case, this is still not relevant, since the word Turk appeared in Central Asia, and not Anatolia, and this template retraces their history. It is as simple as that. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why "Kurdish history" template can exist whereas "History of Turks" cannot.. Baristarim 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Baristarim, you claim that the Ottomans wouldn't have existed without the Seljuks, etc, but unfortunately for you, history doesn't go backwards, so your reasoning is not valid. Many of these nations might be of Turkic origin, but not all of these nations recognized a common ancestry. The Khazars were mostly Jewish, the Huns were pagan and the rest were Muslims. Since religion used to be a stronger common denominator than the origins of people (a 4th century Hun wouldn't necessarily identify himself with a 19th century Ottoman), grouping them this way is, in a way, racialist. In the Ottoman Empire and even today in Turkey, religion is very important in identifying one's identity, as in Turks don't easily accept non-Muslims amongst them. Moreover, the Turks interacted with the natives of Anatolia so much, that their "Central Asian origins" aren't evident anymore at a first glance. -- Davo88 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me?? I am an atheist and there are many atheist Turkish editors in Wiki, so your statement that Turks don't easily accept non-Muslims amongst them is clearly racist, unfounded, ignorant and completely irrelevant. Take your racist banter somewhere else please. As for your comparison about 4th century Hun and 19th century Ottoman: We can say the same thing about Greeks of today, since ancient Greeks were pagans, but in today's Greece and for the last couple of centuries Orthodox ideology has been very important in self-identification, but nobody can claim that because of this reason we cannot use the word "Greek" to describe ancient Greeks and today's Greeks. So, what you had said was completely irrelevant since, the birth of the nation-state, and as such the birth of a collective national identity only dates back two centuries. 14th century Greeks didn't identify themselves as Greeks in the modern sense either, and religious identity was ten times more important. Neither did the Kurds, Chinese, French, Italian etc. The Italian identity didn't even exist until late 1800s. So there you go for that argument. I will only ask that you make more constructive comments and stop offensing people, because the statement you made implied that most Turks were racist simply because they wouldn't socialize with non-Muslims or that Turks have to identify with religion to correctly identify themselves, which is utterly false. Baristarim 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Baristarim 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clevelander 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain academically the reasons why you want this template deleted? I really would like to know since I don't want to assume bad faith. Individual concerns can be addressed, but deletion is not the correct remedy. Baristarim 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want this template deleted because I believe that there is a clear difference between Turkish and Turkic. Turkish would specfically describe the ethnic group living in the Republic of Turkey while Turkic would tend to describe the different ethnic classifications among Turks (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tatars, Uyghurs, etc.) -- Clevelander 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely the reason it is entitled "History of Turks" and not "Turkish History", or "History of Turkey". The "Turks" that you have mentioned is what we are talking about, historically speaking. And Turkish doesn't describe the ethnic group in Turkey, it describes a legal citizenship status. And I don't understand this, nobody has been able to come up with a definition for "Turkic". That term only refers to a group of languages. First Eupator said that, for him, a "Turkic" was someone who spoke a Turkic language, but that's funny since Turkish of Turkey is also a Turkic language, so, by his definition, Turks of Turkey also are Turkic. But please keep in mind that nobody describes themselves as "Turkic". And no, none of these words tend to descrive anything, I am sorry to say this, but "wishing" that it tends to describe is not the same thing. Please show me one person ANYWHERE that says "I am Turkic" instead of "I am a Turk" or "I am Turkish". Please do so. You say that you believe that there is a difference between Turkish and Turkic but I am still waiting for the exact demonstration of this difference, primo and secundo don't forget that the title is "History of Turks" not "History of Turkics" or "History of Turkey". Baristarim 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is impossible to link a nomadic ethnic group to a place and get the entire picture. I'd also like to mention the Turks exhibit in London -- to set the context of who the Turks were, they started off in China and ended in Europe. This page attempts to do a similar thing. Free smyrnan 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC) — Free smyrnan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep I could only read the original suggestion and a few other comments and I could not figure out what makes this template "race based", which is supposed to be sharply in contrast with other templates which are referred to as "nation based". I had the chance to look for the difference, but other templates (like Iranian one) seemed to me similar in mentality with the Turkish one. Iranian template also goes back to 3000 B.C. and embraces all those "pottery-men" who have nothing to do with current Iranians. If you are expecting the templates to be "nation-based", you should make all of them stay within the limits of modern age. There should be no template going any further in the history than 19th century. If all templates go back in the history of civilizations as far as they can/wish, there is no point in demanding deletion exclusively for the Turkish one on the ground that it's "unlike" other templates. Okan 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And I will also add, so that new voters can see, the History of Turkey is not the same thing as History of Turks because Turks have been a nomadic and emigrating nation. They have not been a sedentary nation, therefore History of Turkey would not be able to grasp the subject matter in its entireity. Some Turks stayed in Central Asia, some travelled, but whatever the outcomes, their histories, and the histories of their states and dynasties have been intrisincally linked, without some, the others would not have existed. AND I will also remind that there are templates for Kurdish people ("History of Kurdish people") and Jewish people ("Jews and Judaism", that also talks about the jewish people as a race), so there is no one-size fits all policy on this since the histories of nations are not similar. Therefore it is always case by case, and as a nomadic people, "History of Turks" definitely qualifies. That's all.. Baristarim 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a difference between Turkish and Turkic.--MarshallBagramyan 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain the exact difference? And that is completely irrelevant since the title of the template is "History of Turks", not history of turkish or history of turkics. I will also remind that the word of Turk was invented in Central Asia, not Anatolia, which, I am sure, you will agree with. History of Turkey is not the same as History of Turks. Even though it is not relevant, by following Eupator's logic by where "a Turkic is someone who speaks a Turkic language", I still fail to see the difference since Turkish of Turkey is also a Turkic language (common sense), and therefore its speakers are Turkic as well as being citizens of the Republic of Turkey. See? There is also a template called "Jews and Judaism", and until the foundation of Israel, most Jewish communities in the world didn't have many similarities, even in religious practice. But that doesn't give us the right to tell them: "you cannot call yourself Jew because there is a difference between sephardic and ashkenazi!!". There is nobody in this world that calls himself a "Turkic". I have the impression that you haven't read any of the arguments above and just head-dived because it was a Turk-related issue. It is really sad you know... Baristarim 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - it's totally POV to put together a bunch of related, but totally different peoples, lable them "Turks", and claim all kinds of historical dynasties and kingdoms for them, although many of these dynasties (like the Huns) were either evidently NOT Turkic, or their origin and background are not known. A template that is focused on a hypothetical ethnic group which in reality is merely a language family and does not exist as a people is deffinitly POV. There is already a template cabout the history of Turkey which is detailed and correct. There is no need to have a template that only concentrates on a (non-existing) ethnic group, and which uses wrong information (like the claim that the Mughals or Huns were "Turks"). Keeping this template is like creating a template called Aryan nations in history which contains all kinds of pseudo-scientific informations, like the claim that Sumerians and ancient Egyptians were actually Aryans, and all kinds of historical and contemporary kingdoms and empires (from ancient India to modern USA) and lable them Aryans. This is EXACTLY what this template is doing, except the name which is "Turkic" and not "Aryan". This is pure POV. Tājik 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are individual concerns about the content of the template, they could be addressed, be it Huns or Mughals etc. But the underlying idea behind the template is correct and valid; there are Kurdish history and "Jews and Judaism" templates (the latter talks about both religion AND race), that's normal because there is no one-size fits all policy on this. That's all I am saying, individual concerns about content are not the basis for the complete deletion of the template. Baristarim 05:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds are one single ethnic group. But the Turkic peoples are NOT. This template sums up all ancient Turkic dynasties and kingdoms as one ethnic group, which is totally wrong. This is like summing up all Indo-European peoples as one ethnic group - but Indians, Persians, Greeks, Germans, French, and Russians are NOT one single ethnic group, the same way Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Anatolian Turks, Yakuts, and Uyghurs are NOT one ethnic group. This template is strongly biased toward Pan-Turkist pseudo-scientific propaganda, and thus MUST be deleted. Tājik 10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, Kurds don't have full linguistic unity, just like the Turks, and there are many differences in religion and physical appearance as well (Yezidi etc.). So that doesn't make sense. Same thing for Jews.. Jews, until the foundation of Israel spoke scores of different languages and even had different religious practices, but they were still the same people, and we cannot not call a Jew as such because in the 18th century all Jews spoke a different language. Your Indo-European example doesn't make sense, Indians and the French don't speak languages that are even closer. The Turkic languages of Central Asia are ten times more close to the Turkish of Turkey than Indian languages are to the French or German. What this template is about is the "History of Turks", as they came out of Central Asia (since Turk is a Central Asias word) and emigrated as nomadic tribes to different destinies. Please have some more respect for other people's histories man... Turks have never been sedentary peoples. Nobody is claiming that Yakuts and Anatolian Turks of today are similar, but they have a history whose origins are the same.. Is that that hard to understand? Baristarim 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kékrōps. Kaveh 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the template above, this is not a vote, so dry votes don't cut it, please explain your reasons. Baristarim 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We could use the Presidential Insignia for picture. Cretanforever 02:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we want to keep it, noone has the right to delete that something belongs to us. ltimur 03:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is a generalisation, Baristarim. If there are many atheists doesn’t mean that all Turks in history are atheist and think like you. Besides, we’re talking about Turks in history, such as the Seljuks and Ottomans, which clearly weren’t atheist and wouldn’t have tolerated one who gave up Islam. So don’t interpret my comment the way it suits you and get your facts straight please. Why do you think the Ottomans separated the Christians, Jews and Muslims into millets? This form of segregation of society suited them well. The thing you said about Greeks might be true, but the only difference is that Greeks are the direct descendants of those ancient Greeks, while Turks of Turkey clearly aren’t. My argument stays. Ciao -- Davo88 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Because religious segregation was common all throughout the world until the 20th century, remember Inquisition? So don't judge 15th Century Ottomans with the standards of today. And Catholic countries didn't tolerate people who gave up Catholicism either, are you joking??? Remember what happenned to Protestants? The war of religions? Crusades? You gotta be joking with that one. And the historical ethnic composition of today's Turkey is not relevant either since the template name is "History of Turks", your argument can be only used, in a weird way, to exclude Republic of Turkey from such a template since you are claiming that Turks of Turkey are not the "real" Turks. Fine then.. Still doesn't explain why this template should be deleted when a "Jews and Judaism" template exists. Jews (Israelites) are not a uniform race either you know. Baristarim 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also assure that this template only strickly links Turkic speaking people's kingdoms not unrelated ones. Historically important template216.95.23.95 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason for deletion. Nevit 06:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~Baristarim.~~ Tajik.Behaafarid 10:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

????????????? "delete per baristarim". I voted to keep!! :))))))) Baristarim 10:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I meant tajik. :-). Behaafarid 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the conflicting ideas has already been expressed, but I'd like to emphasize once more that all of the similar templates and articles should be subject to similar discussions, if this template is to be deleted. Scaevus 10:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC) — Scaevus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I totally agree with your concerns, except your opinion regarding its deletion. This articles is stronly biased toward Pan-Turkist pseudo-scientific propaganda, as it sums up all kinds of ancient peoples (of whom seme were not even Turkic, like the Timurids or Mughals, or the Huns), and tries to established the nationalistic POV that all Turkic peoples are one single ethnic group. This is like summing up all Indo-European peoples (from Australia over India, Iran, Russia and Europe to America) as "one single ethnic group with one single history". This is nationalistic POV. The Huns had absoltely NOTHING to do with modern Anatolian Turks, and the Uyghurs had absolutely NOTHING to do with Ottomans. The Ghaznavids, Timurids, and Mughals were not even really Turks. The origin of the Huns is totally disputed. I agree that all biased templates should be deleted - starting with this one! Tājik 10:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anybody interested in responses to this can peruse through he AfD that is already heading to 100kbs. I repeat: "History of Turkey" is not the same as "History of Turks". Turks are a nomadic and emigrating nation, and as such their histories are not confined to a specific geographic area like some sedentary nations. Such templates already exist, namely "Kurdish people" and "Jews and Judaism" (the latter talks about both religion AND race). Therefore it is a case by case basis, there is no one-size fits all policy. Specific concerns raised can be addressed, but individual issues within the template are not the basis for the deletion of the said template. Baristarim 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to list "Kurdish history" template for deletion, be my guest. In fact I would encourage you to do it! The Jewish template tho you cannot criticize because it is not just an "ethnic" template but more importantly is about a religion and we have a Christian and Muslim templates as well. Also and this is important there is no Jewish race! Its an ethnic groups but not racial! So thats a separate issue. But for the "Kurdish history" you can have a valid reason for deletion but it is important that we do not have double standard and make sure this one is deleted too and any other "ethnic" templates. I can promise you that if I make an "Aryan" or "Indo-Europeans" template people will have it deleted quick! And I will even prove it to you if this template stays. But your logic for keeping this is bad because the edit wars will never end with Pan-Turkist wanting to claim every Mongol, Turkic, Hun, etc. as their meaning of "Turk". You can say "Turk" really means "Turkic" and they are the same thing, but today it is a different world and words have different meanings. I would love to see Iranian peoples be called Aryan peoples because we are the Aryans! In Iran and Afghanistan and Tajikistan people always calling themselves Aryans! But you know what they wont let us do that here because "Aryan" has a different meaning to many people even though it really means Iranian peoples! This is why you cant call Turkic peoples as Turk peoples because "Turk" has a different meaning, it means people of Turkey. If you dont like that I don't blame you but you can thank Ataturk and the Young Turks and the Grey Wolfs for messing everything up and changing meanings. Khorshid 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, impartial users should peruse through the whole debate. I am not calling anbody "Turk peoples", this is not a racial template for today. It is a template about the history of Turks, in a timeline, as an emigrating and nomadic nation. And the statement that "there is no Jewish race".. Well, obviously you are confused a little about the history of Jewish people, but that's not relevant. What the hell is the difference between "ethnic group" and "race", in real terms??? What is the difference between "Kurds as an ethnic group" and "Kurds as a race"??? There is no practical difference. You are just nitpicking to prove that this is a racial template where as Kurdish history template isn't. And, by the way, neither the Turks or Kurds template is racial, since it talks about the "History" of peoples who are either stateless, or nomadic. And the Kurdish History template has been nominated for deletion I believe, but it is still there.. So there you go. I wouldn't vote for the deletion of the Kurdish history template either since it is a very legitimate template about the history of a non-orthodox nation, in the sense of being stateless and not particularly sedentary (kinda). I will repeat it again: there is no one-size fits all policy on this. I have also replied (somewhere above) to Tajik's equation of this with his Indo-European analogy. Please read it and try to understand the difference between these two. As for the Aryan analogy.. I am sorry to wake you up from a dream, but the word "Turk" never had such a charged history as the word "Aryan". There has been a definite shift in the usage of Aryan in the English language, so such comparison is completely irrelevant and mis-placed. Baristarim 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, specific concerns about specific inclusions within the template can be addressed. The fact that there are doubts about the Turkic origins of Mughals doesn't mean that the whole template should be deleted. Baristarim 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these states were all founded by Turkish peoples and they are very much related to each other, forming a continuum in space and time. Say, if Göktürks never existed, Turkish language probably would not be so widespread, and the others would never exist. Filanca 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keepas currently renamed "History of Turkic speaking people". Now rename the template page as well.Filceolaire 13:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as Baristarim said, that they agree with editing of the template, I tried to change it to look more realistic and neutral, (though it still needs more corrections). Then my vote is rename it to history of Turkic-speaking people and Keep' it. Actually the question whether Huns were Turkic or not does not belong to existence or non-existence of this template. this can be discussed on the talk page of Hun people. Awat 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I have been trying to say all along. We can all address indvidiual concerns about individual additions.. Baristarim 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. 1) Used in English since early 1900s, Turkic is a noun indicating a subfamily of Altaic languages (Webster), not people, and should be used only as such also in Wikipedia. 2) Turkish History is different from History of the Republic of Turkey. 3) Turk has indicated different meanings throughout history, depending on the context, your intentions, and where you are looking at. A Greek, a Jew, an Arab was frequently referred as Turk, similarly, Turks were referred as Saracen, Arab, even as Moor. 4) To frame Turkish only to peoples living in a limited area/nation is politically biased, inaccurate, and, IMHO, dangerous attempt. 5) Without having any doubts about their national identity, an Azeri, a Kirghiz, a Kazakh etc. do identify themselves as Turk, and not as Turkic or Turki. Thus, considering all Turkish peoples as one single ethnic group is not wrong and very different than above quoted exaples, e.g. Indo-European peoples. 6) I do not understand the attempt made to classify this page a racial template as it does not refer to Mameluks, Hungarians, Fins, Bulgarians, Pomaks, which a racial template on Turks would do. 7) It is a template indicating not only the history but also the movement of Turks in time and space as an emigrating nomadic nation. 8) The list should be extended to include all (independent) Turkish states. Md wizzard 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What? You are saying that all Turkic peoples are one ethnic group? That is very false and 100% not true. Also the template lists peoples like Huns and Mongols who are not Turkic. And where is your source that Kazakh, Kyrgyz,etc. call themselves "Turk"?????? Khorshid 14:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is excatly the definition of Pan-Turkism (go read that article)--Pejman47 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest thing of all is the inclusion of the Mongol Empire into this template! I have witnessed various attempts by turkish users (and Turks in general) to remove every single fact or implication linking them with the Mongols, or picturing the Proto-Turks as Mongoloids (an example for this is the Altaic languages and the battlefield that it turned out to be...). But, "in the name of Pan-Turkism", it doesn't matter... The Mongols had a vast empire, so, lets claim something out of it... Pfff Hectorian 23:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual concerns about indvidual additions can be addressed, they are not the basis for the deletion of the template. Baristarim 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there is no reason why history templates should be only nation based. -- Vision Thing -- 15:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I expect your vocal support for an Aryan (not the Nazi def!) and Indo-Europeans templates. Khorshid 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, if you think that such template would be useful to readers. Btw, there is indo-european template. -- Vision Thing -- 15:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but I am talking about "history of Indo-European peoples" - from Media (the first Indo-European state) to United States of America. The History of Turks template shows from early Turkics to modern Turkic states. And yes I do think the Aryan template is useful and if this the Turks template is kept then we will have to create it. Khorshid 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since scholarly sources do not have any values in Wikipedia anymore, and all kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense and POV is accepted as gospel, I think that we should also create a template called Template:History of the Aryan nation - from Atlantis and Harappa, over the Persian and Roman Empires, up to the modern EU and USA: "one people, one history, one Aryan nation". I am sure that the supporters of this template will also support that one. (*sigh* ...) Tājik 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ha ha, very funny Tajik and a very cheap trick at that: the word "Turk" never had a charged history in the English language as the word "Aryan". So don't try this tactic to make it sound like "History of Turks" would be the same as "History of Aryans" - they are NOT. Period. As for your scholarly sources: it is you who has been disregarding sources like Brittanica while claiming that Iranica is "the gospel" and that Brittanica has succombed to Turkish propaganda. But they are not relevant to the debate, in any case.. Individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, but they are not the basis for the deletion of the template. Baristarim 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is just an attempt by Turkish nationalist propagandists to promote their irredentist views through their interpretation of their history. Clearly needs scholarly intervention. Come on, they are including Bulgaria in with Turkish history? Bulgarians do not consider themselves turks in the first place - perhaps an attempt to lay claim on history that is not theirs? How about Azerbaijan? Even some people which I have spoken to in the United States from Azerbaijan object to their lumping in with turkish people. TRNC??? You got to be kidding me - a separatist regime formed by the Turkish invading forces against the Republic of Cyprus??!!! Cyprus' territorial and political integrity was supposed to be protected by the Turkish state by treaty??!!! And the listing of TRNC - definitely promotion of Turkish propaganda. Beware folks of this historical revisionism because this is an extension of a Turkish political hand.(UNFanatic 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes those evil "turkish nationalist propagandists", would you like to add more adjectives in there? The statuts of TRNC has nothing to with the Seljuqs my friend, if you got some beef with Turkey because it invaded your country, pls take it somewhere else. Yes, yes, my preciuosssss, beware the extensssssion of the evil Turkisssh political hand and thisss hissssstorical revisssionissssm... How many people from Azerbaijan have you spoken to in the US btw? All that I have spoken to consider them Turkic (Turk whatever). Even if there are exceptions, exceptions don't break the rule my friend. And individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, but it is not the basis for the deletion of the template. And TRNC is Turkish by the way, what the hell ever you call it, Northern Cyprus, Turkish occupation, Disneyland, "it" is Turkish. Baristarim 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why this template needs to be deleted, and you said it yourself: The statuts of TRNC has nothing to with the Seljuqs my friend. This whole template is POV and misleading, like you said, the people listed in that template have totally different histories that have nothing to do with each other.Khosrow II 20:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRNC is Turkish, that's why it is relevant. I didn't say there was no historical connection (predecessor-wise) between TRNC and the Seljuqs. I said the STATUS of TRNC. TRNC is Turkish, i don't care is some people call it Disneyland, Northern Jupiter or whatever, IT is Turkish. It is not racist to point this out. From an academic point of view, it falls under the "history of Turkic civilization", that's pretty logical. What is important is the actual REALITY on the ground, doesn't matter what the political status of the TRNC is. Baristarim 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Turkish and Turkic are two different things and the template seems to disregard that even for the present! 62.1.148.178 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template is first, useless, second dangerously pov, as it appears to assumme that all Turkic peoples are part of the same ethnicity. Also, somebody will have to try to explain me what have in common the First Bulgarian Empire and the Seljuk Empire, because I don't know. And similar questions could be arised for many, like the the Moghul Empire. In conclusion, an endless source of mischief and edit-wars.--Aldux 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to all those delete votes, please see all of my arguments that I had listed many times before in the huge TfD. Nobody is including Bulgaria anywhere, this is just an accusation to deflect the attention from the real issue: specific concerns about specific inclusions can be discussed, but that is no reason for the deletion of the template. For replies given to all the accusations above, please see my countless posts throughout the TfD.. Baristarim 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have seen your long replys, and they do not change anything. This template is pure POV. The problem is not just Bulgarians, but a whole bunch of other points:

The Turkic peoples are not one single ethnic group, the same way the Indo-European peoples and Semetic peoples are not one ethnic group with only one common history.
Some names in the template, like the Ghaznavids, Mughals, or Huns were not Turkic. The origin of the Huns is unknown (see the article), the Ghaznavids did not have any Turkic identity or language (they themselvs claimed to be Persians of royal Sassanian blood) and were strongly mixed with local populations. The Mughals were ethnic Mongols, Persianized in language (they neither used, nor understood Turkish). The Eurasian Avars (known as Rouran in Chinese sources) were evidently Mongols and not Turks. Etc etc etc.
These dynasties do not share the same history, and - most of all - their history are not shared by the same peoples. Anatolian Turks have absolutely nothing to do with Timurids or Ghaznavids, Uyghurs have nothing to do with Ottomans.

That's why this template is POV! I mean, you do not even differenciate between "Turkic-speaking" and "ethnic Turk"?! The Timurids, for example, were (partly) Turkic-speaking, but NOT Turks in ethnicity and origin. The Ghaznavids, on the other hand, were originally Turkic in origin, but most deffinitly not in language, identity, or culture.

Tājik 20:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can differenciate betwenn Turkic speaking and ethnic Turks. A majority of Kurds in Turkey speak Turkish as a first language (for whatever reasons), but they are not ethnic Turks. And people like me who speak English and French during the day much more then Turkish are ethnic Turks. Happy? Individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, if there is a debate about the Turkic nature of a tribe, state, dynasty etc, they can be addressed and debated according to wiki policies: sources, NPOV etc in their respective articles and talk pages. They are not the basis for the deletion of this template. Baristarim 20:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Baristarim. Bugtrio | Talk 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of history of Turkish people does exist as an entity. It is the history of various peoples, who speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages and they are historically and linguistically connected. This entity has been published widespread in many respectable sources and therefore it is only natural to mention the history of these people here in Wikipedia. I believe that the objections at least partially arise from the fact that the history of Turkish people is very unique. In contrast with the histories of other nations, who have either lived in the same geography for thousands of years or who have migrated within small geographical areas, Turkish peoples' history is the history of people, who have migrated in vast areas and established various economical powerhouses and civilizations in Asia, Europe and Africa. This article provides a sense of connection to the reader between a group of nomadic or non-nomadic peoples of the ancient times and the nation states of the present time and how they evolved from the first to the latter. I don't see any harm or even a tiny bit of racial implication in this article, as some users have suggested. Obviously, history is not a positive science and many concepts are open to debate. This article represents a way of perceiving the evolution of linguistically connected people and people have a right to know this concept. Additionally, Ghaznavids, Timurids and Mughals do have partial Turkish identities and therefore shoud be mentioned within the context of this article. Naturally, they can also be mentioned in the history-related articles of Persian, Indian, Afghan or else cultures. Erdem Tüzün | 23:48, 18 November 2006

Comment - I'm noticing an obvious, but sad trend here: most the keep votes seem to be from Turks, where most of the delete votes seem to be from locations formerly under the Ottoman Empire. I think it's sad that we can't put away our nationalist pretensions long enough to write an encyclopedia - clearly, at least one side (if not both) is letting its nationalist beliefs interfere with its reason. The mass sockpuppetry and vote campaigning doesn't help either. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. Every nation has its right to give info about its history. Fundamentally Wikipedia should display the history and people should decide if its too subjective or not. Ultimately Turkish related pages should be on line. (cantikadam 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Strongly keep and RENAME per Erdem Tüzün Armanalp 14:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim, the things that you said proved that religion was more important throughout history, regardless of our cultures. I’m not judging the Ottomans, because in fact, others acted like them too. I just brought up this argument in order to show that grouping people according to their racial origins (people here say that not all of them were of Turkic origin) is wrong and doesn’t work out in the context of history. -- Davo88 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pan-Turkic propaganda, historically inaccurate, inappropriate treatment of terms. Todor →Bozhinov 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to share with us what aspects of it are pan-Turkic propaganda and why the idea underlying the template is not valid?? THIS IS NOT A VOTE, as the template on top of the page explains, so DRY VOTES WON'T CUT IT, EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS. I have addressed every single concern raised here. The idea behind the template is still valid. Individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, but they are not the basis for the COMPLETE DELETION of the template. Contrary to the first argument raised by the nominators, there are other similar templates, "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism". An argument about the Turkic nature of a 600 AD dynasty CANNOT be the basis for the template's deletion. The word "Turk" was invented in Central Asia, and all of the states and dynasties mentioned in the template talked Turkic-languages, or were Turks, simply put. As a nomadic nation, you cannot expect Turks to have a sedentary history. THE IDEA BEHIND THE TEMPLATE IS STILL VALID. Baristarim 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, would you please calm down? The very essence of this template is controversial and there are doubts or serious objections about half of the states/dynasties/empires being included as "Turkic". The Bulgars never called themselves a Turkic people, for example, and their language has not been proven to have been Turkic. I'd say it's even quite anachronistic to talk of "Turkic people" in the 7th century and even prior to it.

And that's not just an individual case — as I said, this template just can't exist in its current appearance, and I have serious doubts over whether it can ever be neutralized. I believe it's meant to promote unity among distantly or non-related peoples, which is close to propaganda. It's not like Kurdish or Jewish history, which discuss and individual pepple (but subdivided into subgroups).

To sum up: possibly half of the included entities may well not have been Turkic-speaking (or downright weren't, as with the First Bulgarian Empire) and even more in number didn't refer to themselves as Turks (or ruled over Turks) in any way. So, I can say, the very idea of this whole thing is flawed from the concept. Todor →Bozhinov 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your concerns, if you will have a look at the template, you will see that I never added the Bulgarians, Mongolians or whatever in to this template. But, again: if there are individual concerns about individual additions, they could be addressed. In any case there is also a template called "Countries on the Aegean Sea", but the funny thing is there are only such countries :)) So in the light of this, as long as there are more then "two" Turkic states whose Turkic origins are not disputed, this template also has a legitimate right to exist. That's all I am trying to say.. Baristarim 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template mixes Turkish history (as the history of a nation) with the history of Turkic-speaking people. It's like having a German history template, including all the Germanic peoples (from Vikings, Saxons, and Visigoths to the modern nations such as Australians). Having a history template just based on the affiliation with a language family doesn't make any sense. Jahangard 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't since Turks are not a sedentary nation, they have emigrated - so any comparison with history of Iran or history of Greece etc. is misplaced. Turks have been nomadic and emigrating throughout the ages and through many different lands, so it is normal that their history transcends today's national borders and such. The template is not simply based on affiliation of a language family since we are talking about HISTORY and today. Meaning, back a thousand years ago, linguistic affiliation WAS the ONLY affiliation that bounded together (and later religion), simply because the modern theory of collective national identity and nation-state didn't even exist back then. If there are concerns about individual additions to the template, they could be addressed but the idea underlying the template, the history of a nomadic people, is valid. There is no one-size fits all policy on this, the nominators for this TfD first used to say how there was no such other template in Wiki, but then I pointed out to them that "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" template exist (the latter talks about religion AND race), since I did point this out, the only concerns that have been raised concern individual additions.. If there are concerns about the Turkich nature of a 600 AD state, it could be discussed in the appropriate page and its addition to the template could be discussed, but that is no reason to DELETE the template. Baristarim 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the Turkic peoples deserve such a template cause they have been nomadic, is not enough, nor can it hide racial and linguistic motivations that are hidding behind it. the Greeks, though not nomadic, migratted and colonised vast areas, till present day India and Portugal. The Germanic peoples colonised Australia and the USA, the Latins Angola, Chile and Goa (in India). but perhaps no user belonging to the nations and groups stated above, ever dared to imply or create a template covering 3 millenia, 5 continents, 100 states and more than 200 ethnic groups (alledged, disputed or supposed)... But if this template will be kept, and as far as i am concern, i will create a 'Templale:Greek History Brief', with Ptolemaic Egypt, Indo-Greek and Bosporan Kingdoms, and since this template includes lots of speculations, anachronisms and disputed language spoken by the ruling class (huh?), i will also include the Roman Empire (Greek was widely used by all emperors), Ethiopia (the medieval Ethiopian emperors even kept their mails in Greek), Sultanate of Rum (literary 'Sultanate of the Greeks'), the Wallachian Principalities and Moldavia and Cyrene and Chitral and Nurestan and Russia (as claiming sucessor of Byzantium) and the Jewish Kingdom of the 2nd cen. BC (they spoke Greek back then, remember?) and bla bla bla... Maybe then, some users will notice that such templates are really stupid! Hectorian 19:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well right off the bat, such other templates exist - it is on a case by case basis. It is not a question of Turkic people deserving a template.. You are saying that there are racial and linguistic motivations behind it, care to please share them with us? But make sure that they are not simple mis-placed FEARS by non-Turks of an eventual Turkish conquest to reunite the Turks of the world, but academic and scientific. As a nomadic nation, Turks had many states and dynasties, that had an interconnected history, to the point that some of them would not have existed without the others. What is so offending with this?? "Jews and Judaism" templates also exist (the latter talks about religion AND race). And I can guarantee you, whatever the differences Turks might have, it is nothing compared to the Jews: Jews spoke hundreds of different languages until the foundation of Israel, and even their religious traditions were widely varied. And historical Jewish kingdoms didn't have much in common between themselves and the Jewish people of 14th or 19th century. But they are still "Jewish"!!!! So, this notion that Turk only means a citizen of Turkey (?), or "Turkics" (??!!) are Turkic speaking people (a majority of Kurds in Turkey speak Turkish as their first language (for whatever the reason), are they Turkic too??) (??!!)) doesn't mean anything either. On the other hand, please create any templates you might like, Wikipedia should be inclusive, not exclusive: If you can keep it academic and scientific, there is no reason why ANYTHING should be excluded from Wikipedia. Baristarim 19:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim, this is about grouping a whole linguistic family of people and pretending like their history is similar or related, which is incorrect and misleading. Besides, templates based on race will only bring more disputes over certain Empires or kingdoms. Templates based on race just dont work out.. All the templates I have seen so far are about histories of nations, the only ones who want to group a bunch of people together are you guys. There is a greater sense of pan Turkism here...Khosrow II 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You completely skipped 100kbs of debate, haven't you? "KURDISH HISTORY" and "JEWS AND JUDAISM" templates EXIST!!!!!!!! How many time do I have to repeat this so that some people will understand?????????? As you have said, if there are individual disputes about certain additions, they can be addressed. It is our job as Wikipedians to have an encyclopedia as detailed as possible, we cannot simply shy away from new templates or articles, simply because it will put some people at unease or bring in more disputes. If there are disputes about the origins of 12th century kingdoms, they will be dealt with accordingly conforming with Wiki guidelines: academic, sourced info etc. That is no reason for the deletion of this template. Baristarim 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not simply about race either. Turks are nomadic, therefore their history cannot be simply talked about under a geographic heading like "History of Turkey" (which is not the same thing as the history of Turks, btw). The current title "History of Turkic civilization" is academic and scientific, and keeping in mind the nomadic character of Turks, extremely well-placed. Baristarim 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And stop calling people that don't agree with you as "Pan-Turkist". There was a London Royal Academy of Arts exhibiton lately titled "TURKS: JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND YEARS" - I repeat: History of Turks are NOT typical, they have been nomads and emigrated from their homelands, and, as the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition suggests, their history has been a JOURNEY spanning many regions and overy great periods of time. It is NOT racist to point this out. What is racist, however, is to be called a pan-Turkist every single time Turkish editors are arguing on content. If an idea is wrong, argue why it is wrong, don't just say "oh, those damn pan-turkists!!". That is just a poor attempt to denigrate the position of others, just like calling Germans "Nazis" every single time you don't agree with them. Baristarim 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You several times said that "individual concerns about individual additions, they can be addressed"; of course! BUT, almost all of the sections of that template is disputed. --Pejman47 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baris, u have been talking repeatedly about the Kurdish and Jewish templates... This is not the same thing! templates 'Iranian History Brief' or 'Semetic History Brief' respectively would be the exact equivelent. My comment about a possible 'Greek History Brief' template was clear enough... If the Mongol Empire (note that the Turkish people do not want to be seen as having any single connection to the Mongols) is included here, under the weird pretext that they had a turkic speaking ruling class, then, in a Hellenic template, various non-Greek states would be included (i have already mentioned the Jewish kingdom, the Roman Empire, etc). in addition, talking about large groups of ethnic groups (such as we do now about the Turkic peoples), a 'Graeco-Armenian history brief' would also be possible (no matter if its status is still in dispute, having in mind that the status of the Huns as even Turkic is also highly disputed...). lastly, apart from linguistic connections, i saw somewhere people claiming cultural continuity... Am i living in a parallel universe? by claiming 'cultural connections', a possible 'Iranian History Brief' would include Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc. To end with this, what the hell does TRNC do in that template? i may be "fond of" conspiracy theories, but what will be the next move? including Russian autonomous republics and oblasts? having said all these, i keep the right to create an 'indo-european template' or maybe an 'aryan' one (without the nazi implications and the blatant exploitation of the term by them). it is not about 'inclusive' or 'exclusive', it is about racial background and leading of the readers to believe something that is not correct, cause, honestly, what will an average reader think when reading that the 'First Bulgarian Empire' belongs to the Turkish history? for all these reasons is why, i guess, many wikipedians have called this template, among others, racist, unhistorical, highly disputed, without reason to exist and propagandistic. (note that placing the coat of arms of the republic of Turkey and a map with turkic peoples distribution, whoever may have done this, do not make this Turkish-named template valid or something... Quite the contrary: they express Pan-Turkism, by naming all peoples till far asia as Turkish and presenting Turkey as inheritor and protector(?) of a mixed civilization). Hectorian 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bariustarim should first of all explain the exct meaning of "Turk"?! What is he talking about?! Is he simply talking about a linguistic family?! Or is he talking about a hypothetical "ethnic group"?!If he means the linguistic family, then this template is most certainly POV, because speakers of the same language family do not necessairily have the same history or origin (compare: ethnic Germans in Germany and African-Americans in the US: both groups speak a Germanic language, but they do not share the same origin). If Baristarim is speaking about a blood-related ethnic makro-group, then this template is still POV, because the "Turks" are only speakers of Turkic languages. They are NOT descendants of one and the same ancestors. The "Turks" of Turkey and Caucasus are not really "Turks" in the original senese of the word, but "Turkic-speakers of Non-Turkic origin". The Timurids were Turkic-speaking, but they were Mongolian in origin. The Mughals were neither Turkic in language nor in origin. The only true Turks - in the ACTUAL sense of the word - are the "Turks" of Central Asia: Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgiz, and Uyghurs, as well as Siberian Turks, like the Yakuts. If this template is to be kept and to be kept neutral, it should either concentrate on the Turkic blood line and thus EXCLUDE modern Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus, as well as the Mughals, Timurids, and Huns ... OR this template only focuses on the Turkic language, and thus EXCLUDES Ghaznavids, Huns, Mughals, and changes its name to "List of Turkic-speaking kingdoms in the course of history". Tājik 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim doesnt seem to realize that if an Iranic template is created, that we will put the Mughals, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Khwarezmians, as well as Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, among others, into it, since technically, they ahd more to do with Iranic civilization than anything else.Khosrow II 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point. He claims everyone and everything "Turkish", while he does not even clearify what he actually means with "Turk". The modern meaning of the word is simply "citizens of Turkey". In historical context, it means Turkic peoples. Turkic peoples itself is a vague term with no clear deffinition. On the one hand, it simply means "speakers of a Turkic language" and includes all kinds of people who are not necessairly related to each other (Michael Jordan and Will Smith are "Germanics" in language, but certainly not in race!). However, the most ancient meaning of the term, describes a related people in Central Asia who spoke related languages, had the same physical appearance, and had a certain nomadic and barbarian way of life. What Baristarim is trying to do is to use simply the last explanation as a base for all of his arguments. He believs in the blood connection of all modern Turkic-speaking peoples. But this is pure pseudo-scientific propaganda of Pan-Turkism. In reality, the Turkic peoples are an extremely heterogenous group, not sharing the same origin or history. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of the Turkic peoples are not "Turks" in origin. They are simply "Turkic-speaking Non-Turks", the same way Michael Jordan and Will Smith are "Germanic-speaking Non-Germanics".

These are just the most important frauds of the template as well as those of Baristarim's confused argumentation. Other major mistakes are the false claims that Huns, Timurids, or Mughals were "Turks". The origins of the Huns are totally unclear and highly disputed among scholars. The origin of the Timurids was evidently Mongolian. And the Mughals were neither Turkic in language, nor in culture or origin. No idea why the author has included them in the list.

As I said from the beginning on: this template is 100% POV and needs to be deleted.

Tājik 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you guys are looking from the other way around, which is a very natural mistake to make when talking about history. "History of Turks" means the 'destiny' (or path, whatever) of the original Turkic tribes of Central Asia. Ok? What people don't realize study of history can be done in two ways: a study of the past starting from TODAY, or a study from a starting point in the PAST until today. This is very important for the "reference point". History of Turks has the original Turkic tribes of Central Asia in 300 AD as a reference point, and it is the academic study of their paths FROM that date, whereas History of Turkey would be a study that has TODAY has the reference point (ie how did Turkey get to this point today?). History of Turks explores "what did they do AFTER the apparition of the word "Turk" in Central Asia?". Tajik don't try to deflect the attention by saying "Michael Jordan is a Germanic-speaker, therefore is he Germanic?". You know what? He is Germanic.. Does he speak an African language? Does he practise an African religion? And since the color of the skin cannot dictate who you can be or not be, I can say that Michael Jordan is Germanic by assimilation. How about that? I have met black people who call themselves Turks too. I see what you mean by the "definition of Turk", but for my reply to that pls see the beginning of my post. Both ethnic Turks and Turkic-speakers can be considered Turks, academically, as long as they want to be considered as such in any case. :)) Baristarim 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentation does not make any sense, because the template also includes peoples who were neither Turkic in language nor origin (for example the Mughals). And since you yourself define peoples by their language (as your comment on Michael Jordan clearly proves), I do not understand why you support a POV template which includes so many Non-Turkic-speaking peoples, such as Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Mughals, Huns, Khwarezmian Empire, Eurasian Avars?! Now you tell me: isn't this nationalistic POV?! Especially your last sentense is interesting, because dynasties, such as Ghaznavids or Seljuqs did not consider themselvs "Turks" - neither in language, nor in culture, identity, or origin. Tājik 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the last sentence of my post? Both ethnic Turks and Turkic-speakers can be considered Turks, academically, as long as they want to be considered as such in any case. It is still not relevant since individual concerns about individual additions belong to their respective talk pages. There are templates much shorter than this (Countries on the Aegean Sea template only has two countries, obviously), so even if certain addition can be excluded because of individual disputes, there will be enough real, undisputed "Turkic"/"Turk" additions in there to justify its existence. That's all I am saying.. Baristarim 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the authors of the Encyclopaedia Iranica - meaning more than 500 world-renonwed and awarded academics and scholars world-wide (the EI itself is a grand-project of the Columbia University) - give a damn about what someone like you thinks of their works. The EI is ment for academic researches and not for every Hans Wurst who considers himself Master of the Universe (no offense intended; the expression Hanss Wurst is German and is not ment as an insult).

Leaving that point beside, Babur was only the first ruler in a long line of Emperors who ruled the Indian subcontinent for more than 300 years. It might be simple takics of you not to mention the fact that Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum, is known as one of the greatest female Persian poets, as well as the fact that Babur's grandson, Akbar, had the Baburnama translated into Persian because he himself was not able to understand the language of that work. Maybe you should ask User:Sikandarji who is an academic in Oxford specialized on Central Asian history. A few days ago, he was busy explaining the Non-Turkic being of the Mughals as well as the great importance and special status of the Encyclopaedia Iranica to your buddy User:Karcha (who has been indef. blocked).

Calling the Encyclopaedia Iranica a "worhtless piece of junk" further underlines the point that you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia in a good way. Indded, it further strengthens the claims against you that you are a Pan-Turkist with very special nationalistic agendas.

And I repeat myself: it's absolutely unimportant what YOU think of the Iranica.

Tājik 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a good mood after a good night out last night, so I am not going to get into a dispute. I ain't no master of the universe dude :))). Iranica is either, but I took out my comment about Iranica, if you noticed, since it was not relevant. A debate about Babur's origins is not relevant either. Doesn't matter who Sikandarji is, he is still a user, as such his claims, no matter how well he has a command of the subject, are OR if they are not backed up by sources. I am not talking about any particular subject here. The same goes for all the users in Wiki. In any case, STOP your personal attacks. I have contributed to wiki my friend, I don't just engage in shouting matches. Yesss, yesss, precioussss, my verrry verrry sssspecial nationalisssstic agendas, yesss precioussss, we want our nationalissssstic agendassss precioussss.... It is absolutely unimportant of what you think of the Iranica either ma boy, and in any case Iranica or Babur or her daughter that lived centuries ago is not relevant to a debate about if the this template is valid or not. Individual concerns about individual additions are not the basis of this template's deletion. Baristarim 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim, tell us what Turk or Turkic means. If you mean that Turkic peoples are those who speak a Turkic language, than admit that the Ghaznavids, Seljuks, etc... are not Turkic. If you mean that Turkic peoples are those who are ethnic Turks, then admit that Turks west of Central Asia are not Turks. You cant even tell us what "Turkic" is defined as, so how can you support such a template?Khosrow II 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

????? Have you not been reading what I have been writing all along or what??? I said: both ethnic Turks AND Turkic-speakers CAN be considered Turkic, AS LONG AS they have no problem calling themselves as such (e.g. some Kurds in Turkey, even though they speak Turkish as a first language, object to being called a Turk). And who are you to suggest that "Turks west of Central Asia are not Turks"? Have you been to TR? Just because ethnic Turks married with locals, that doesn't write off their Turkic roots, they become Turkic AND X, is that clear? Baristarim 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ Baristarim: of course you do not want to talk about Babur, his daughter, about the Ghaznavids, or about the Seljuqs. Because any discussion about these peoples and dynasties would disprove your opinion and position, as well as any legitimacy for this template. You are right that it does not matter what I think of the Iranica. But - acoording to the policies of Wikipedia - it DOES matter what leading scholars world-wide think of it! You have called this work a "worhtless piece of junk", and this is the best proof that all of your claims are wrong, and that this template does not have any legitimacy to exist. Tājik 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever dude, you very well know that I debated with you for days in Babur, Timur and etc, so don't claim that I am trying to shy away from talking about an issue.. Can you please tell me which of my claims are wrong? This template has a very legitimate right to exist, impartial users that are just running into this vote should peruse the whole debate to get an idea. Seljuqs (as in the people) were definitely Turkic, it doesn't matter what the Seljuq dynasty used as a court language, AlpArslan is a 100 percent Turkic name, if they were naming their children with such names, then it is safe to assume that they were Turkic. You have also accused Brittanica of succombing to Turkish propaganda, so it is also proof that your claims are suspicious.. Baristarim 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you vanished from the discussion after User:Sikandarji told everyone that the Mughals were neither Turkic in language nor in origin. As for the Seljuqs, they were deffinitly Persianized Turks, i.e. Persian-speaking. "Alp Arslan" may be a Turkish name, but Malik Shah, Kay Khusrow, and Kay Kobad are not - they are Persian names, the last two are taken from the Persian national epic Shahnameh. So, this actually disproves your claims once again. As for the Ghaznavids - they themselvs claimed to be "Persians", as recent archaeological discoveries in Afghanistan have proved: on a minaret found near Ghazni, the Ghaznavid Sultan Mas'ud (Mahmoud's grand-son) fabricated a family tree, linking the Ghaznavids to the old epic Shahs of Iran, as well as to the Persian Sassanids. Following your own logic ("people who consider themselvs "Turks" are Turks") this clearly disqualifies the Ghaznavids from being mentioned in this template. Besides that, do you have ANY proofs or histircal sources for the claim that the Seljuqs considered themselvs Turks?! Tājik 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I ddin't vanish from any particular page. I stayed away from wiki for over a month, it had nothing to do with if I were "winning" or "losing" in a debate or wanted to shy away from certain topics. It was only because I had some real stuff to do, and I was really getting turned off by some POV stuff in wiki. I will be happy to discuss any subject in due time. The only thing that disturbs me is your obsession with Iranica if it is the only gospel in the world. Iranica might be good, but you are way too obsessed with it, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to delete--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it OK to spam user talk pages to vote stuff on a "template for deletion" discussion, as Tājik has done: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]? Or is he is one of those who the admins always favour?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear user: first was User:Zaparojdik who compaigned for support in here in very larger scale and I think he got only a mild warning. Stop your anti-iranian propaganda. Take a look at your list of suck puppets [13] and block list.

[14][15][16] [17][18][19][20] [21][22][23][24][25] [26] --Pejman47 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ahwaz: no, it's not ... but I did not know about it, until User:Khoikhoi explained it to me. Besides that, I do not think that a user with a negative history like yours (constant vandalism of Iran-related articles with tendencies toward Arab nationalism as well as Anti-Persianism; recently blocked by admins) is the right person to teach others how to behave in Wikipedia. Tājik 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesss precioussss Tajik, issss thissss kind of vote-ssssstacking ok?? Yesss vote-sssstacking preciousssss, we mussst have all the votessss precioussss, thosssse damn Turkssss precioussss, why don't they jussssst die precioussss and leave ussss alone precioussss? :)) Baristarim 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to divert the topic again?! Why shouldn't we stick to the current toppic, i.e. you insulting major and authoritative works, as well as leading scholars world-wide because their works and articles do not support your views or the legitimacy of this template to exist?! Tājik 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been explained Wikipedia rules on Civility? It seems like you haven't. Do you want me to explain them to you?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim, if you have nothing to say, dont spam this page.Khosrow II 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got nothing to say alright, a third of the TfD is my posts trying to address people's concerns. Have some sense of humor dude :)) Baristarim 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ahwaz: as I have already said in my previous comment, you are not the right person to teach others how to behave. I mean, only a few weeks ago, you were warned by an admin not to use foul language and not to insult others: [27] Tājik 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can insult people safe in the knowledge that you will not even get a warning - a situation that has made Wikipedia rules meaningless.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly keep and enhance it. World civilization history will be uncompleted without Turkish history.

MESSAGE TO ANONS: ANONOMOUS USERS, OR USERS WHO CREATE ACCOUNTS JUST TO VOTE, WILL NOT HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED, SO DONT EVEN BOTHER, ITS JUST CLUTTERING THIS SECTION UP.Khosrow II 07:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Delete-voters who have been confirmed to be engaging in vote-stacking practices as pointed out a couple of lines above: THIS IS NOT A VOTE, as the template on top rightfully says, IT IS A DEBATE. Some editors might think that there are "sides" and that whoever can get more "thugs" on one side is going to "win", but that is NOT the case. What is important is the DEBATE, and the CONCENSUS that will come out of it. And by the way, ANONS can vote and write their reasons for them, THERE IS NO WIKI POLICY TO THE CONTRARY, nobody should cave into this intimidation tactic that will discourage other users contributing to Wikipedia. The writer of the message himself has engaged in VOTE-STACKING practices related to this TfD, therefore any impartial users or admins perusing through the debate should keep that in mind as well. Baristarim 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the keep voters never engaged in vote stacking...--Euthymios 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure they have, and, just so that people who are just coming across this debate can be aware, there has also been one confirmed attempt for vote-stacking by a "member" of the "keep-vote gang". It also illustrates why people shouldn't head-dive into this debate because it is an ethnic issue. The funny thing is, the nationalities of many participants fall into one of the following groups: Turk, Greek, Armenian and Iranian. And the percentage of users who belong to all of these nationalities in Wikipedia wouldn't pass 1 percent, but a big part of the debate has been dominated by them. So it is pretty safe to assume that nearly everyone who participated in this debate has come here for very obvious ethnic reasons, and that's also why many users simply head-dived into this issue just because of the word "Turk". If this had not been the case, there would have been at least 50 percent participation rate by impartial users. I am pasting below a comment by a user, who I assume is completely impartial on this issue, earlier, but was lost among all the shouting match that made this TfD 150kbs long, where he touches on this subject without favoring one "gang" or the other. Please everyone have a look: Baristarim 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm noticing an obvious, but sad trend here: most the keep votes seem to be from Turks, where most of the delete votes seem to be from locations formerly under the Ottoman Empire. I think it's sad that we can't put away our nationalist pretensions long enough to write an encyclopedia - clearly, at least one side (if not both) is letting its nationalist beliefs interfere with its reason. The mass sockpuppetry and vote campaigning doesn't help either. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is worth noting that, since this TfD has begun, there has been another TfD opened, this time for the "Kurdish History" (Template:Kurds) template, by the same initiators of this TfD. Any admin or bureacrat who will close this debate should also make note of the fact that there have been three other AfDs for the articles about prominent Kurdish scholars in the last 48 hours. I am sorry to say this, but there is some suspicious stuff going on. I suggest to everyone to take a look at the comment above and take a chill pill.. Baristarim 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the the same initiators ? The two TfDs were initiated by two different users, totally unrelated to each other. Stop making accusations and cluttering up the page, this is not a chatroom or a forum. --Mardavich 10:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who casts a quick glance at the TfD can see that I have argued content on scores of posts, much more than you have, I might add. My post above is extremely relevant to the context in which this TfD is taking place.. Two different users?? :) Well, I know that they are two different users, so let's say "similar-minded" as a comprimise :) Nearly all of my posts have been directly content-related, so that's it for that.. Baristarim 11:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After having perused the debate for another time, I will moderate my comments about most of the debate being dominated by certain nationalities.. There have also been many other impartial users who have voted, mostly before it has turned into a shouting match.. So, people can have a look at the debate and make up their own minds I suppose. However it is still disappointing that some confirmed vote-campaigns have been initiated by some known users.. Sad, really.. Baristarim 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although modern Turkic peoples, namely, Anatolian Turks, Uyghurs etc.. form distinct and separated ethnic groups, but I dont think that they are unrelated to the earlier Turkic peoples such as Seljuqs and Qara Quyunlu etc... Since the discussion of this page does not seem to be a voting (as it is stated above the page) my suggestion is to solve this problem on the talk pages of History of the Turkish people and History of Turkic people. Then after reaching to a consensus we can rewrite the template from a neutral and academic point of view or alternatively agree on its deletion. My assumption is that at least the first article needs a template organizing various articles which are connected to one another. Awat 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jahangard and all. NikoSilver 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's getting Turkic confused with Turkish. Granted, I could be wrong, but given the rampant meatpuppetry, vote campainging, invective tone, and possible sockpuppetry for this article, it's too difficult for me to tell. It would be unfair, for example, to say United States history, and then add in everything in England since the 6th century. The United States is one group of people split off from the English, but they aren't the whole of them. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccasarily.. We have talked about Turkic/Turkish history for ages.. This is not the "History of Turkey" as a country.. Turks have been nomads and have emigrated. It is normal to talk about the history of such atypical nations with their own templates, just like "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates.. Every article in Wiki is open to abuse, but they could be dealt with according to Wiki policies. If we were going to shy away from controversy and potential disputes, Wiki would not have existed!! :)) Baristarim 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there have been much more vote-stacking campaigns by the delete vote-supporters. This is not a simple allegation, people can peruse the texts right above to get an idea. How do you think that makes other people feel? There has only been one "allegation" of sock-puppetry from one of the users who voted support, but even some admins are not convinced that it was indeed a sockpuppet. The related debate for that is not here, but all i am saying is that nothing is clear as the sky here.. Baristarim 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we go down this road, each article will have 10 templates beside it. History of Balkan/Near Eastern peoples is so interwoven. -- Avg 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles already have multiple templates in them. In any case there is also a template called "Countries on the Aegean Sea", but the funny thing is there are only two such countries :)) So in the light of this, as long as there are more then "two" Turkic states whose Turkic origins are not disputed, this template also has a legitimate right to exist, if there are individual concerns about indvidual additions, they could be discussed. That's all I am saying.. Baristarim 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Overview - Let's all remember that the reason for this TfD is to show "why this template must be deleted". The current title of the template is "History of Turkic civilization". Well, I will try to give a run down of the main arguments that have been raised to try to prove that this template must be deleted:

1- "Many past/current additions are controversial": Well, there is no need to go to specifics at all with this since there are many templates that only include two or three entries. For example, there is a template "Countries on the Aegean Sea", that only has two additions in it, since there are only two countries on the Aegean. Therefore, this template has a legitimate right to exist as long as, and even if, there are only two or three additions whose origins as "Turkic/Turk/whatever" are not contested. And there are definitely more than a few that fall into that category: Turkey, Ottoman Empire, Gokturks etc. So, if those other templates with only two or three additions can exist, this template can exist as well. The subsequent discussions about the Turkic nature of certain states, kingdoms, tribes, dynasties belong to their respective talk pages, and they should be argued in a manner consistent with Wiki policy (sources, reliability etc.). The importation of arguments about the ethnic origin of 12th century princes or 5th century tribes to this TfD have resulted in distracting it, any arguments of the type belong to their respective talk pages. When, and if, there is a concensus on those articles about their "Turkic" nature, they can be included or excluded per concensus and sources.

2- "This is a race template, therefore it has no reason to exist in Wiki since it is contrary to policy" - This is the first argument put forth by the nominator of the template for TfD. This is false to the bone: There is a template "Template:Kurds". There is also a template "Jews and Judaism", that talks about religion AND race. That is because there is never a one-size fits all policy. Turks have been an emigrating and nomadic nation, therefore it is normal that their history has not been confined to a territory for 5000 years. Many Turks have completely abandoned their ancesteral homeland, this is not true for many "colonizing" nations, whose homelands always stayed the same, even though their populations have also emigrated. There has been a Royal Academy of Arts exhibition titled "Turks: A journey of a thousand years", that attest to this atypical history of Turks. More importantly, since this TfD was opened, a person that has voted for the deletion of this template nominated "Template:Kurds" for deletion just because I mentioned that other such templates exist. It is comfortably surviving its TfD, that also proves that there is never a one-size fits all policy. Turks have arrived in what is now Turkey in 1071, and, as such, "History of Turkey" is not the same thing as "History of Turks". The word "Turk" first appeared in Central Asia much before that, and there is still a country that carries the name "Turk" in Central Asia: Turkmenistan. That alone is a clear sign of the dispersed nature of the history of Turkic peoples. In any case, the template is titled "History of Turkic Civilization" and not "Template:Turks".

3- "This template is not needed" - Well, considering that we have hundreds of pages in Wikipedia about fictional Pokemon, Disney and Star Wars characters and planets, it would simply be a sign of bad faith to claim that a template about tens of millions of real human beings doesn't have a right to exist. Wikipedia is inclusive, not exclusive.

4- "It is open to abuse and will lead to disputes" - Another argument similar to the one above. It could easily be argued that thousands of articles on Wiki are open to abuse, but that is no reason to delete all of them. There are millions of Wiki users from every country in the world, I am sure that all sort of "abuse" will be kept under control, as such is the case for all articles that are constantly vandalized and POVed. There are always adminstrators that can keep abusive and disruptive behavior under control. As for the disputes.. Well, if we were to shy away from disputes, Wikipedia most probably would not have gotten off the ground, let alone develop into a full-fledged multinational and global encyclopedia. If there will be disputes about content, they will be dealt according to standard wiki policy (sources, NPOV etc).

Therefore, I see no reason for the deletion of this template since individual concerns about individual additions to the template can be addressed in their respective talk-pages. There are much shorter templates than this that exist, there are other similar templates in "Template:Kurds" and "Template:Jews and Judaism" (the latter talking about religion AND race), and just because of the fear that this will bring in disputes about content, we cannot shy away from new additions to the Wikipedia. The more discussions the better, since it would allow us to dig deeper in many topics, and unearth many underlying and missing information. P.S. For any other info about how this TfD has developed with regards to the ethnic composition of both "camps" and "methods" used during this TfD, please see many posts above. That's all... Baristarim 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turkish history is like saying Indo-European history. The Mughals of India did not speak Turkish and their ancestry was Uzbek-Mongolian. Thus I am not sure how they relate with modern Turkey. --alidoostzadeh 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use, not up to date, hasn't been edited for over a year. Aaru Bui ^DII 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is funniest template I've ever seen. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Article in which it was used was deleted by prod. (List of weapons in Doom 3) Thunderbrand 18:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, Tewfik^Talk 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any use for it would be gamecruft anyway. Kafziel ^Talk 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article it would be used in would fall under WP:NOT anyway. It is something that would be useful on a video game site, not Wikipedia. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I can say no more than what has already been said. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool ® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard cousin of {{Calm talk}} and {{TrollWarning}} created for Talk:Anarchism. While the sentiment conveyed in this template may have ample justification, its usage goes against assuming good faith. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cute, but an WP:AGF violation. Tewfik^Talk 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wording in the caption could be changed to be more in line with assume good faith policy, but if we can have a troll warning, there is really no reason to delete this template. And many discussions do have a tendency to go around in circles. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The template basically suggests that any prospective editor must avoid the relevant talk pages like the black plague, else they become entangled in a neverending cyclone of arguments with hopeless fanatics. It is meant to frighten people away. There is really no good way to rephrase such a warning. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe to rephrase it as a warning message; something like: Debates on this talk page tend to go around in circles. Before posting a new comment, it would be wise to check the Archives first.? -- Vision Thing -- 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The template becomes superfluous if you take the condescending cynicism out of it. But your version is much nicer. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think that it becomes superfluous because neither {{Calm talk}} or {{TrollWarning}} deliver similar message. This template doesn't say that debate is heated or that there are trolls on the talk. It just says that new users often come to post same arguments/objections, many of which may have been already answered. -- Vision Thing -- 15:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how how this does anything but discourage participation. It's basically saying that if you don't have something new and exciting to add, we don't want to hear from you and you should just go edit somewhere else. Although I agree with Vision Thing that it's apropos at times, I agree with Anetode that there's really no good way to rephrase it. Kafziel ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is cynical? :)) There is already an article about the lamest edit wars ever, so all I can say is let's just have some sense of humor :) Baristarim 06:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the templates simply shows that it can be difficult to reach a consensus, as debates often repeat themselves. Exarion 00:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vision Thing, if wording changes are made to decrease cynicism. It really is nice to have a warning such that you know to be careful with your additions, because some tempers may be short. -Preposterous 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kafziel. What good can come out of this? Discouraging discussion isn't what Wikipedia is about. If an especially stubborn user wants to keep re-hashing issues that have been resolved in the past, they can be addressed individually, not with some template that tells everybody that edits the talk page "we've heard it all before, so we don't want your input". Neil916 (Talk) 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reword and Keep. If this template was reworded to fall more in line with AGF [not that it is a grievous violation anyway, although there is quite some room for improvement] it would be very useful indeed. Many discussions seem to go round and round and never reach a consensus [isn't that what discussion is for?] ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per suggestions above, I have attempted to revise it. I hope it's a little more informative and may be used anywhere that a debate shows signs of dissolving into repetitions or rephrased "mee too"s. 68.39.174.238 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and interesting216.95.23.95 05:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per slightly uncivil, should be better worded. Would this template really cause people to stop bickering? I think not, worded like this. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not, but at least it could help people put things in context a little bit. let's have some sense of humor :)) Baristarim 06:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definitely a valid template.. There are many talk pages that could use this. Besides, let's have a sense of humor. An article for the lamest edit-wars exists, so what's the problem with this? Baristarim 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just used this template for the TfD above, a very good example where it could come in handy to put things in context :))) Baristarim 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really needed; we've already got {{Calm talk}} and {{TrollWarning}}. Also it's hardly ever used.--Aldux 11:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - {{Calm talk}} and {{TrollWarning}} are much better. --Mardavich 11:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not what is better, the question is "why should this template be deleted?" - any template can be "better" than another one, but that is not the basis for the deletion of the template that is "worse".. "Going round in circles" is not the same thing as "calm talk" or "trollish behaviour" - it just means that there is a dead-lock.. Also the fact that it is hardly ever used is also not a basis for its deletion: there is a template called "Countries on the Aegean Sea": funny thing is that there are only two countries on the aegean!! So it is used exclusively for two articles among the 1.5 million on Wiki. This template can definitely be used in more than two articles, so it can stay if the only concern is its usage. What happenned to some good ol' sense of humor? In any case, it raises a very valid point about dead-locked debates.. Remember that we also have an article about the lamest-edit wars ever, so what is the problem with having such a template? Baristarim 11:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they have no same meaning.This template is valid enough, to use in related articles.Must ^TC 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baristarim's addition of the template to Talk:Kosovo may help new editors/readers more than all other templates combined: it perfectly describes the spirit of at least the lasts (but maybe all) of the article's 11 long archives. Wording can always be improved, but I find the template's essence just perfect. - At the very least, it could be used in talk pages that haven't created a FAQ yet. - Evv 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm worried that people would add this template as a way of castigating the other side for perceived going around in circles. Much like the Wikicouch, it may a valid point, but pontial for abuse is too great. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about that. However, the template doesn't attribute any blame, but simply restricts itself to describe a situation, which in principle both sides will agree on (while probably blaming each other for it :-) In fact, it will probably be meaningless for those already involved, but very informative to new editors. - On the other side, I have only been here since late july 2006, and may still be too optimistic in expecting a bare minimum of rational behaviour in all editors :-) - Best regards, Evv 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It fits well in Talk:Evolution, where it is less inciting than {{TrollWarning}}. It should be considered whether a version could be created that combines elements of both templates. On the other hand, perhaps TrollWarning should be deleted as I personally don't think it's ever made anyone refuse a bait. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a reminder to check Archives and stop circular arguments before they start, this is a good template. I don't see the potential for abuse being too great because you can't really name sides with it (to an extent, that is. Placing it in a particular section might be abuse.) standonbible^Talk! 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is precisely what we need for endless looping discussions that repeat themselves over and over and over and over again; most notably Talk:Kosovo. There are are (especially Balkanization-type like Talk:Mehmed-paša Sokolović). --PaxEquilibrium 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree 100% with Kafziel. The existence of this template is redundant in light of other templates we currently have ({{TrollWarning}} etc.). Qjuad 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling doesn't mean the same thing as dead-lock.. There could be a dead-lock without any trolling in fact, this template would most probably be appropriate for the discussions of many of the world's best scientists between themselves, on subjects such as quantum physics etc. That doesn't mean they "would" be trolling though :)) This template just serves to notify users that the discussion has reached such a point that it has become a waste of time for everyone involved since it is always the same old by some people who are 100 percent convinced of their beliefs. Having strong convictions is not a bad thing, but it can kill a discussion sometimes :)) Baristarim 03:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, this is clearly a separate category from heated debate (calm debates can go around in circles) and troll-invasions. If any of these templates should go, I think it would be trollwarning, which actually does violate AGF, unlike this. Xtifr _tälk 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reword This might be useful on deletion debates (it's being used on a TfD at the moment); it should merely say something like 'Discussions on this subject tend to end up repeating arguments; if you want to join in, try to make sure you have something new to say'. --ais523 10:53, 22 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used. The few that existed were subst'ed out for the same reason as a related template^{(TfD log)}. Delete. -- CobraWiki ^{(jabber|stuff)} 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006_November 15#Template:Incorp, Tewfik^Talk 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom--Aldux 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jahangard 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del this monstrous and obtrusive template arbitrarily packed with events. It only waste of download bandwidth. A List of Cold War related articles (which may include much more and structured in a similar way) and Category:Cold War would do the navigational job even better and in a less obtrusive way. `'mikkanarxi 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this is a totally standard infobox format in line with Template:World War II among others. Actually, compared with the WWII one it's not even that large. --tjstrf talk 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per tjstrf. Skeezix1000 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful navbox. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harcore Cold War Keep per above, but not the nom †he Bread 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too think it's way too huge, but this is the norm. Go take it upw ith WP:MILHIS to propose redesigning or splitting. Hbdragon88 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a useufl template, and links all the major Cold War topics to another article of relevance. There are so many such templates, why delete this one? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I admit it is a bit big :) perhaps the vertical line spacing could be reduced a bit, for instance? (Radiant) 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above. It may be big, but we're discussing a series of events spanning over 45 years. ZZ 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Useful exploration of the topic in terms of concepts and events. It used to creep in size, but that has now been stopped. Cripipper 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per convention on many war article series, Tewfik^Talk 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and informative, although I think it's ridiculously gigantic. Kafziel ^Talk 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has utility and follows convention. -Preposterous 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's useful and follows wiki convention. --Sharz 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and remove from articles where it is not absolutely necessary. This template is an ever-growing monster showing up in too many places. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it is too big, but i believe the template is useful. I agree we should shorten it. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's big but useful.Patrick Berry 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful navigation template. Discuss editing it and reorganizing it if necessary, but it's not a reason to delete it. Neil916 (Talk) 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's large, but it's a complex and broad-reaching topic. Radagast 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is useful. Such a topic requires a comprehensive template. Tankred 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically important216.95.23.95 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nav templates of this size are useless and don't aid in navigation. The vast majority of these articles should be linked within the articles where they apply. Others can go in categories and lists. If you must have a nav template then limit the amount of links, but still cover the basic areas. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very useful to cross-reference topics for the period. One of the good ways that Wikipedia is unique. Ryanjo 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a faulty and subjective brainstorming template. --Polarlys 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there need to be improvements made in terms of style, content and prose, they can be done without deleting the template. Cold War marked recent human history more then most wars since antiquity, if Wiki is going to include articles that are tens of pages long about fictional Pokemon, Disney and Star Wars characters and planets, it would be really weird, to say the least, to delete this template :)) Baristarim 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Guys, I'm awfully proud of you, you brought up a lot of good points, but you need to reach an agreement here. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This templates title has no supportive source. The template just tries to demonize the Sri Lankan Government. The list of people given on the template may actually have been victims of the on going civil war in Sri Lanka but it is no reason, to include baseless facts in a wikipedia article. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snsudharsan

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elalan Due to lingering doubts with a sockpuppet case launched against me and Elalan by user snowolfd4, I wish to recuse myself of the vote made here for the template. Trincomanb 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is unprecedented, users User:Psivapalan, User:Sri119, User:Mama007, and User:Mystìc have been confirmed to sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k. This tFD was initiated by User:Mystìc, the sockpuppet. Thanks, Elalan 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment having read User:Mystìcs contributions here and other places,i highly doubted that hes a sockpuppet of lahiru.I believe administrators have made an error in their judgement,and hopefully the ban will be lifted ASAP.And i would like to ask,mr elalan to read User:Mystìcs contributions,before jumping into any conclusions.

--Iwazaki 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Someone should check User:Kaushini also as sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_K. ThanksRaveenS 17:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment having used both your user name and a couple of anonymous IPs in editing,iam highly amused by your accussations here.As another contributer has correctly pointed out, i think administrators should take an immediate action against this, a case very similar to sockpuppet using.Since not only you have used an anonymous IP in editing, but also have not responded my comments of it, i have the feeling this was intentional rather than accidental.

--Iwazaki 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of who initiated it, the point is that there are sufficient genuine uses objecting to the templates inclusion which make this debate valid. I suggest that we stick to the content here rather than focussing on the contributors. Sock pupetry is hardly a unprecedented incident, the admins have taken note of it and will take apprropriate action against whoever necessary. In the mean time lets focus on the subject matter here.Kerr avon 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Please make an argument based on the follwing 1)The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); T 2)the template is redundant to another better-designed template; 3)The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");4) The template isn't NPOV (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement);. When nominating you have not made any reference to one of the above reasons. Thanks RaveenS 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that the template links to have hundreds of sources linking each and every evidence. Indeed the list of victims were killed, with strong supporting evidence to point to Sri Lankan government involvement and complicity. Elalan 13:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"strong supporting evidence" is a vague term, we need facts, and not suspicions, only proven victims should be included, where either a local court or a independent judicial recognised body, or a international court of law has found the government guilty of the alleged crimes. If there was "strong supporting evidence", then any judicial body should have found the guilty parties but most of the links like Taraki, have never been proven, with people like Colonel Karuna alleging that the LTTE itself commited the murder.Kerr avon 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content is very much biased. A readers gets the feeling that the Sri Lankan state is against the Tamil community, because it does not speak/give info much on difficulties of the Sinhala community, both facing terror of state as well as LTTE. It also does not list properly the Tamils that have been killed by the LTTE(which is higher than the number killed by so called State Terror, other than the war it self). User:Rukshan

Comment: To admin please do a checkuser on this account. This profile has not contributed for a long time except to come and vote here. This behaviour is suspicious and highly consistent with the other sockpuppets caught in this tFD. Elalan 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non of these acts have been accsed as State terrorism in Sri Lanka. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reason has been disproved, murder of Nadarajah Raviraj shows wide acceptance of accusations of state terrorism in the murder. Elalan 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "wide acceptance" is not a NPOV term and not a fact. There is a ongoing investigation with scotland yard involved and till it concludes no one can make any certain allegations.Kerr avon 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Nadarajah Raviraj is just one article that shows user Lahiru's above "so called reason for deletion" to be false along with many humarights abuses and extrajudicial killings. The murder of this politician is widely attributed to be an example of state terrorism (please see the article with referenced sources) that is featured on the front page. Elalan 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again "widely attributed" is vague, not a NPOV term and not a fact. Just because the eelamists and the LTTE sympathisers and a few extremists howl that it maybe state sponsered doesnt make it a fact or worthy of inclusion. There is a ongoing investigation with scotland yard involved and till it concludes no one can make any certain allegations.Kerr avon 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You have hardly given evidence for Scotland yards direct involvement in the investigation. With sham judicial system (as indicated by the International Commission of Jurists), where country is considered high on the Failed State and corruption index. The Govt. has been tarnished beyond recognition for numerous actions to both the Sinhalese and Tamil "citizens" of its country. It has promised numerous "judicial inquiries" Direct govt. complicity or evidence for it has been indicated in the articles themselves. All significant POVs on these subject deserve due coverage and its not upto us to censor this. Elalan 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attribution is not enough, it should be confirmed. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the sham Sri Lankan judicial system ? Sri Lanka has the second greatest number of people missing behind that of Iraq and Sri Lanka has been widely accused of state terrorism by Asian Human Rights Commission and perpetrating numerous war crimes. Elalan 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one including any terrorist group can challenge the judicial system in a well recognised country whatever the various NGOs say. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 06:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the UN just categorically said Sri Lanka after Burma is the only country that recruits children for war.[28] That is one aspect of its State terrorism. Number of disappeared people is second to Iraq as cited in the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article. If you read State terrorism article, it is clear we don’t need court cases to prove State terrorism. What we need is proper neutral citations from reputable sources such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US state department reports and UN agency reports. If you couple it international neutral media reports such as BBC, CNN and ABC along with local Human Rights groups and media reports you can categorically list State terrorism by any country. RaveenS 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above commentator convinently forgets to mention that it is the LTTE which has ben accused by countless reputed international bodies of recruiting child Soldiers. The above report he highlighted is just one mans view, and his (Mr rock's) further statement like "Mr Rock said the fact that Sri Lankan troops were complicit in the recruitment of child soldiers meant that Tamil Tiger rebels would continue to do so, as it corroded the rule of law." shows that Mr Rock may have a hidden agenda trying to use this justify the LTTE's recruitment of child soldiers and questions his credibility. This is just one mans view and has not been justified by any international bodies findings. The SLMM were here for a long time and it is strange why they have not made these observations, which further questions the reliability of this mans reports. Please do not use this unsubstantiated allegation as a example of state terrorism it does not befit this encyclopadia. As the commentator said we need neutral sources not the sites run by the eelam lobby or single reports. Any person can go to a news agency and say anything, but that does not make it worthy of citation in a encyclopaedia like this.Kerr avon 12:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The allegation that the government of sri lanka uses child soldiers for war was made by Alan Rock who is a former politician with links to supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Canada[29] which casts serious doubts about the neutrality of his comments and such cannot be used as a source. This just shows that the eelamists are hell bent on villifying the Sri lankan government without verifying the credibility of the media reports, this also shows the importance of having factual information given the importance and seriousness of the involved subject and not one or two persons ideas.Kerr avon 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep -Many people consider these things acts of state terror,we should keep this. Also,Sri Lanka has lost the second highest number of people to state terror after Iraq.
comment that is because we have the most ruthles terrorist organization on the face of the earth. The way LTTEers acting now, i wouldnt be surprised even if we come first in the list.

--Iwazaki 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Also,we can find any act of state terror we need to refer easily on the template.Donnyt 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment and what if all these allegations are false,as i and others have pointed out here ?? Should we still keep it,so we can deceive the whole world ??

--Iwazaki 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment the user Donnyt may well be a sockpuppet.Other than voting here,and vanishing for good,he has done no mjor contributions at all.His user page very much suspicious and i would kindly ask Administrators to have a look at this user.

--Iwazaki 09:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A total waste of server space. Kaushini 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Usage of server space doesn't dictate content. Elalan 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not only a waste of server space, but also a huge blow to the standard of wikipedia.Iwazaki 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please point to one 'blow'. It is NPOV, all of the claims are verifiable (even as per International media standards), is being edited by a team of people with proper consensus - It just is WP:5P. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally POV. Mama007 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:How so ? The content has been cited with authoritative sources and organizations in the field. Elalan 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Are you saying the subject matter is POV or the template is POV. If it is the subject matter, then it has been resolved over 3 AFD’s and is similar in nature to Armenian Genocide. The subject mater might be controversial to all most all (but not all) Turkish historians and the government and its supporters in the Wikipedia but it is not to rest of us. If the Template itself is POV in your mind then can you help us with ideas to make it NPOV. As an encyclopedia, how do we guide our readers who might be casual readers, researchers, NGO or UN officials looking for information about these subject matters to related events such as massacres, rapes and murders, assassinations and forced disappearances which are all different aspects of State terrorism. If we can do that in a so called NPOV I am all for it RaveenS 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template tries to put together all aspects of State terrorism by a state called Sri Lanka. All articles linked are properly cited. If editors have issues with each article linked then they can properly tag each one and improve Wikipedia content about Sri Lanka. RaveenS 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep As other editors have mentioned, everything is well cited and referenced on Sri Lankan government atrocities, with *neutral* and *reliable* sources including SLMM decisions (Ceasefire Monitors from Norway and Iceland). Template upholds WP:NPOV. Trincomanb 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not for any other reason, its POV and not all the sources are independent, the sources themselves are questionable, I am not saying these people are not victims of war, the fact is the government never asked a soldier to rape a women or kill civilians, (without objection its the government duty to take action against them), in that case wikipedia servers wouldn't be enough to list all the people killed because of Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, George W Bush (not to mention the LTTE massacre of Muslims in Baticloa and Jaffna Sri Lanka) etc. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that Wikipedia will not have enough room about Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein is a very poor one because we have no such Wikipedia policies regarding server capacities and what can be and cannot be write based on such server capacities. Second State terrorism explains what is state terrorism and what is not. Rapes and murders done by soldiers not sanctioned by a state becomes State terrorist action only when impunity is assumed by the perpetrators because the judicial system is assumed to favor them. About your comments on citations, if you claim some citation are questionable why don’t you fix such citations. Thanks RaveenS

Also it should be pointed out you are voting again becuse you nominated this template, your delete comment should be a comment under your initial nomination. Note to admin: Please disregard the abouve delete coment from the total count. Thanks RaveenS

Delete: per nom. Psivapalan 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis user account has been specifically created for voting on this TFD[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Psivapalan See here] Potential Sockpuppet admin please use checkuser on this user before counting his/her voteRaveenS

Comment: What!!!!! I don't know what you are talking about, I just add a vote and did some formating jobs for the comments section. I'm just new for wikipedia. Psivapalan 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry such things happen in a AFD and TFD, you are very experienced Wikipedian who created this account with a bunch of userboxes and then edited one India related article then found this TFD and voted perfectly like you knew how all this works. I have been around Wikipedia for 1 year and this is my first TFD:-)) Well any Admin will see through your account. Ciao. RaveenS 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep The article is important in detailing infomation that is NPOV and usually sourced to highly credible organisations such as Amnesty International. Deleting this article is falling into the systematic approach to clear Wikipedia of articles and infomation that highlight the attrocities that have been commited in the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict and falls into none of the conventions for deletion. --Sharz 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not it isnt..most of the sources are not credible at all.WSW is a ambigous source and write fairy tales. And there is no proof that the government was involved in the jaffna library burning nor in the 1983 riots.Involvement of ministers in the library incident is a merely a tamil propaganda, which has been debunked by some tamil politicians,such as late Mr Amirthalingam.His wife clearly stated that, gamini dissanayake was not involved in that incident.Iwazaki 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you confusing the subject matter of State terrorism wwith this template. This is about the template. So tell us why is this POV ? Thanks RaveenS 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment both the article and the template are POV.. template is POV,because GOSL did not involve in the following actions.

1 jaffna library

2 black july

further, this article has attributed every mishap/unfortunate mistakes happened during the war against LTTE as a act of terrorism. Mistakes happens in every war, even Americans with all their advance technology made terrible mistakes in war ,such as bombing the chinese embassy in former yugoslavia..Is this an act of state terrorism ??? !! So to point out every mishap,as an act of terrorism is totally POV..so you should remove those ambigous incidents from the template.Iwazaki 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete,in order to keep wikipedia standard this article is totally PVO.Not only that most of the data is based on some biased sites such as "WSW(world socialism web)" ,whose hidden agendas are clearly visible when you read the articles carefully..Also, what is most amazing to me is that, state terrosim is used as a tool by LTTE to justify their killings of innocent sinhalese/muslims/or even tamils(they called it representing (their)tamils).See the article about prabhakaran here. But so far, no has able to show any evidence about state terrorism before the inception of LTTE !!! LTTE was started in around 1974 and did their first murder in 1976, WHEN the so called state terrorism did not exist at all !! how can you say LTTE represent tamils against state terrorism ,when it was them who first started killing tamil politicians !!! so with simple logic,we can argue that all the government actions against ltte was due to the LTTE terrorism.

also, the this article does not qualify to be in the wikipedia.Simply because it is highly ambiguous..most of the articles,are based on some actions of SLA and they are very specious.cases such as mass graves were never proven, though GOSL had spent a lot of our tax money for the investigations.

if the actions by a single army personal can atribute to the state and hence call it state terriorism, we should name every country in the world as terrorist states !! And no army in the world can fight against terrorist or no police in the world can combat robbers.The world should be a free place to all the terrorists so they can send friendly suicide bombers every day, or thieves who can steal as they wish.May be thats what the editors of this article want to say.Iwazaki 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are confusing the article with the template. This is not a soapbox please tell us your reason why this template should be deleted or modified. Thanks RaveenS 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nope. i think both should be thrown to the dustbin. reason?? i have given it already.Iwazaki 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can say that these are 'slipups' and 'accidents' or can be attributed to particular people or units, however Amnesty and the U.S State Department, has described this as a 'systematic form of Terror based on the grounds of ethnicity'. I would rather believe the United States Government and Amnesty International over the GoSL and the Sri Lankan Army.

Strong keep as per Elalan and many reasons to keep it to be given soon. --16^T 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong keep as per Elalan and many reasons to keep it to be given soon. Main reason is, 1983, where government had not done enough to stop the fighting. Many many incidents, Sri Lankan government is doing against Tamil and Muslim civilians in Sri Lanka. . Look at this too [30] --16^T 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment having uttered of reasons and promising that they will come soon, and taking nearly three days, its utterly disappointing that the above user(aka Sechzehn),has come up with nothing substantial to validate his position,which is to keep this ambiguous template.Having said his desire to have this template, one would expect him to atleast give some god points.Let us look at the main reason he gives for his defence, 1983 riots..Not a single government nor any organization accuses then government of SL for involved in the act of terrorism by organizing ang being a part of 1983 riots.Why would anyone accuses GOSL for something which they didnt do ??!! Further he has given a link in wikipedia, which may probably have been created by himself,as evidence to prove state terrorism.But so far, i have failed to see any incident in the given articles,other than LTTE accussing GOSL for killing civilians,to justify this template..Using human shields and assassinating every single threat they have,whether they support or oppose them,is a well known LTTE method.We all know what former LTTEer,and a very good friend of prabhakaran, karuna said about the assassination of taraki.some have created this template,to emphasize the importance of the state terrorism.Other than jumping into conclusions and engage in various logical fallacies(read elalan),they have so far,i would say rather disappointingly, failed to give any credible evidence for their cause.And still, they say template should be kept inorder to post their nonsense.

--Iwazaki 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I kindly ask Iwazaki to use polite language and use gender neutral language. Although the most of the section in the link is created by me, the entire section is given with proper citation. --16^T 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to ask the above user to assume good faith and not to be biased. have a look, sinhala goons.You keep missing the real personal attacks(on your own talk page !!) and get very upset when someone point a real issues. i have questioned this ambiguous template and its validity, and i believe with good reasons i have all the right to called it a nonsense.Having read your below response,my claim has become even stronger.

--Iwazaki 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who suspect the link I gave above is biased: please see the citations given in the site's [31] right hand side, which gives you an insight that the Government of Sri Lanka's involvement in the 1983 genocide. I cannot bring them here due to licensing issues. Citations are given from international newspapers like Financial Times and The Times. The Times article there mentions about the rioters knew in details about the Tamil properties, which is almost impossible without Government information. Deleting this template from Wikipedia will result in not giving the readers about the string of actions carried out by the Government against non-Sinhalese, especially Tamils. --16^T 06:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I looked at it and and none of the citations,which comes from international news-papers accussed GOSL for anything!! Only one news-paper accusess troops/police for not preveting riots(they give absolutely no evidence at all) and that report comes,surprisingly after 2 weeks !! Every news-paper had not attribute this riot to the GOSL and i wonder why you keep making this as an excuse to keep this template.Having become desperate, you have come with your latest,invention, that the GOSL provided information(address of tamil households,according to you)to rioters !! Just because one of the articles say,rioters knew where to attack ??!!. This hypothesis,alone should be enough to throw this template into the dustbin..

--Iwazaki 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this [32]. Indeed 1983 is long time before the Internet, so-called neutral sites doesn't have enough citations. These sites have one of the best documentation of the happenings of 1983 [33], where you can find that government has indeed triggered the riots. The violence was spread for 10 days and the government did nothing, until Narasimha Rao intervened. Denial of this is like Holocaust denial. I think this template deserves to remain in Wikipedia, for the coverage of the crisis in Sri Lanka neutrally, and for better understanding of the problem and the timeline of events. --16^T 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer You have given this, i would say biased site, as one of the citation.Its only claims that the GOSL and the army forces took part in the riots,but have mysteriously failed to given any credible evidences.Authers here try their best to hide the truth about 1983 riots.They have failed to mention that the GOSL had imposed curfew by JULY 26,two days after riots started.Also the number of deaths are highly exaggerated,and no one except eelamists believe in them. Further, it should be noted that the GOSL had infact took immediate meassures to protect tamils,actions such as making temporary shelters for an estimated 20,000 tamils in colombo.The numbers grew up to 50,000 and the whole area was protected by soldiers.And even the government provided security and weapons to prominent tamils,i remember one of my fathers friend(a doctor) was carrying a pistol given to him by GOSL.How can you even compare this with the Nazis holoucast ?? where they systematically destroyed the jewish popualtion. IF anything similar to that,i can give you the example of what happened to all the sinhalese who lived in north.They were driven out by the eelamists.And still in refugee states,while most of the tamils are back in colombo.
From Iwazaki (talk · contribs)'s comments, anyone can see the resemblance of Iwazaki (talk · contribs)'s answer usually given by the people who deny the holocaust, by telling the real number is far low from what it really was. Look at this and anyone can find that the speech of His Excellency J. R. Jayawardene, The honorable President of ''Democratic'' Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka at the time, has provoked the riot [34] and how they tried to suppress the Tamils by force and murder. To check about the Rao's intervention, look at this link [35]. As given by many others in this discussion (esp. Elalan (talk · contribs) and Sudharsansn (talk · contribs)), there is indeed a state terrorism, and this template is necessary for giving the readers a good coverage and a bird eye's view of the crisis. --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell us ,when mr Rao intervened to this ?? You are making serious allegation here,and i would like to see,what made you to make this comment.Also please be noted, that there were no major incidents after JULy 28 . And on 29th police shot down 15 people, who try to loot (probably)tamils property.The curfew also remained.So, why you keep saying it continue for 10 days ??Are you counting the sufferings faced by sinhalese living in north,which i heard went on for several weeks !!

to sum up the flaws in your response. First, 1983 was not organized not supported by then GOSL,it was started by some angry people who were upset with the cold blooded murder of 13 innocent soldiers.Second, number of death talls are highly exaggerated in your given sites.Third, those given site is put up to defame the GOSL,SO there is a question mark over their real ambitions.Fourth, riots did not continue for 10 days.Fifth, riots were well over when india intervene,actually MR G.Parthasarthy visited SL in august(and its worth noting that,it was india who supported all the terrorists with training and weaponry,way before 1983).sixth, above user have so far,failed to mention actions did by the GOSL to protect tamils,as i have shown here.So its somewhat clear,that all the points he made are, hisPOV. The whole template is not only breach wiki policies(as shown by other users)is also full of nonsenses and should be thrown to dustbin ASAP.

--Iwazaki 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First look at this statement and you will see that Iwazaki (talk · contribs) is trying to justify the killing of the people by claiming the killing was of "innocent soldiers" and did not tell a word about the killings done by Sri Lankan Army that triggered the killing, (the killing of the soldiers) which is indeed the topic of the discussion. Second, I would like to thank him/her for stating that there was an Indian official visited Sri Lanka to stop the riots (and thus supporting my argument), which is explicitly a reason for the external need to stop the internal state terrorism in Sri Lanka. The user is trying to justify the killings of the Tamil civilians by speaking about so-called killing of Sinhalese people in Jaffna - although I believe that no such killing occurred, I think the terrorism of the state can't be hidden from existence by giving its counterparts. -Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: The article should definitely stay as it projects a perfect NPOV of the Sri Lankan crisis. Leaving aside pointless trivial comments on space and other unrelated reasons, I definitely think that Wiki is not a place where people cannot raise concern against the government or internationally established bodies/institutions. Anything done in compliance with Wiki rules is absolutely fine. For example, this BBC article pointing to 'Sri Lankan govt recruiting children to fight against LTTE' very simply and aptly provides definitive evidence against State sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka. Many other pages with international media coverage such as the Black July pogrom and a number of other massacres and most recently the FA on Nadarajah Raviraj all point to the simple and understandeable truth about State sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka. As per Wiki's very own standards such as NPOV, Verifiability and other related concepts - this article/series is a must-stay and a very strong keep in Wikipedia. I honestly wonder why this article is even featured in this column. The effort to have such a perfect NPOV and verifiable page deserves encouragement than having a set of people criticizing it. Hats off to all editors who have taken efforts to compile info on the State sponsored terrorism and let this perfect Wiki page continue. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudharsansn (talk • contribs)

Keep War crimes in srilanka should be noted in wikipediaPeace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should those war crimes be in this highly ambiguous template ?? And if those war crimes are actually mistakes happened during the war, when the GOSL was protecting its citizens against this brbaric LTTE , shouldnt we remove this ambiguous template ??Iwazaki 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat is Ambiguous about this template ?RaveenS

Comment: I was about to ask that too. What is ambiguous about this template? Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment scroll up and read what i've written already

--Iwazaki 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the template, keep the article Leotolstoy 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC). The article is definitely important and should not be removed. But template is useless as it links to various parts of the article and is not useful.[reply]

Comment:Various parts of the article ?. I dont understand, it links many different articles not within one article. I hope this clarifies your concern. ThanksRaveenS 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As pointed out earlier, this template is extremely useful to categorize all the articles under one banner. Otherwise it is a very tedious task to search for incidents, especially some old ones. The template serves primarily as a one-stop point for this article/category. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is POV only. Please delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.241.205 (talk • contribs)

The above editors only edit is to vote here 216.95.23.95 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSee lobbying for or against this tfdwe need your vote here against Wiki policy by one of the users who voted here216.95.23.95 06:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment how'bout this [36]

and this [37] Also,please sign in, without using your (anonymous) canadian IP,if you are sincere in making any proper arguments.

--Iwazaki 10:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I had merely asked users to come and look at this page. I didn't even ask a vote nor expect one from them. The way it was done by pro Government supporters, it was transparent means of lobbying for delete votes. Elalan 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment neither did he.he was merely asking to vote too, not for it. so if hes gulty, then surely you are gulty too.Because you have asked from, not one but three users to have a look at this vote. And in case if you havent noticed, there isnt a single pro-GOSL supporter here(it seems)..GOSL is quite ineffective combating LTTE propaganda over the net..Call me pro-sri lankan or anti-terrorist ,but stop calling me something which i'm not.over!!

--Iwazaki 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentThis is a hilarious comment, you are not pro GOSL but your are pro Sri Lankan ??!! This type of "doublespeak" speaks for itself. I didn't ask anybody to even vote, I merely asked them to come and see this, which is well within my rights as a user. Please assume WP:AGF The raw evidence is there, so please don't confuse that with "lobbying" done on behalf of the GOSL pro Sri Lankan side. Elalan 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment having read the above comments by user elalan, i kindly asked others and the administrators not to take any of his comments seriously.let him first realise the difference between pro-srilankan and the pro-GOSL.Then he should, himself assume good faith,because he has been insulting my country with tons of red herrings.

--Iwazaki 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like people are using internet kiosks/browsing centres to just leave in one-line comments and increase their POV further. Please engage in discussions here and state reasons why this should be removed than really trivial and unformatted 'delete' and 'keep'. That's the whole essence of Wiki and it is strange that WP is being quoted by anon IPs to delete this article. This is a place to verify and correct our reasoning and not bogus out each other with numbers. I see that same users have left multiple comments only to make it appear larger in number. Engage in discussions and get the best out of it. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The template is completely NPOV and potentially libellous so it should be deleted. This is a encyclopaedia and is meant to represent facts and not conjectures and unproven allegations. We are talking about a legitimate people appointed body which is the government of sri lanka, hence we should be carefull about unsubstantiated allegations especially if we want to continue to maintain the quality of the wiki. One weakness is this template contains numourous links to yet unwritten articles, which degrades its quality. Take Raviraj, it has not been proven by any legitimate investigating team that it was state sponsered terrorism. Its just a conjecture by the eelamists and others, and such controversial points cannot be used unless they are proven facts. So by adding that to a template it is implying that the government of sri lanka sponsered the assasination which is completely libellous and not NPOV at all. We need facts and not theoretisations for a encyclopaedia. Most of the links in that template like kumar ponnambalam(no article yet exists), Joseph pararjasingham (nothing was proven to implicate the state), Taraki Sivaram(again nothing at all exists to prove that the state was involved, on the contrary the former LTTE commander Colonel Karuna categorically stated that the LTTE intelligence wing chief Pottu Amman was behind the assaination[38]) are completely libellous and NPOV. The template with its many links to unwritten articles, and unsubstantiated, disputed and libellous allegations against a legitimate goverment of a country does not fit the critieria of a responsible encyclopaedia and should be speedily deleted. A article can instead exist which can be edited to a NPOV, but this template is completely POV of the eeelam lobby and LTTE sympathisers,and has no place in the wikipedia which is heavily referenced and is a very popular resource. I would kindly request the authorities to make a speedy deletion of the template in question in the best interests of maintining the quality of the encyclopaedia.Kerr avon 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is pretty sad to note that an entire template which has been created based on completely verifiable information from the International media is being called as a piece of joke by claiming that people are operating against the govt of Sri Lanka. It seems like some kind of big-time inferiority complex by the opposition when it comes to reading cited information on everything being quoted in the pages. The Black July pogrom, the numerous massacres and almost everything else. Aren't there cited pages in Wikipedia against established governments including USA, India, United Kingdom and literally every other nation? Is Wiki some kind of a United Nations information wing in which people cannot write about established bodies/governments/institutions? Do note that the article has also been appended and edited by so many Non-South-Asian editors also, which clearly means that there are no vested interests and that they are only citing information and not manipulating it? Considering that Wiki strongly follows WP:5P and that it is not some governmental agency trying to put forth diplomatic information, all free-minded Wiki editors would definitely agree that this article/template should stay as it is to maintain the perfect NPOV of the Sri Lankan crisis. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can you justify inclusion of the Raviraj link in the template when bodies like the Colombo-based International Center for Strategic Defense (ICSD) in there detailed analyis conclude that prime source for the assasination was the LTTE [39]. It shows that there is dispute and disputed links or templates which are not factual should not be allowed. Scotland yard is investigating the murder, I am sure that even the most die hard eelamist's will not question Scotland yards unbiasedness, so lets wait for the investigation to finish before making POV allegations.Editing by Non south asian editors does not make a article valid, and neither does it make that there are no vested interests. Once again this template is in no way NPOV, it has disputed claims which are completely unsubstantiated by reliable sourcers, and potentially libellous.Kerr avon 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You keep mentioning Scotland Yard is investigating the matter, but I don't see any citations from a reliable source. This argument is meant to show the government idea of being responsible but with empty claims. Numerous sources have pointed the murder took place opposite Military Police HQ. The Sri Lankan govt. doesn't recognize international treaties according to judgement paseed by its so called sham supreme court. The country by no means is yardstick to measure democracy,human rights or pluralism. It has utterely failed in all three. It ranks 25th among what are considered "failed states."

[40], beside Rwanda, where there was genocide resulting in loss of more than 1 million people and Ethiopia which lost many more millions due to starvation, war and ethnic cleansing. In such a situation where the country is considered close to being ungovernable, Sri Lankan justice, law, police investigation is all largely unreliable. In addition, through sri lanka's supreme court and govt. action, it appears it doesn't even recognize the International Criminal Court. It is well know the justice or what left of it is highly politicized and has become a tool to settle scores between politicians. Sri Lanka doesn't fare well in the corruption index [41]. None of what you have said are libellous at all, since no new claim is made. These are not merely claims made but rather facts and view with representation from reliable/respactable news sources that just happens to be against your POV. We are not creative enough to make this up, this is what is published in world's leading new sources. Elalan 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment the whole above paragraph is a red-herring.dont make this a soapbox.The whole paragraph is a direct insult to my country and its people..Srilanka is lucky to be at 25 th..With all the economical and human damages caused by the LTTEers its still stays ahead of a country like bangladesh !! Stop insulting our judicial system with your red-herrings.IF dont have anything to contribute to this discussion, stay silent because your insults and red-herrings only going to waste server space--Iwazaki 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Here is the link to show that scotland yard is helping, there are more in the local newspapers. I guess that you do not stay in Sri Lanka otherwise you will not be making irresponsible statements, there are a lot of tamils in Sinhala dominant areas like colombo (wellawatte, kotahena are well known tamil areas) and they are living in peace, thanks to the tolerance in the sri lankan community. Even when the governement does something correct you wont accept it [42].Kerr avon 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The source you have shown mentions the following "President Mahinda Rajapaksha has asked the foreign Ministry to make an urgent request to Scotland Yard to assist in investigations into the assassination of Mr. Nadaraja Raviraj" It doesn't even say "Scotland yard is helping". It doesn't even say scotland yard is investigating. This is a clear misrepresentation of the source. Please get a reliable source to support what you claim otherwise your point is nullified. Elalan 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I acknowledge that there my statement was not quite correct, it should have implied that the GOSL has requested that scotland yard come and investigate it, which should be commended. The point I am makingthat the GOSL is genuinely interested in solving this murder and that we should not jump to premature conclusions. However getting back to the point, you are sidestepping the issue of why Raviraj killing is included under the template of state sponsored terrorism. There is currently no evidence, and no completed official investigation to substantiate your claims of state involvelent, its just theories by people which dont make facts, and shows what is wrong with that template and how potentially libellous and POV it is. In fact one of the eelamists sites (There reliability is inherently questionable as they are biased, however this is to illustrate the point)[43] is claiming that a prominent tamil politico is being hunted by the CID, which casts serious doubts on your claims of it being state sponsored. Maybe this "promninent tamil politico" had a score to settle with raviraj, etc, there are so many uncertainities. As such the template which is blatantly POV and is being used for propaganda and defamatory purposes against a legitimate government should be speedily deleted, we can have the article instead which can be edited, hacked, edit warred by the eelamists or anyone else to their hearts content.Kerr avon 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Colombo-based International Center for Strategic Defense (ICSD) is hardly a credible source. It is well known to be a Sri Lankan govt. think tank. Can you show supporting evidence of its International merit, other than its work showing on the dubious Asian Tribune. Surely something respectable from a think tank would get published in a peer reviewed journal, why was it only published in Asian Tribune blog site ? Elalan 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The point I am making is that this whole template contains unsubstatiated ,unproven and disputed facts. This template is been used as a propaganda label for the eelamists and anti government forces and is a blatant attempt at raping our country of Sri Lanka. Kerr avon 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every time you use the terms Colombo-based, Govt-sources to support your side of the story, it is quite a joke. I don't think any govt in this world including that of my own country is ready to claim that their activities are tagged as 'State Terrorism'. Not a shred of evidence in support of the Sri Lankan govt in all articles coming under the template. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment let me guess...tamileelam.net, tamilnation.net,eelam.net,tamilnet,wsw are all reliable sources. And asian tribune,ICSD and even the scotland yard are GOSL sources..i wonder whose really joking here ??!!

--Iwazaki 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete :Per above. Sri119 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentAdmin please check the above account for "sleeper" sockpuppetry through checkuser. This user has done very few edits and some of latest edits appear very suspicious. For example setting of userbox [44] just before voting here. Furthermore the mannerism, particularly the use of "Happy editing!!!" [45] of this user shows strong similarity with User:Lahiru k [46]. In addition both of these editors seem interested in military related subjects related to Sri Lanka. This doesn't prove anything and Lahiru should be assumed to be innocent till proven otherwise. But the evidence does indeed raise suspicion on Sri119. Elalan 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete POV template which refers to an entirely unsourced use of the term "state terrorism". Contravenes WP:V, WP:NOR and is wholly unhelpful to readers, rather it is leads readers towards a particular point of view by its very title and selection of articles. Delete without question.--Zleitzen 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Contrary what has mentioned, the articles within the series clearly establish, "Sri Lankan govt sponsored state terrorism" is not original research. The title merely categories a whole series of events, that under wikipedia categorization fits "state terrorism" among other things. Elalan 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article categories a whole series of events - indeed it does. It categorises them as "state terrorism". Clearly a non-neutral opinion, as others appear to have a different view on these events. Therefore the template cannot remain and stay neutral in accordance with NPOV policy. See also, comments below.--Zleitzen 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Others may have different opinions, but this has been represented in the article themselves. Hence all significant POV do have due coverage, with dominant evidence and sources pointing to Sri Lankan govt. orchestrated actions that fits the definition of "state terrorism".

Comment You write "Others may have different opinions, but this has been represented in the article themselves". Not good enough. it means you are only representing one opinion on the template. That is a violation of WP:NPOV.--Zleitzen 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a fallacy. WP:NPOV makes the rule quite clear on the first sentence. "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." A Template I hope you agree is not defined as an article. It does not stand by itself outside of an article, but rather as a component of an article , comparable to a sentence or a paragraph. The articles linked to it have citations backing it. A single sentence can have representation of one POV, this is not a contrevention of WP:NPOV, but the article as whole has to be NPOV. So therefore representation of a dominant independent assessment of these events within the template is just like a sentence with inline wiki links to the respective wiki articles. Hence each and every individual sentence in isolation or for that matter template doesn't have to be NPOV because they are never presented in isolation. Its always part of an article and hence this template doesn't contravene the WP:NPOV rule. Elalan 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you mean unsourced? Have you read through the articles under the 'State Terrorism'? Read through them to find out that all of them have been written with sourced verifiable statements and reports! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are notable sources provided that describe each event as state terrorism? And if so where are they on the template? For such a claim should be sourced wherever it is found. Otherwise it is a breach of WP:V and WP:NOR. The problems inherent in this template are surely obvious. --Zleitzen 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think you confusing the purpose of a template. The template is series of links to a set of articles. The dominant claim for why its "state terrorism" is supported within the article themselves (where it should be noted), hence it would be redundant to show that again in template. However this is a compromise that can be worked out. We can indeed have the sources referenced on the template themselves to nullify your concerns. The template is meant to be a compact representation/categorization of articles and there is sufficiently strong damning evidence to indicate Sri Lankan govt. involvement in this and that would qualify under the label of "state terrorism". Elalan 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what a template is, and the role of a template, as I have created many myself. What it isn't is a tool to show one POV controversial opinion (state terrorism) that would need multiple sources. --Zleitzen 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. State terrorism is a a wikipedia article and is also an internationally reserached and published subject matter. The above user User:Zleitzen had an issue with State terrorim in Cuba that was a section in an article that I created.He belives there is no state terrorim in Cuba contrary to what Human Righst watch and Amnesty reports. Ever since he has cyber stalked me to assure that I cannot write about State terrorism. See his latest anticshere. His attempt is to ensure State terrorism as a subject matter is erased from Wikipedia so that State terrorim in Cuba cannot be written. Just a note fot admins when considering his POV pushing. Also there is merit that this template can be onsidred as not neutral but the first rule of Wikipedia is to disregard Wiki rules if it is in the way of writing a good article. State terrorism buy itself is an accusatory term like genocide, pogrom, war crimes. Hence they inherently cannot be nuetral. How do such subjects get treated in Wikipedia ? That is the question for the admin who will decide this case. ThanksRaveenS 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about addressing the inherent issues of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR with this template instead of attempting to discredit me and other users with straw man claims like "POV pushing" "wiki-stalking" and "He belives there is no state terrorism in Cuba" - which I have never said or written and is irrelevant anyway. --Zleitzen 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do have to partly agree with user Zleitzen on this. What user RaveenS has said about State terrorim in Cuba and this here is outside of the scope of this template and is irrelevant and should be treated as such. However as I have stated earlier, a template is a component of an article. It cannot stand by itself much like a sentence in the body of an article. The article as whole has to be NPOV, but extrapolating Zleitzen's point each and every sentence needs to NPOV as well ?? Then why not take this to the next step, why not every word be NPOV ?? This is clearly not what is stated in WP:NPOV and is practically not possible nor is it warranted. It merely mentions the article as whole has to be NPOV. A Template I hope everyone agrees is not defined as an article. It does not stand by itself outside of an article, but rather as a component of an article , comparable to a sentence or a paragraph. The articles linked to it have citations backing it. A single sentence can have representation of one POV, this is not a contravention of WP:NPOV, but the article as whole has to be NPOV. So therefore representation of a dominant independent assessment of these events within the template is just like a sentence with inline wiki links to the respective wiki articles. Hence each and every individual sentence in isolation or for that matter template doesn't have to be NPOV because they are never presented in isolation. Its always part of an article and hence this template doesn't contravene the WP:NPOV rule. Elalan 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the offending section. But what is germaine is that the user and I had a difference of opinion about another articles and that brought him here not that he would have been here anyway. That is important for the closing admin to know. I no longer have the difference of opinion with him. Thanks RaveenS 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is obvious so far is that 1. The template is making unsubstantiated and potentially libellous and defamatory allegations against a legitimate government. 2. It has a lot of disputed claims and original research, the eelamists allege that Taraki Sivaram was killed by state sponsered terrorism, yet Colonel karuna strongly claims that LTTE arranged the killing and no court or independant investigation has found the Governement to be blamed. This is just one item, the same applies to to others lke Raviraj, Kumar poonambalam all which are mere conjectures and have no role in this wiki.3 The template is been not as a tool to help people but as a propaganda tool by the eelamists, pasting it over every missing persons and controversial article about sri lanka thereby defaming the government of Sri lanka. Whenever a assasination of a tamil occurs, even before any inquiry is completed they paste the name in that box (vide raviraj assasination and link inclusion) which is completely not NPOV and defamatory and libellous from the government of sri lanka point of view. Since it is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:NOR on several counts I strongly urge the speedy deletion of this template to prevent it been used as a defamatory tool by parties with a vested interest.Kerr avon 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentUser:Kerr avon is not assuming good faith and is accusing people who created this template and are arguing that it is to be kept as Eelamist, an accusation that it is a cabal. Someone should take it up with Admins. RaveenS 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentThe term eelamist is a common term and use by supporters of eelam to discribe themselves [47] [48] and vice versa. It is not a derogatory term and was not meant to used in a derogatory manner by me. The term eelamist is a fact. However if you wish I can refrain from using it. Regarding the accusation of a cabal, well if the hat ("WikiProject_NCSLC") fits [49] you can wear it. Regarding good faith WP:GF the creators of the template have so far not shown any good faith in creating and maintaining the template, and neither have they been able to put forward any concrete evidence to back up the neutrality and reliability of the template.Kerr avon 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnyway my final comment on this matter , if Terrorism is a subject that can be dealt with in Wikipedia and State terrorism can be dealt with as a subject matter as well as State terrorism by country (3 articles so far) can also be dealt with as a subject matter with all this being NPOV why cant a Template that links these articles be dealt as a subject matter in Wikipedia? Yes we are asking for something new. For any newcomer to this situation the template will look POV but once we understand that this template is simply linking all articles that are written or expected to be written in NPOV, NOR and other wiki policies then why is this POV. Why would a template of all Al Quida terrorist attacks be POV. Why is all Hamas suicide attacks against Israel be POV? They are not, this is simply a template that is linking aticles that will through the Wiki process (just like supply and demand in the economy) will eventually be encyclopedic if not already. Why is this template POV ? If all the articles are encyclopedic and they are already in Wikipedia (AFD and more) then a template that links them is not unencylopedic. period04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are sidesteeping the issues of complete NPOV and libellous and unproven imlications that the template makes. The raviraj and Taraki Sivaram etc links make anyone think that the government of sri lanka murdered them, when nothing has been proven and when even tamils are saying that the LTTE could have been involved in sivrarams murder and a tamil politico is suspected to be behind raviraj's killing. This is the most important reason that such a defamatory template which is being used for propoganda purposes by parties with a vested interest should be speedily deleted.Kerr avon 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well finally a good argument but let me counter, if all what you have is a problem with the articles that the template links then raise it at the article level and raise enough legitimate questions using citable sources that we will remove those links from the template. That's how the Wiki proces works through consensus. No one here is arguing the template in question is a static one. It should dynamic and edited often. I was the only one editing it now I find a large group including sleeper sockpuppets and just created sockpuppets:-)) wanting to delete it. Non of you made a good faith effort to either challenge any one of the articles the template linked and remove them from the template. Thus making it more useful to any reader or researcher. Editing and craeting in Wikipedia is a thankless job but it takes time and effort. Please be creative and try to create a template that links all LTTE attacks if it will make you happy. Thanks for your inputRaveenS 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your suggestion for the simple reason that the template itself gives a lot of prominence and apparent validity and authority to any facts contained within. If you see a template in a encyclpaedia you think that "ahh here is a condensed fact/highlight, which are true" etc.This template violates all the major wikipedia guidlines including WP:NOR, WP:GF, WP:NPOV, simply because it has original research,unsubstantiated and libellous allegations against a sovereign state and government which is legitimately appointed, a fact which you and most others have not handled. Take another highlighted name in that template Chandra_Fernando, the first impression that the template gives to any reader is that Father chandra fernando was killed by the government of Sri Lanka. However if we go to the article, we can see "According to a report by Tamilnet he was killed by a gunman belonging to the PLOTE organization working for the local Indian Army administration[3]. According to David Jeyaraj an ethnic Sri Lankan Tamil journalist based in Canada, he was killed by EPRLF/ENDLF operatives[4]. Some majority Sinhala nationalist websites have blamed the LTTE for the murder". Which just shows that there are no grounds whatsoever to have this mans murder listed under state terrorism, when there is a wide dispute as to who killed him in the first place. As such again I reaffirm that the sole purpose of this template is to defame the government of Sri lanka without substantiated facts, by parties with a vested interest, and should be speedily deleted.Kerr avon 10:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerr as a reasonable guy in this debate and a doctor I am gald that you read Chandra Fernando. I created the article, an Eelamist in your view. This is how you write about an incident in Wikipedia, all points are given. He was killed during a time when Internet was not that popular amongst SLankans, so it is difficult to find information about him. But he was killed when the State authority in Batticalo were the IPKF. He was kiled after talking about the crimes commited by para military and IPKF. Hence conclusion by the article that he was killed by the state authority or proxy of the state authority i.e the Paramilitaries. That qualifies it as a State terrorism. Does not mean he was killed by the Sri lankan state but by a proxy of someone in charge of government. Also Valvetithurai massacre was done by IPKF. It is linked in the Template because the IPKF was the state authority. Please dont look at this template as an anti-Sri Lankan state instrument. It is simply linking articles that qualify as State terrorist actions by who ever was in charge or their proxy.RaveenS 17:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is killed when he criticies someone doesnt mean that he was killed by the said party. For example Raviraj was very recently critical of Prabhakaran and other LTTE leaders sending their children abroad to study, now according to your logic Prabhakaran should be a prime suspect in his murder too. There is no definitive information to say that Fernando was definitely killed by the state or its proxy. The single most issue I have with that template is that it gives at first glance to the user the impression that the government of sri lanka was directly involved in these murders although as I have repeatedly pointed out there is no evidence, and that the template is been used for propaganda purposes being pasted on most controversial articles regarding Sri lanka in this wiki. The other glaring problems with this template like potential libelousnes, defamatory nature, lack of reliable sources have not been addressed.Kerr avon 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kerr you are simply buttressing my point that the articles linked by the template has not been challenged by anyone as to whether they should be included or not. All what the sockpuppet that nominated this and other sockpuppets and few editors have been arguing is the easy way out. Delete the template because we did not do our home work of editing the articles and editing the template as to whether they belong in or not. ThanksRaveenS 13:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To begin with, would users who have already voted stop posting 'Strong Keep' or 'Strong Delete' again and again in this page. It almost tries to project a lopsided majority but the fact is the same users/editors are posting it repeatedly. Remember that the vote counts only once and not a million times if you post it repeatedly. If you want to say something post it as a 'Comment', you don't have to top it up with a vote every single time!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Votestacking and TfD initiation by Sockpuppets: Please note that votestacking is being done here by one of the editors involved in this debate through six sockpuppets/fake profiles and that almost a big part of this discussion has been initiated, handled and voted by only fake profiles.

When counting votes please do take into consideration all of the bogus votes. One of the editors has six fake profiles/sockpuppets which have also voted and it is quite debatable whether the other defendants are also doing something like this. Many of the user profiles which have voted here have not done any single edit in any of the Sri Lankan crisis pages at all. They seem to be popping up spontaneously and checkuser requests are pending for all of the profiles.

Kindly note that even this TfD in itself has been initiated by a sockpuppet (Mystic) of Lahiru. Kindly deem to consider this as a void TfD to prevent sockpuppets from deciding whether templates or pages should stay or not! If we are to proceed, before deciding on consensus I would even suggest that a checkuser is done on all suspicious profiles/one-line votes. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would kindly request the admins that in addition to the votes, to consider the merits of the template in question and decide on whatever action based on the arguments put forth by both sides, and most importantly the templates confirmance to WP:GF, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Wikipedia is a very popular resource (just see how high it is ranked in search engines) and its neutrality and un controversial nature must be maintained.Kerr avon 10:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, responding to the point you are making - we need to understand that this whole thing, including the TfD has been framed up by one person who is very upset about it and has been supported and supplemented with evidence by his own sockpuppets. Ultimately there are really 3-4 people discussing it here, all others are only fake profiles. So answering your point, I think we are discussing it only to find out the merits or demerits, if any, about this article. This template completely conforms to all Wiki policies, primarily [WP:5P] There is no need to make it 'uncontroversial' or to cater to the google page rankings, but all policies are implicitly perfect to cater to the needs of everybody.

We can ultimately help everybody to take an informed decision with all the coverage for and against the GoSL. The reasons being quoted to remove this article such as 'popularity' and 'expecting' controversies are totally deemed void as that is not the primary goal of Wikipedia. It serves to present information, which is NPOV, Verifiable and many other things and not cater to Sri Lankan citizens or SL govt supporters. This should sum up the argument. Wiki does not have to be sensitive towards Sri Lankans or anybody, it can just present information and the readers are left to make a informed decision on any topic. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see how anyone who is unbiased can say that this template "confirms to all wiki policies". The inclusion of assasinations which many parties including the LTTE are suspected of doing like Taraki Sivaram, Nadarajah Raviraj, Fernando et al in the template, just show that it fails wiki guidlines of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR amongst others as I have highlighted in the above discussion many times. The wiki need not be sensitive but it should be neutral and contain verifiable information from reliable sources. It can not "just present information", it is a quality encyclopaedia which is referenced by many and needs to maintain a standard of quality and responsibility about what it contains. You are right about the template "not cater to Sri Lankan citizens or SL govt supporters", the only thing that this template caters to is the anti government forces, the LTTE sympathisers, and the eelam lobby who want to use this as a propaganda tool to paste over as many pages as possible and to slander the government of Sri Lanka. Regardless of who initiated this debate, the important points are that this template is disputed and valid points have been raised against its existance as per wikipedia standards and guidlines.Kerr avon 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You just don't seem to understand that Wiki is not about quality/no-quality or anything like that. We don't cook up stories to make it sound like good quality. There is nothing like good or bad here, it is just information which is not cooked up or made up, but just simple pure information. We only create and edit articles to conform to Wiki policies. The ultimate result needs to be an article, which does not project views of either party, it conforms to NPOV, it is verifiable and ultimately it is an article created for the reader to make an informed decision and not an article which needs to be bound by parameters of quality/font size/language/money as in other media publications, etc!!

With regard to your point about not regarding who initiated this debate, I think that cannot be taken so lightly for the very simple reason that right from start, the discussion went ahead with sockpuppets answering each other's question, etc!! So it is not a TfD initiated for good reasons or violation of Wiki policies, but only a strong case of personal time-pass!!

This template does not cater to the LTTE supporters for the very simple reason that info is cited. Before anyone doubts the verifiability, please go and refer to the articles coming under this template - All of it is verifiable!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse the issue, the issue is not with the articles but with this template. However if indeed one checks through the articles referenced as you have suggested (see my analysis above), one can see that there is no definite proof that the state was involved and thus the template does not confirm to and is a blatant violation of wikipedia standards regarding neutrality amongs many others.Kerr avon 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sri Lankan system of "rule of law" is perfect sham . Take one glaring example of the criminality of the current regime in Sri Lanka exposed by the Indian magazine Tehelka, Douglas Devananda, Tamil minister in current cabinet of Pres. Mahinda Rajapakse is wanted man in India, for murder, abduction of child and demanding ransom [50]. What does it say about the government when one of its senior minister is a man wanted for murder in the country next door ? Elalan 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The title is way too POV, what the hell is state terrorism and who decides what a certain act should be considered as such? And please see Wiki words to avoid:terrorism... Baristarim 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :Please read State terrorism then read State terrorism by Syria and State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Then read Dirty war and Bosnian genocide you will know what state terrorism is. All those articles are not POV, how can a template be POV ? ThanksRaveenS 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism". While at this point I am not disputing whether the said incidents took place or not, editors of Wikipedia cannot arbitrarily decide whether any of these incidents constitute "state terrorism", as per Wikipedia policies. The creator of this template has labeled these incidents as "state terrorism" according to his POV. That is a violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

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

Therefore this template is POV and is in violation of basic Wikipedia policies and should be deleted. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a template not an article, it links articles. If you have problem with the articles that's where you raise them. You have edited merely 2(may be more) of the above linked articles and in each you did not prove that they were not State terrorism. ThanksRaveenS 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you not read what I said? Again "I am not disputing whether the said incidents took place or not". So please do not bring that up again. It is not upto anyone else to prove that it isn't "State terrorism". It is up to you to provide evidence that independent organizations have labeled these acts as "state terrorism". Because right now it is your POV that these incidents are "state terrorism", and that is against the WP policies which I have stated above. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The statement by snowolfd4 that "No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism"." is patently false . Independent Organizations and experts have regularly called Sri Lankan government actions "state terrorism," here are some links off the top of my head, including Asian Human Rights Comission, (three of them from a BBC documentary with experts who label Sri Lankan government actions as state terrorism) [51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56]. Elalan 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is not the issue. The issue here is - is there universal uncontroversial agreement that these acts are "state terrorism"? If there is, then no problem. If there isn't, and there is some disagreement that these acts are "state terrorism", which is clearly the case here, then the template does not meet NPOV requirements. A template can't portray a POV side of the story. Nor should it take a disputed euphemism such as "state terrorism" and attribute acts that you yourself have had to dig up sources for - which in themselves could be disputed. Most importantly, of course, this template will be consistently challenged by every one other than the small group of editors here who are on one side of a POV dispute for as long as it remains. Therefore it would save a lot of everyone's time if the thing was deleted now. Which would of course be in line with the regular deletions of every other category and template of this nature at wikipedia.--Zleitzen 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Repeating a fallacy over and over again doesn't make it true. "State terrorism" has a definition or set of criteria. See Britanica's entry on it. There are number of fallacies in your argument. WP:NPOV makes the rule quite clear on the first sentence. "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." A Template I hope you agree is not defined as an article. They are different namespace, articles being under the main namespace and template being under the template namespace. A Template does not stand by itself outside of an article, but rather as a component of an article , comparable to a sentence or a paragraph. The articles linked to it have citations backing it. A single sentence can have representation of one POV, this is not a contravention of WP:NPOV, but the article as whole has to be NPOV. So therefore representation of a dominant independent assessment of these events within the template is just like a sentence with inline wiki links to the respective wiki articles. Hence each and every individual sentence in isolation or for that matter template doesn't have to be representation of all significant POVs because they are never presented in isolation. Its always part of an article and hence this template doesn't contravene the WP:NPOV rule. Templates belong with the "Template namespace" and articles belong with the main "namespace." This is clearly defined under wikipedia rules and I think this nullifies your argument. Elalan 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question This template asserts in wikipedia's own voice that the linked acts are state terrorism, is it a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view that these acts are state terrorism? (by the way, a Template isn't an article, true, it should actually be more subject to NPOV scrutiny than an article, rather than less). Please answer.--Zleitzen 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title of the template as it would appear in the article is "Allegations of State terrorism in Sri Lanka." So what they have in common are allegations of state terrorism which is dominant view and that stands factual. You are advocating absolutism. If we go with your philosophy, the science templates will all be a wreck. Apart from logic, everything else has a degree of uncertainty to it. Off course there are Sri Lankan government supporters screaming and howling all over here throwing all sorts of flak , but the dominant view has citations to back it up. The bit about "it should actually be more subject to NPOV scrutiny than an article, rather than less" bit is your commentary , which you are more than entitled to but its not the rule right now on Wikipedia so I think you have conceded the argument. If you want to argue components of an article should be more scrutinized for NPOV, in that every sentence should have all POVs represented ? Good luck on that. Elalan 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry that you think that those users above who believe this template favours one point of view are "Sri Lankan government supporters screaming and howling all over here throwing all sorts of flak". The question still stands, is it a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view that these linked acts are "state terrorism"? A simple yes or no would suffice. --Zleitzen 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentLet me make it clear, I didn't say all users who opposed the template are Sri Lankan govt. supporters. Your opposition to the template falls under a different category. I merely said, that yes there are Sri Lankan govt. supporters kicking up dirt and opposing the template, their POV (such it takes up too much server space, its an insult to Sri Lanka, its defamatory, Sri Lankan govt. was never accused of state terrorism by 'independent' organizations etc. etc.) from an academic angle carries minimal weight and is not a valid litmus test of whether its controversial or not. Nevertheless, no issue whatsoever (whether it maybe humanities or sciences) will get a guaranteed (the key word is guaranteed) yes from the loaded question (criteria) you have set. This is simply because you have loaded your questions with absolutisms. It is hardly verifiable WP:V, since there is also a time variance factor involved. So therefore the answer to your questions gets us nowhere and I don't see how it is relevant to determining inclusion of certain content in templates or not. Elalan 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zleiten, I will try to answer your question. The template links articles that are supposedly actions that fit the description of what State terrorism is. That is it was done by the state or state proxies on civilians. Now I cannot vouch for each and every article linked will fit that exacting definition. But that’s why we have a Wikipedia process for not an Encyclopedia Britanica where what is written is what is written. Most of the sock puppets and others who are objecting to this template except truly neutral observers like you have not made a single effort to edit the template. I. E. to remove articles that don’t fit the definition or to prove in the articles themselves that they are not State terrorism. I expect the Wiki community to vigorously edit the article as well as the template so that at the end we result that we agree with. I know contesting this template is part of that process and trying to keep it also is part of the process. Now does that answer your question? I.E assuming good faith, I did not create this template to demonize a country, simply to link all articles and aspects of what will fit the accepted definition of State terrorism so that an average reader or a researcher can easily find all the examples needed under the subject matter of State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Infact I would like to do it eventually to all countries that have been accused of State terrorism in the world, not just Sri Lanka. As I said earlier direct reading of the title of the template one will get the impression that it is POV, but the subject matter itself is accusatory by nature like Genocide, Pogrom, Holocaust, Massacres, Forced Disappearances and War crimes. If I create a template to link all genocides in the world such as Bosnia, Armenian (which is hotly contested by the Turkish government), Jewish will it be POV ? I think the above template is similar in nature. It links number of incidents and that should be vigorously contested and edited unlike what we have seen now. RaveenS 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article yesterday Thandikulam massacre. Now it is not in the Template. But the wiki community should decided, should it or not ? Would you place it in the template ? 22:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Also see 2006 Mannar massacres At least some effort has been made to edit it since it was created. Will it fit the definition of State terrorism. I think so. RaveenS 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. RaveenS, you write that you have created the template "simply to link all articles and aspects of what will fit the accepted definition of State terrorism". Be careful, I have tried to explain to you on other occasions elsewhere that WP:NOR explicately forbids such interpretations without attribution or reliable sources. See

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Question (asked again as the above comments didn't appear to answer this more fundamental issue) Returning to the WP:NPOV issue. Even if an editor can find sources that describe events as "state terrorism", is it a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view that these linked acts are as a result of "state terrorism"? Please answer briefly and succinctly - preferably "yes" or "no".--Zleitzen 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please detail the reason why you think this question is relevant to the issue at hand, particularly since I have shown the question is loaded with absolutisms ?RaveenS

Comment OK you mean to say that all these actions have to be collectively attributed to State terrorism by someone before we can list them as state terrorism in the template? If that is so it breaches WP:NOR because we do have to go back and edit the template to match a collective citation. A question for you ? If the template is renamed as Human Rights violations and links to all Human Rights violations by all parties (that is if there is a collective citation of them as such) will it not meet both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV ?RaveenS

Comment There are resources that show these events collectively to be part of state terrorism, hence it doesn't fall under 'original research categorization', plus this view is the dominant view. In many instances, the Sri Lankan government hardly gave a rebuttal to the attack, or have been acknowledged by experts in the field to be hollow. Elalan 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously the answer is no. Several of the links in the template like Nadarajah Raviraj, Father Fernando, Taraki Sivaram are controversial with no one certain as to who killed them as I have repeatedly claimed above. Blaming them or even alleging that the state was involved is libellous and defamatory and POV as there is no evidence to say the government was involved. Alleging is a POV and should not be allowed in a template. Once again I restate that the sole purpose of this template is not to help the wikipedia user but as a tool which is used by people with vested interests which is used more like a poster which can be pasted over as many pages as possible and to defame the Sri Lankan government. One a side note it is very sad to see responsible Tamil's who have the pleasure of living abroad are trying their best to defame my country of sri lanka unreasonably with wild allegations, forgetting the thousands of tamils that are living quite comfortably in the heart of colombo thanks to the good will of the singhalese, they are forgetting the huge amounts of food and essential supplies sent by the government to the north and east which are taxed on the singhalese that they much hate. All they want is to use wikipedia to push their anti government and eelam POV, and if this is allowed to continue with templates like the current one in question which violate all the fundamental guidlines which the esteemed wikipedia is based on, wikipedia's neutrality will seriously be eroded. I strongly suggest that the template be speedily deleted in accordance with wikipedia policy.Kerr avon 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that no evidence to say the government was involved is patently false. Neutral observers and sources show otherwise. Elalan 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claiming Alleging is a POV is baseless. There is no rule to say its not allowed in a template. Screaming the same comment over and over again is hardly a convincing argument and I sense desperation on your part . Your so called on the ground assessment is runs contrary to all the main human rights organizations reports and the reports of BBC [57], where it mentions, particularly civilians in the North and East are in "Conditions for them have significantly deteriorated, and many now are literally living in terror." and other new agencies, that mention hundreds of Tamils are abducted and disappear night after night. You are making some wild assertions, which border on observing tea leaves and please understand, this forum is not a soapbox. Elalan 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dis regarding the Histrionics of an emotionally charged doctor above, User:Zleitzen is correct in asking for citation that all the articles that are list on the template should have a citation that it is State terrorism. If such as citation is available then it does not breach WP:NOR So apparently we have to go to basics and find that citation. But then I went to some other templates such as Template:SriLankaHistory, is NOR to be interpreted correctly, for this template to be kosher should it have a citation that all articles linked in it are cited as belonging to Sri Lankan History. I couldn’t find any Templates with such a citations attached to them. Just curious ? as this was my first template. How is NOR adhered in template creation, where is the place for references ? Also I would as Dr. Kerr Avon to keep his histrionics and lectures about what I should and should not do to his personal domain and stop using this as a soapbox. Very easily people can label him as an apologist for a genocidal regime or worse but that would be hyperbole. Wikipedia is not Sri Lanka and people don’t get killed for their views here, just stick to the subject matter. Next time the doctor breaches the protocols I will report the good doctor. RaveenS 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your statements against me like "apologist for a genocidal regime", just shows your bias against the government of sri lanka for everyone to see and casts serious doubts as to your claimed neutrality.Kerr avon 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. Despite asking the question twice, the one solid answer I have received is obviously no from User:Kerr avon. Who believes that it is not a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view. If I am reading this correctly, Elalan doesn't believe the question is relevant. RaveenS hasn't answered the question but has asked another. Therefore can I take it that the template is not representing a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view?--Zleitzen 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view the answer is YES, otherwise I would'nt have linked them to begin with. But you raised a serious point I and I genuinely have a question. In many AFD's I have seen major edits done even to the name so that the article can become acceptable to the WIKI community. How will you suggest to make it NPOV ? second how do you make Templates NOR through citatiosn as we as the exmaple cited and others I lokked at did not. Just seriously curious. ThanksRaveenS 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also I dont understand what is the point of asking this question universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view. What is in life is universally agreed upon un controversial point of view. Read Theory of evolution. You would think that it would fit your definition, but even that has room for creationist doesn’t it. Few things qualify such as the World is not flat. Is Mary was Jesus's mother a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view ? A simple ye or no would suffice. Thanks RaveenS 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is obviously badly worded. As far as I have seen, YES there is strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view that these acts were state terrorism from neutral, reliable sources. Elalan 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. (The question seemed to me to be very clear) So unlike Kerr Avon, you both believe that these acts are universally agreed to be "state terrorism". Here's another question. If there are those who dispute the claim that these acts were state terrorism, what would they call the template? Perhaps Kerr Avon could answer that?--Zleitzen 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RaveenS and myself agree there is strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view that these acts were state terrorism from neutral, reliable sources. Elalan 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So we have strong agreement and largely uncontroversial. Above you write that the government and its supporters have a different view. If you were playing devils advocate, what would they call the template? --Zleitzen 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for having to do some wiki lawyering at this point, but I am not going to incriminate myself by possibly contravening WP:AGF :). I'll wait to hear what the MD has in mind. Elalan 01:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK I see where you are going, you want to see what the consensus would be. I are more than willing to change the title as long as it is NOR and NPOV. I have already suggested one. Dr. Kerr has not suggested any modification yet. Let's wait for his suggestion. If there is one, means then there is really a meeting point here. I hope your wish comes to fruition. Thanks RaveenS 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly recommend the template to be speedily deleted for the simple reason that it implies that wikipedia sanctions the views that the state was behind the murders when as I have said that there is no consensus from multiple reliable sources that the government was behind it. How any unbiased individual can claim that thier allegations that they were state sponsored is largely uncontroversial is beyond me and shows their bias. The proponents for the inclusion such as RaveenS have repeatedly demonstrated there bias against the government by calling it a "genocidal regime" and there claims should be questioned as to the neutrality. The main issue here is regarding this template and not the articles perse, as the template is being used more as a banner to slander the GOSL by putting it on as many pages as possible. There was no article regarding Nadarajah Raviraj before his murder, however what happened was the moment he was assasinated a article was created and his name was added to this template in a attempt at tarnishing the goverment of sri lanka even before any proper inquiry was allowed to take place and with considerable dispute as to who exactly did the murder. Scotland yard is investigating the killing [58] and the government is paying the hefty fee, which shows the goverments honest efforts to solve the murder. This just shows what is wrong about letting this template exist, even if it was reworded as to "alleged state terrorism in sri lanka", who is going to judge as to what is going to be put in and on what grounds should links be included? How many people have to allege something against the state before it is taken as noteworthy to be included? Allowing this template to exist even with rewording will lead to further controversy and edit wars. We have a article called State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka and let anyone edit it to its hearts content, rather than having a template which is used as banner advertisement against the sri lankan government with unsubstantiated, potentially libellous, defamatory allegations. This wiki should represent a unbiased view and cannot be allowed to be used as the eelam lobby or the anti goverment forces soapbox. Anyone can have any theories or allegations to make, that is their right and if they wish to make it public they can put forth there own website and spew their rhetoric. However the wikipedia is a public resource and a international asset which has standards of responsibility and neutrality to maintain and cannot be allowed to be used as a propaganda tool to advertise a particular sections view. I am tired of this debate and will not contribute further, I beleive that the wikipedia administrators are intelligent folks who will make a decision in the best interests of the wikipedia and I will respect that decision.Kerr avon 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In many instances, the neutral Sri Lanka Monitory Mission, headed by Norway and with assistance from Iceland have made reports of ceasefire violations by one or the other side. Both sides in the Sri Lankan conflict called upon Norway to form and observe the ceasefire. These monitors gather evidence from the actual site of the events and have preformed proper investigations before reaching decision of ceasefire violation. The Sri Lankan government has been shown to be insincere in some many occasions, that the EU has asked for UN Human Rights Monitors, though decision have been made to come to Sri Lanka monitor in a bid to prevent further deterioration of human rights abuses and state terrorism from perpetrated by Govt. forces. Although SLMM is there, it doesn't have power to stop or arrest people it believe who were responsible for these incidents. Knowledgeable, authoritative sources in field take the word of the SLMM and other international human rights organizations that have come hard against the Sri Lankan govt. perpetrated incidents. All statements are well references and substantiated with respectable neutral sources within the article themselves. Only pro government supporters scream that is POV or biased simply because the Sri Lankan government was caught red handed and the truth doesn't look pleasant for their side. Elalan 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the purposes of clarification I would like to single out Elalan's words above, who is one of the supporters of this template, "Only pro government supporters scream that is POV or biased simply because the Sri Lankan government was caught red handed and the truth doesn't look pleasant for their side." Which seems to contradict his earlier statement that the template represents a "strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view". If there needs to be any more evidence that this template is only designed to show one point of view, and a controversial one at that, which does not take into account the "pro government POV", this is it. On that failure to address NPOV alone it should be deleted without further comment.--Zleitzen 05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOnce again you have misrepresented what I said and ran with it. You have conveniently forgotten to mention "strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view from neutral, reliable sources " The key words you have missed is from "from neutral, reliable sources." NPOV is meaningless without taking into account neutral, reliable sources of info, otherwise the encyclopedia because place to display propaganda. Elalan 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My final comment, no evidence provided with examples that it fails WP:NOR as was requested. No compromise put forward by contested parties although I had thrown in the idea of changing it to Human Rights Violations and be inclusive of all such events in Sri Lanka. The template should be vigorously edited to prune all articles that don’t fit the criteria of State terrorism rather than deleted. ThanksRaveenS 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 3 BBC articles linked to are actually 1 BBC documentary. I watched part 3, and no "expert" even said the word "state terrorism". I'll comment about the other 2 when I watch them. As for the other 3 articles, 2 are from the Asian Human Rights Commission and the other by Quintus Perera. Their articles on Wikipedia (or lack of them rather) say a lot about how reliable they are. Please read WP:RS for info as to what is a reliable source.

That aside, more to the point, citations have to be provided which state that any of these acts have been called state terrorism. Otherwise, like I said above, listing them as "state terrorism" is a violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

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

Incident mentioned in template	Citation from reliable source that says said incident was state terrorism
Akkaraipattu
Allaipiddy
Black July
Batticaloa 1990
Chencholai orphanage
Eastern University
Mannar 1984
Mannar 2006
Mylanthanai
Jaffna hospital
Jaffna lagoon
Jaffna library
Valvettiturai 1989
Iruthayapuram
Kokkadicholai
Kumarapuram
Kumudini boat
Nachikuda
Prison massacres
Tampalakamam
Trincomalee 2006
Nagerkovil school
Navaly church
Naguleswaram temple
Nelliady
Vaharai
Krishanti Kumaraswamy
Ilayathambi Tharsini
Saradambal Sarma
Mary Madeleine Martin
Arumaithurai Tharmaletchumi
Taraki Sivaram
Fr.Chandra Fernando
Aiyathurai Nadesan
K.S.Raja
Mylvaganam Nimalrajan
Richard De Soyza
Kumar Ponnambalam
Joseph Pararajasingham
Rev.Jeyarajasingham
N. Raviraj
Fr.Mary Bastian
Fr.Nihal Jim Brown

So please provide citations for all the individual incidents in the table above, or accept that listing them as "state terrorism" is your POV. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why don't you go through all the links by yourself and cite it? Just because you posted a blank table here does not mean there isn't evidence, or that you have only listed articles which may or may not have such evidence, or by any logic this remark of yours is truly facetious!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is exactly my point. There is no mention of any of these incidents been called "State terrorism" in the citations. And it is not up to me to find citations for them in other articles. See WP:RS. It says very clearly, in bold text

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question

It is not upto anyone else to provide evidence. The burden of evidence is on those who want to keep the template. All the incidents in the template all listed above, so please provide individual evidence, or like I said, accept that it is your POV that they are "State terrorism". --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User snowolfd4 argument is quite comical. He first argued there was no instances of state terrorism accusation against the government after been shown evidence to the contrary, then he claims Asian Human Rights Commission [59] is not a WP:RS, because it doesn't have a large enough wikipedia entry. How comical is this argument ? Then he claims the BBC documentary on Sri Lanka doesn't have references to state terrorism but openly refuses to see parts 1 and 2, but claimed to have watched part 3. What can you do when the user deliberately refuses to watch the other two parts where the references are made. I had earlier mentioned clearly the three links were to one BBC documentary on the Sri Lankan conflict. These experts argue the Sri Lankan government continues to use state terrorism as tactic against the Tamil insurgency. That statement itself covers a large swathe of incidents, although other sources are available pointing directly each case by case. Elalan 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 words: PROVIDE THE SOURCES. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to show your point to be flawed, I'll show just one of the events indeed has been labeled an act of state terrorism, by neutral authoritative sources to nullify the claim that template shouldn't exist. A source from the Asian Centre for Human Rights mentions [60] "The Sri Lankan government has unleashed State terrorism since the collapse of the Geneva talks of February 2006 between the LTTE and the government." and it mentions the assassination of Ravriraj as first example in that document. Here is the article from D.B.S Jeyraj, an authoratative (neutral journalist) who mentions that killing of Raviraj to be act of state terror [61] "Given the prevailing political culture where all Tamil dissent is ruthlessly suppressed a voice such as that of Raviraj’s too had to be silenced from the viewpoint of those wielding power in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.. There is a coordinated campaign going on in the North - East where all Tamils with leadership potential are being killed, disappearing, leaving the country or simply becoming invisible.This trend spills over to Colombo frequently.The instruments of this state terror are very often Tamil groups and organizations aligned with the Government."

Comment Those who support the template are welcome to provide evidence from reliable sources that assert that the above are acts of state terrorism. But regardless of whether these can actually be found, there would still be a notable and significant point of view that would disagree, ie the view of the government and its supporters. A point of view that even the supporters of this template acknowledge exists. Thus meaning that the template would fail NPOV guidelines by favouring one point of view, asserting that the acts were "state terrorism" in wikipedia's own voice, and not taking into account the opposing point of view.--Zleitzen 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There maybe government supporters who think and believe maybe pigs can fly, there are tooth fairies etc but in these cases, neutral, reliable ,authoritative sources show otherwise and thats what counts. There is infact no controversy amongst these reliable sources. The voice says "allegations of state terrorism" which is the neutral fact of the matter. In many of these instances, the govt. has made no formal attempt to even deny accusations against them, while its fan base here jumps up and down. Everyone is entitled to their merry thoughts on a blogsheet, not an encyclopedia. Elalan 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Shall we run through WP:NPOV once again?

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.

The template, though now changed to read "allegations" which is preferable, still fails all the above points. It fails to provide details of who believes what and why. It fails to attribute the claims to reliable sources. You also write "in these cases, neutral, reliable source argue otherwise and that's what counts". If such reliable sources exist, why should anyone believe that they are more neutral than contradictory reliable sources? You might find them more neutral, but other people clearly won't as observed above. They will find their sources to be more neutral. This is the very basis of a POV dispute, and the wilfull inability to view two sides of an argument - writing things such as "the view of the government is akin to pigs can fly, there are tooth fairies" is the root cause. If you cannot come to terms with the basic tenets of fairly presenting different points of view, then I suggest it is you who consider a blogsheet.--Zleitzen 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets go through this one more time, WP:NPOV is applicable to an article as a whole. It has not been stipulated to apply to components of an article, such as a template. A Template as you will well agree is not an article . A Template in equivalent terms is like a sentence (a component) of an an article. Each sentence doesn't have to adhere to NPOV. But the article as a whole does have to adhere to NPOV. Nevertheless, under your setup, you would like to see flat earth society members views and POVs on the article titled planet earth ? Please answer this question, a yes or no would suffice. Try to mention that the 'round earth theory' is a massive conspiracy ? The fact is there is no contradictions/controversy amongst the neutral reliable, authoritative sources on this. Airing fringe, wild POVs and misrepresenting them as academically major POVs destroys the encyclopedia. Where there is found to be one which is considered controversial event, it would obviously be removed from the template because there is controversy amongst reliable sources as to who did it. The pseudo-controversy is made by govt. apologists and govt. propaganda sites, that have time and time again been disproved quite comically and have shown to have limited credibility and this has been done so academically. These sources wouldn't enter the debate, because they don't adhere to WP:RS to start with. Elalan 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but your views above obviously do not comply with NPOV (1) A template isn't a sentence. It links a series of articles under one title, thus favouring the view that the articles are matched to the title, when there is in fact a dispute. (2) The view of a government or its supporters is not a "fringe theory". It is a significant point of view. Regardless of how comical you find it, regardless of how lacking in credibility you find it, regardless of whether you think these people are "government apologists", regardless of whether you believe it is a pseudo-controversy, regardless of how academic and neutral you believe your sources are (as yet to be provided on the white table). Your views on this are sadly of no consequence. Others with different points of view disagree with you. All significant views should be treated fairly without favour as per policy. That is the basis of neutrality and the basis of wikipedia. --Zleitzen 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentClaiming "The view of a government or its supporters is not a "fringe theory. It is a significant point of view" without specific instances or context makes your argument a POV. Your now claiming irrespective of the circumstance, that its always the case.. that would be a clear example of POV. Therefore under your setup, you would like to see flat earth society members views and POVs on the article titled planet earth if hypothetically a government endorses that view ? Please answer this question, a yes or no would suffice. Elalan 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. It is not a significant view and thus fails guidleines. The view of a government and its supporters is a significant view - and if a government or significant group endorsed the flat earth theory, then it would have to be presented neutrally and fairly as per NPOV guidelines. That is how neutrality works.--Zleitzen 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template a single line of text with no special formatting. Maybe it was created to save its creator a tiny amount of typing (in 2004). A simple copy-paste of the text into all 17 of the linked articles will eliminate the need for this template. Delete. -- CobraWiki ^{(jabber|stuff)} 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Substing is equivalent to a copy-paste but even faster (and if it was 1700 rather than 17 articles, there'd be bots that could be used to do it.) --ais523 11:16, 15 November 2006 (U T C)
Comment - Template has now been subst'ed from all linked articles. -- CobraWiki ^{(jabber|stuff)} 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GT

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

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated in favor of {{sockpuppet}}. Only incoming links are a redirect, an AV/I archive, and an offhand mention of it on Talk:Cancer. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template isn't even in use anymore. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprecated in favour of another deprecated template, Template:General Tojo. --tjstrf talk 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprecated now. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused, redundant to another template that does the job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Tojo

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

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated in favor of {{sockpuppet}}. No incoming links. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template isn't in use. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, violation of WP:NOT a soapbox, unsourced negative allegations about a contemporary business, and attack template. (Radiant) 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Fake News Alert

The template asks readers to email the FCC to challenge the license of a TV station that has presumably been airing fake news; that presumption is not even brought up in the articles where it's currently used, e.g. WPIX, WCBS-TV, WJBK, although Google suggests these allegations are from SourceWatch. I'm against fake news as much as the next guy, but asking readers to file a complaint with the FCC certainly isn't NPOV. A link to the allegations would suffice, and Template:SourceWatch would seem to perform that job well. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This template arguably violates WP:NPOV. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only to be informative, but it serves the broadcasters right. They use our airwaves and pollute them with "corporate propaganda" (or unnecessary advertisements for news) -- in other words, they can air the ads some time else, just not during the newscast!!! But unfortunately, even then not all of the advertisements are accurate. For example, "Sinclair Terrorizes with I-Porn" [62] -- Pittsburgh's WPGH mentions something about "I-Porn", but what the reporter doesn't tell you is that she's on their payroll of the companies whose products she may or may not be pushing. Another example, "Huey Lewis and the Fake News" [63] -- Los Angeles' KCOP brought in Huey Lewis to fool its viewers into buying a hardly known hearing aid from a rarely known company. The real problem with this is that all identification of the medical firm has been removed by way of VNR. The worst example came Meridian's WTOK in a piece called "Hot Air from WTOK-11" [64] -- In this piece, the VNR from an oil company here is an assault on Katrina victims in Mississippi. Sources such as Free Press, Center for Media & Democracy and of course as stickguy mentioned, SourceWatch and Google all call it "Local Television's Dirty Little Secret" for a reason!!! There are at least 111 stations reaching well over a third of the country airing fake news -- Sinclair, Disney, CBS and News Corporation are among the worst violators. This is part of the result of a corporate empire that values profit over the public interest!!! It is just ridiculous and cruel how they can take advantage of our airwaves this way. They should be ashamed of themselves!!! We need to do whatever it takes to come up with new ways to get the point across... Wouldn't you agree??? It is after all, only the right thing to do!!! Now I have a great deal of enthusiasm for The E.W. Scripps Company and especially their lighthouse logo -- but I was upset to find out that Cincinnati's WCPO had also engaged in such activity. This is an absolute disgrace!!! But there's more -- many stations have aired fake news on more than one occasions and unfortunately some more than others according to Free Press and the CMD [65] and on November 14 they filed a formal complaint to the Federal Communications Commission. If nothing else, perhaps we can come up with a way to merge the two templates and convert it into a "super-template" -- all this so we can monitor the activity of our stations and at the same time, file our own complaints to the FCC and (if we wish) asked that the stations' licenses are challenged. Now personally I think they should just have their licenses revoked!!! I hope you consider something reasonable or at least notify me if and when you do delete the template. This is a very important issue. I was just trying to help out in the situation... Please consider my statements!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED NOV 15 2006 11:22 AM EST
- Comment: I sympathize but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. DCEdwards1966 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant violation of policy and attack template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 22:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait a minute, before you do that -- let's try to compromise!!! This is after all a very serious issue and I believe everybody at Wikipedia should know!!! Let's just talk this through!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED NOV 15 2006 8:08 PM EST

If you can find verifiable information that these stations have been airing fake news, then include it in the article as part of the text. --tjstrf talk 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's against NPOV for us to advocate anything, including emailing the FCC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. To clarify, I meant that if you can cite it properly, you can include information about their broadcasting fake news in the article, not that you can advocate whining to the FCC. Sorry about that. --tjstrf talk 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy! Free Press and the CMD have on display a map of stations that have been documented and by clicking on a "dot" will open up another page with videos you can watch. The videos are in QuickTime format. Click here to go there... In addition, I already enclosed three links to WTOK, WPGH and KCOP. I hope I'm getting your attention... Meanwhile I will look into the matters on SourceWatch and will add them to the articles in the immediate future... --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED NOV 15 2006 11:50 PM EST

Using their newscasts as a source for their being fake news directly will violate our policy against including original research in articles. Be careful with that. --tjstrf talk 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, extremely inappropriate use of templates. WP:NOT a soapbox. Also hopelessly US-centric (I assume the "FCC" is some sort of US agency or council or something). Xtifr _tälk 05:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose for this template is to create links to copy-vio material. WP:C and WP:EL both prohibit such links. ---J.S (t|c) 03:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I've orphaned this template... it had 54 translations before I did so. ---J.S (t|c) 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 03:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facilitates links to copyvios, in violation of Wikipedia:External links. To wit, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." Get rid of it. I'm half-tempted to speedy it, but I suppose a little extra process never hurt anyone. ;) --Slowking Man 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kafziel ^Talk 06:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it violated the rules. Delete it then... Just have to removed the whole thing from Wikipedia then, from all the articles it's featured in. -- Luigi-ish 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care-of. ---J.S (t|c) 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gotta go, per nom †he Bread 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, author (Luigi-ish) agrees to delete per above. Neil916 (Talk) 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is indeed linking to copyvio material, why does the LetsSingIt.com article read as though it is describing a legitimate website? --Stoive 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no other delete votes. I am not an admin. tjstrf talk 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template encourages the "biting" of newcomers. It also doesn't specify how many edits are needed to be considered "few". TBCΦtalk? 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If the very first thing that an anon user does is to weigh in on an XfD debate, then yeah -- his vote is suspect. Sorry, them's the facts, and spa is an extremely relevant piece of information. What's the cutoff number? I dunno, common sense applies here; you know it when you see it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While I agree with WP:BITE, users whose first and only contrib is a vote in an XfD discussion or edit-warring over the same article up for AfD are POV pushing and aren't likely to become productive Wikipedians anyways. Leuko 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, extremely useful tag in xFD and DRV discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful template that has the potential for misuse just like any other. And didn't we just decide to keep this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account? -- Satori Son 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That discussion seemed to be focused more on Wikipedia:Single purpose account than on the template.--TBCΦtalk? 06:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. All of the votes seem to be relating to the use of the template, particularly XfD debates. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I disagree.--TBCΦtalk? 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were referring to this debate. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Strong Keep - is it possible to speedy keep templates? It's just the whole "the template below has been proposed for deletion" is messing up the visuals of many xFD/DRVs currently, given how this particular template is generally used. Also, I agree with everything said above. --Dreaded Walrus 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - admins can exercise common sense on this. Where there is misuse this template is valid and should be used. Where it's not, it can be left out. I agree with Jim Douglas though - weighing into an AfD on your first edit is a bit sus. JROBBO 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Keep (as per my comments below) - for said reasons, and because we just had this discussion less than a week ago, and we should try to keep XfD nominations further apart. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See my comment to Satori Son above.--TBCΦtalk? 06:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see. There is a difference. So I've changed my vote from strong keep to keep. Probably not what you were looking for, but I still think it should stay. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important in record-keeping for detecting sock/meat-puppets. ---J.S (t|c) 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But how can we be sure that a user is, in fact, a single purpose account? There's always a possibility of a user simply wanting to participate in an AfD as his first edit...--TBCΦtalk? 06:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Is it the term "single purpose account" that bothers you? When the template is used, the text that appears is "User has made few or no other edits outside this topic." It's a neutral and relevant observation. We don't have an equivalent of "residency requirements" (nor am I proposing them). But simply noting that a user's first action on Wikipedia is to participate in an XfD debate is not biting or uncivil. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why is the template still named "Spa", the acronym for "Signle purpose account"? Why not rename it to something else?--TBCΦtalk? 07:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't propose renaming it, you proposed deleting it. In any event, the term itself is useful, descriptive, and well-understood. A single purpose account can also be a user whose only activities on Wikipedia are to create an article, then defend it in an AfD debate. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You asked earlier how we can be sure that a user is in fact a single purpose account? All we can know, and all the template indicates, is that up to this point in time, the user's only activity on Wikipedia has been to participate in this XfD debate (or activities relating to it, like creating the associated article). They may remain on Wikipedia and do great stuff in the future, but we have to make decisions today based on what we know today. And the reality is, comments from an apparent spa will probably count for less than comments from an established user. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur with Jrobbo. —ptk✰fgs 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The rules regarding single-purpose accounts are of long standing and have good sense behind them, and so I feel almost precisely the opposite of the nominator: if we are to mark the XfD comments of those who have not yet attained a significant Wikipedia track record, it is not using this template that will count as WP:BITE. A template shows them that there are established rules on the subject; a notation to the same effect composed by an individual editor makes them think they are being singled out by that individual editor. I've seen the results and they aren't pretty. "Oh, he wants to tell everyone that this is only my first edit? All right, two can play at that game! I'll tell everyone that I searched the Web and discovered that he posts to swingers newsgroups!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - use of this template is much gentler than what would happen before, which was that non-standard additions would be made using the terms sock- and meatpuppet. The template is a much better and more consistent way of doing it, and is not "biting" the newcomer if used correctly. -999 (Talk) 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At this point, the discussion no longer seems to have a chance of gaining enough consensus for deletion, so I'm deciding to withdraw the nomination. However, I'd also like to note that though this template may be useful at times, I have a strong feeling that it can also be easily and heavily abused to discredit users in a dicussion. --TBCΦtalk? 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I really don't see how it can be "easily" used against users other than exactly the kind it is, in fact, meant for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was WP:SNOWballing these. as junk. --humblefool ® 01:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another pinkbox clone, and just as useful as the others! [Can these be speedily deleted?] >< Richard06 12 ^UW 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, I like the colour purple~~ Delete. Why didn't you just group nominate these? --tjstrf talk 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Call me stupid but I didn't know that you could, don't worry, I know now. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though it is much, much nicer than the pink box. Neil916 (Talk) 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Jni. --ais523 13:14, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

Template:Everybody likes this game!

Serves no apparent purpose. Title of the template is about as long as the text! Pascal.Tesson 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "Game" is he referring to? Creating unusuall templates? 68.39.174.238 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I see no evidence that this isn't db-test, so I'll go and tag it as such. --ais523 11:18, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Jni as a test page. --ais523 13:15, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

Template:Recycle It, Don't Trash It!

Same creator as the one above. The text is shorter than the template title. Pretty clear that this is a test page. Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't usually make comments in TfDs, but that HAS to be the most ridiculous template I have ever seen. I'm laughing at it now... 68.39.174.238 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete huh? Yeah... delete it. ---J.S (t|c) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-test, and tagged as such. --ais523 11:19, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result of the debate was WP:SNOWballing these as junk. --humblefool ® 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another 'Pinkbox' clone, see below for further info. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. Making a single Template:colourbox with a variety of different options might be in order though, if we have a whole slew of these. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the boxes are useful in concept, but there is no need to have 20 of them when single box using variables can serve any need. ---J.S (t|c) 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons to delete {{pinkbox}}. Neil916 (Talk) 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was WP:SNOWballing these as junk. --humblefool ® 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As below, this yellow version of the box is really useless. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pinkbox... only uglier. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons to delete {{pinkbox}}. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was WP:SNOWballing these as junk. --humblefool ® 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein to Pinkbox nominated earlier, this blue version is equally as useless. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though this one does looks rather nice, I don't see any use for it. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons to delete {{pinkbox}}. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant see a reason not to. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Indefblockeduser}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate and a user talk archive. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant see why not. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speaking as the creator, it's no longer needed, and I wouldn't create it nowadays anyway (WP:DR and all that). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. —[admin] Pathoschild 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Was deprecated in favor of {{Sockpuppet}}. No incoming links or transclusions. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant think of a good reason not to. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, cant think of a reason not to. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incedentally, suggest investigating this dude and M62, who seems to have been very involved with him. The sockpuppet categories may be worth merging. 68.39.174.238 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depecated template. Only incoming link is from a talk archive. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, demon has selected an apporpriate template for deletion, I cant think of a reason not too. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, template code has been removed for some time. No use for this any more. Neil916 (Talk) 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. All transclusions have been replaced. Only incoming links are from an old TFD debate, and a listing of some blocking templates in an archive of WP:AN/I. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom by demon. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unused and deprecated to {{Extra tracklisting}}. Ashadeofgrey (talk · contribs) 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it has been replaced then lets axe it. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by admin User:Fang Aili as db-author. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conference Naional Venues

This template is unused and it has a correctly spelled counterpart (which is used). Suggestion: deletion JeffreySteer 10:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant see why not. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7. Obviously mistakenly created, author requests deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the author/nominator: In cases like this, you can just place a {{db-author}} tag on the template to request a speedy deletion because you made it on accident. It isn't necessary to go through the whole TFD process in cases like this. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist.--humblefool ® 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In breach of Copyright, note similar discussion for other NZ freetoair channel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22#Template:TV3_.28New_Zealand.29_Primetime_Schedule). Collaborate 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate actual dicussion. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist.--humblefool ® 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're thinking - why have I brought this here rather than MFD? It isn't a template. Well, its creator seems to think it is, and it's currently being used as a template. And not a stub template either, despite its name. I've no objection to the Silver Dollar City WikiProject - all one member of it - having a template to put on articles about its rides but:

it should work properly (this one doesn't close, so any text placed after it is contained within the template);
it shouldn't be called something "stub", since it isn't a stub template;
it should really BE a template in template space, not a pseudo-attempted-template-page-thing.

As such, I'd suggest that this be fixed so that it works properly, moved to a name like Template:SDC ride, and the current mess be deleted. PS - if it's deemed that this should be at MFD rather than here, feel free to move it there - it really was a toss-up between the two! Grutness...wha? 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate actual discussion. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was CSD G10 - crz crztalk 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noob

Patent nonsense template. Only purpose is to print out a possible personal attack: You are a noob. You beg for free stuff. Suggest speedy deletion. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedily. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 and tagged as such. Even if the speedy doesn't stick, this is utterly incompatible with WP:BITE. --ais523 11:24, 14 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result of the debate was : no consensus for deletion, but there was a consensus for a major cleanup and a resultant rename to take place. M a rtinp23 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against red links. The template itself refers to WP:CONTEXT, which is a policy against irrelevant links - regardless of their color. This template should be either deleted or renamed to something like {{Context0}} and reworded so it fits the policy. — Sebastian (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So should it be deleted or renamed? Those are two different things and it seems you're not clear on what you want done with it so why nominate it for deletion? There is a policy against irrelevant links, which is what this template more or less addresses. I'm also not aware of any kind of naming policy required for templates, as there are comment templates like "Template:Notyours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which isn't called Hello, I'm Crossmr. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. .I choose redlink because it was descriptive of what the template was to address. If you think it should be reworded to reflect a clearer message, you could be WP:BOLD and reword it.--Crossmr 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I apologize if it is not customary to nominate a template here unless one is uncompromisingly for deletion. If you ask me, I prefer deletion. I see no use in renaming+rewriting, since I don't use this template anyway. (When I find out-of context links I just remove them and I personally never found a need to write to whoever created them; at least not in standard cases.) But maybe others do, in which case I'm fine with renaming and rewriting.

So if I have to choose for one or the other, then deletion it is. That also would keep the discussion of how it should be renamed out of this page. We always can recreate it with different words and under a different name. — Sebastian (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of templates I don't use, but I don't nominate them for deletion. Nominating something for deletion is to be used in the case where something has no merit at all. It has as much merit in addressing the policy it does than any other template which addresses any other policy.--Crossmr 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nomination was not the fact that I don't use it. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: As it is, the name "Redlink" (along with the wording, which has been improved since) is bound to mislead people into using it against redlinks, which is not Wikipedia policy. Therefore I argue that the name and the mention of redlinks in the template has to go. — Sebastian (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've fixed the template to at least roughly correspond with the policy it cites, but disagree that it should exist - redlinks are entirely appropriate if an appropriate article simply doesn't exist *yet*. Chastising someone for daring to create red links unless they are doing it completely inappropriately seems an over-reaction. Possibly original author thought that Wikipedia was not supposed to contain redlinks? --Stoive 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author, and it was created because I found several users (and spent many weeks cleaning up their mess) who were over-linking articles, and linking unnecessary things which added nothing to the articles at all. The template was never used just because someone created a link to a non-existent article. Its to be used in the situation where someone had a chronic habit of creating unnecessary links. Just because you or someone else hasn't encountered people like that doesn't mean those people aren't out there. I encountered enough to eventually create a template. Wikipedia is a big place.--Crossmr 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have a template for ridiculous overlinking, even if all the links are blue. --ais523 10:43, 22 November 2006 (U T C)
So you agree that the name "Redlink" does not fit? — Sebastian (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name's inappropriate, but it should probably be kept as a redirect for historical reasons; the redir can always be {{rfd-t}}'d later if needed. --ais523 09:37, 23 November 2006 (U T C)

How is this page in any way referring to "overlinking?" ~~See the last discussion and why this template was previously deleted as inappropriate.~~ Ansell 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and rename. Bad wording as it is, but salvageable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or change to the point of unrecognizability. As it is, it's just a bad guideline. -Toptomcat 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did the person who created this forget the basis of Special:Wantedpages? Cbrown1023 03:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many of the arguments at this discussion. Meaning - redlinks aren't that big a problem, unless the user is being disruptive about it, or obviously didn't bother searching for a good alternative link. riana_dzasta 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and rename since it does theoretically serve a purpose as a reminder of policy, its just that what that policy is needs to be clarified. Tewfik^Talk 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an appropriate warning. There is no policy, and IMO should never be a policy, against wikilinking to possible new articles. I have de ja vu about this discussion... Ansell 10:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or rename/fix. I was encouraged to speedy close with G4, as this template seems very similar to the {{redlinks}} template deleted following this discussion. However, the other template was more along the lines of a {{cleanup}} tag, where this one is more of a user talk notice like {{test0}}. With that in mind, I think this avoids a speedy closure. That said, though, I think this is the same spirit of template, and I'd really rather have a generic template for "overlinking" such as this sort of thing, which could be useful for either purpose. Thoughts? Luna Santin 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an excellent idea, methinks. riana_dzasta 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is overlinking an issue which is worth having a standard template for. If it is a minor problem then not having a template will force people to think before "warning" others for it. Either way, this template does not fulfill that function and a totally new template should be devised for that purpose. Overlinking generally seems to link to non-redlink articles strangely... Ansell 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Overlinking is an issue that I've encountered on more than one occassion. The worst was when I found someone who'd spent about 2 months quietly overlinking dozens of articles. It took me about as long to finally clean them up. How spread of an issue it is, I've no idea. Changing this to a generic over-linking and not just redlink template is fine with me.--Crossmr 15:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete M a rtinp23 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure if it's appropriate to have templates with such limited scope (only 2 or 3 pages), especially if it's only calling existing infobox templates. Also, they may make it difficult for anon editors to fix info on them because they exist in templatespace and not mainspace. Axem Titanium 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst: and Delete, misuse of templates. --humblefool ® 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Place on respective pages and Delete... per nom. Cbrown1023 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
subst: and Delete, especially External links. Tewfik^Talk 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea of this seems to be to spread links to unencyclopedic images, and a link to a wikipedia user page, highly inappropriate for articles. --Martin 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wikiproject that some folks are setting up, where a cartoonist user has been illustrating some articles for us. Keep, and if you have a problem with the idea as a whole, take it up with them. --humblefool ® 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'd prefer it if the link to userspace was on the Talk page. --ais523 10:44, 22 November 2006 (U T C)
This template is being used on articles, if it was being used on talk pages or something I wouldn't care, but that is not its purpose. If a cartoonist wants to illustrate articles then fine, but a template to spam them around is totally unacceptable. Martin 10:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of the cartoonist creating the illustrations, if no one gets to see them? -- Zanimum 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no OWNing please. Maybe just remove the "by {{{2}}}". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the offending part, so changed to Keep. An MfD for the entire project is appropriate if your issue is with the images. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any location for a discussion about this entire matter? The Wikipedia illustrations have been generating heat, but without a place to talk things through the best we can do is fling around accusations and defenses and raise a few blood pressures. I'd quite like to found and oversee one, but #¤%& it, I'd also quite like to pass some upcoming exams. --Kizor 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illustration? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That project is about illustrating articles, this template is about spamming cartoons onto articles. I'll say again, it is totally innapproriate for it to be used on articles. Martin 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cbrown1023 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They act as engaging summaries of the articles, for those wanting to skip or review the lengthy format of our full-text content. -- Zanimum 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think the template should be changed to a talk page banner and moved to the talk pages. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many people look at the talk pages? Really, only contributors to Wikipedia, "I love you Britney" fans, and people trying to find a dispute for a news story do. -- Zanimum 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this whole thing could have been avoided if anybody had bothered to actually ask me, the creator of the template. I would have directed them to User:Danny at whose behest I created it, and it would have spurred me to actually create WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia which various off-wiki business has impeded. More details later. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is pretty darn close to an Official Project, if it isn't actually already so. Note that the cartoonist is using the Wikipedia logo in their illustrations... Why is that? Because either they're way off the mark, or they have Board Permission for it... (1 guess as to which it is...) So trying to remove templates that facilitate this project seems a bit off to me. Perhaps the nom didn't know this but this is, in my view Speedy closable under IAR. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think formal logo usage permission has been given, however Danny, Anthere, and Angela (though she's not board anymore) have all commented on them on [66]. Also, I found out about them from Andrew Lih's blog, Andrew's pretty tight knit with the foundation. -- Zanimum 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Andrew's comments to the blog... "As for the trademark, Brad Patrick the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has engaged with conversations with the creator, so it appears they have worked something out. You may want to contact him directly though." -- Zanimum 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a self reference and should be on a talk page or, preferably, not here at all. I agree entirely with Martin on this. --kingboyk 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No more a self referenece than {{Spoken Wikipedia}} is... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure how the images are "unencyclopedic" considering they are taking facts from our articles (that would make our encyclopedia articles unencyclopedic... :) ) The project should have a Wikipeda:WikiProject page though if you are worried about the link to User space. Ansell 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment You all did notice the Wikipedia Logo on the cartoons right? This is about as Official of a Project as they get. I pointed that out before and I'm at a loss why anyone is still suggesting delete. Move around appropriately, sure. Create a different template or a project, sure. but Delete??? Please don't drive away a talented contributor who is helping out WP in a novel way. I have to wonder, though, is there anything behind this nom that is not apparent? ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just condescending. Maybe they think that adding pictures is a bad idea? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used at all, the three pages it linked to have been merged since, it's now redundant. --Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above
Delete per nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Chris talk back 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all bar Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992. M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) All non-World Cup TP[reply]

No more reason, please read why previous one was deleted, only World Cup and CURRENT club TP should be used. A notable players would play more than three "A" event, but no need to create tp for all, it is useless. --Matthew _hk t c 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew _hk t c 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please vote for Template:Turkey Squad 2003 Confederations Cup (in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 17). Matthew _hk t c 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --Angelo 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are out of hand. -- Mattythewhite 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chile 2000 did not survive tfd.
Delete all, per consensus. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all EXCEPT ONE (or maybe a few) - Denmark 1992 Squad.. Let's not overlook the fact that Denmark were the Euro champions that year, and I think that we should make an exception for squad templates for the winners of these said competitions, since they can provide a good insight into the era.. If there are any other templates above that regroup the squad of winners of these competitions, they should be spared too.. Baristarim 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use the hide/show function and leave in the pages. Is useful for crosslinking player articles.--Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Cbrown1023 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all apart from Denmark Euro 1992 - per Baristarim. HornetMike 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Denmark Euro 92 per others. – Elisson • T • C • 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why deleting Template:Turkey Squad Euro 2000 ??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.141.71 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has been replaced by Template:Prokofiev Concertos --Wormsie 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. Cbrown1023 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template. Removed from the only article it was in as it doesn't add much and is difficult to read. Not to mention scrolls at lower resolutions. Francis Tyers · 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Must ^TC 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by TexasAndroid. Whisp e ring 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to advertise the vulnerability of an article to vandalism, thereby encouraging readers to vandalize it. The rationale for the deletion of this template is discussed in general terms in WP:BEANS. Indeed, to avoid encouraging vandalism to vulnerable pages, only administrators can view Special:Unwatchedpages, a page which performs essentially the same function as Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism, into which this template classifies articles. John254 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... there's so many problems with this template on so many levels, but I'll focus on one: Who decides what the cutoff for "vulnerable" is? Delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BEANS. Besides, this could be applied to every unprotected article on Wikipedia. And it's ugly. :) --Xtifr _tälk 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in actual use anywhere in the mainspace (the only mainspace article where I found it at all was Orange roughy where it was mistakenly used to refer to the fish as a vulnerable species, not the article itself). --Metropolitan90 08:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G7 and associated cat. I created this in good-faith, but I want it becoming an animal conservation template, etc. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could suggest this at the village pump (or on the approriate wikiproject)? M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - due to the lack of use, and the previously deleted template, I'm deleting (and also, Jeu de Paume does not seem to be the smae as tennis) M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wasn't there another TfD about this a week ago? In any case, I don't understand where the name of template is coming from: No, it was not competed at a single Olympics, the devil is in the details :)). It has been competed in every single Olympics ever since: "Jeu de paume" is old French for tennis, it literally means "the game of the palm" :)) I don't know the exact details of how or why this would have been introduced as a "seperate" sport, but it might be that at one point in the early history of Olympics, the French word was used instead of tennis, since IOC has both English and French as official languages. So you might as well merge it to relevant tennis templates, "Jeu de paume" was not a different sport, it was an earlier version of modern tennis, that's all.. Yes, human linguistic history is weird :))) Baristarim 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last week's TfD was for {{Olympic Games Jeu de paume}} (lower case 'p'). They should both go! As for the meaning, the IOC results show it as a distinct sport from tennis at the 1908 Games. There were competitions in both. See real tennis for details. Andrwsc 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with real tennis template as there was a comp in 1924, then delete. --Bob 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Chris talk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy close; nomination is very confused on how templates work. --humblefool ® 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such word in English language as "nutritionalvalue" and therefore the concocted word "nutritionalvalue" is not verifiable, not notable and flat out nonsense. Additionally, this is just an incomplete template that servers no purpose and it is misleading in its current state as any nutritional amounts are only "recommended" and not absolute amounts and as such should be supported by sources and references and should indicate if they are RDI for male, female, child, infant, etc.--Mike Sorensen 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What the heck? Template titles are almost NEVER notable. And what do you mean, the information is only reccommended? It is an objective fact how much of something a food contains. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Amarkov. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia and not "Make-it-yourself pedia"If we go by your "what the heck" guidelines then we will open doors to more spam, and ignorance, as it will allow people to create their own nonsense words and then claim that they should be in wikipedia because they don't have to be notable nor conform to standarts of English language.--Mike Sorensen 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as being misleading the template contains info such as "Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 2 mg - 133%" which is a nonsense because the 133% is at best a recommended nutritional amount as stated by some regulatory or advisory panel or group. As those guidelines vary from country to country and from one research paper to another, (not even mentioning from one human being to another) stating any numbers in a template about nutritional values should be supported by references . The word "recommended" , that is not even mentioned here, is rather important in this case. Therefore in its current state the template is misleading and useless. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with English words "Nutritional Value" and there is no need to create some concatenations of those words.--Mike Sorensen 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I love this. Allowing people to make templates whose TITLES are not notable will open Wikipedia to spam? As for your "misleading", that can be easily changed to specify who is doing the recommending. Deleting templates because of their TITLES? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed, the template ALREADY SPECIFIES who it is giving the information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You "just noticed that the template ALREADY SPECIFIES who it is giving the information". In that case please show me, using the links provided in the template, a statement that specifies intake of "Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 2 mg - 133%" . An intake of any nutrient is recommended for specific, age, gender and health status. So male, female, child, etc. will all have different RDI for every nutrient including Riboflavin. --Mike Sorensen 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination cites invalid reason to delete. At worst it should be renamed, but camel case NutritionalValue isn't a significant improvement. Let it be. pschemp | talk 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as an invalid reason for deletion, and someone explain what notability and verifiability mean to the nom. I'd hate to see what he thinks of such horrific names as {{nsd}} or even {{disambig}}. Those aren't even real words either. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Concocted words, incorrect spelling, and inaccurate or misleading information are very valid reasons for deletion, or at best for a major rework. Do you sometimes wonder why wikipedia is being ridiculed and criticized ? Because it contains nonsense words and incorrect information. Why don't we call this template Eyuiyhuygtsefwse ? This seems as good of a word as any other nonsense concocted one.--Mike Sorensen 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as {{nsd}} or {{disambig}} are concerned they are just code words used for wiki flow and organization and not a core content of the encyclopedia.
Please see our Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. In particular, we are not a source of medical advice, and that includes nutritional values for e.g. diet purposes. That is not to say we shouldn't list them, but not using the exact terms as a medic would is not a reason for deletion. (Radiant) 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be ill-advised. Template names are not required to be standard English words, because they do not display as such to readers but are only used "behind the scenes" by the editors. Anyway, "nutritionalvalue" can easily be interpreted by readers. Minor alterations in spelling usually do not turn words into nonsense. --Metropolitan90 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, I honestly have no idea what the hell the nominator is on about. "It isn't a word, and therefore shouldn't be deleted"? What the...? {{Moresources}}? {{Sect1911}}? {{Bioguide}}? {{cleanup}}? {{copypaste}}? {{TotallyDisputed}}? {{Expandsection}}? Want me to keep going? Seriously... per everyone above. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete pschemp | talk 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rubbish Edit

Not necessary, rather nonsensical, and could be WP:BALLS itself! ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Attack template that characterizes edits as rubbish Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per attack (I've warned the user as well). Cbrown1023 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletepschemp | talk 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Child Edit

This is not necessary, could be divisive and is often untrue. WP:CHILD has nothing to do with the quality of edits made by minors, it just concerns their privacy. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as divisive attack template that violates WP:AGF. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per attack. Cbrown1023 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made irrelevant by the generic Expert-portal. See Hepatology for an example of it in use. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that one, fine by me, apparently I was a bit ahead of this evolution. I'll try to AWB-replace it before it get's deleted.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently that has been done, so let's nuke it!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm puzzled by the fervour of this discussion. The two templates ask for different things to be done. And besides, why would you recruit an expert from a portal? Recruiting an expert from outside Wikipedia makes much more sense to me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We can always update the wording on the expert-portal template (I'll do so after I write this comment). Thing is, we need a generic template as medicine isn't the only subject that requires experts. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool® 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major company pov.Longdong UK 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea what "major company pov" is supposed to mean... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless the "big four" classification can be dropped. It is somewhat POV. I will edit to this effect, but it remains to be seen if the edit stays or gets reverted... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is quite neutral to describe a business as "big"[67]—read Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for the explanation. This debate should be on Template talk:UK supermarkets about how to reach a consensus on the wording, not to delete the template altogether. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- read Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for the explanation - that's not even referenced! Please do not revert to the previous wording. It's definitely POV. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99.9% delete delete now. Jer10 95 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the comments above. toresbe 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be legit --T-rex 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is nominator's only contribution to Wikipedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and replace with Magic Words. --humblefool® 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating {{PTalk}}, {{PWikipedia talk}}, {{PPortal talk}}, {{PHelp talk}}, {{PCategory talk}}, {{PTemplate}}, {{PTemplate talk}}, and any of the associated templates I missed. Redundant with {{ARTICLESPACE}}. Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could you fix up the deletion notices so that other templates, such as {{WP Adventist}} are not included in cat:Templates for deletion. Cheers, Ansell 09:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with magic words as appropriate, and delete. Some of these templates are broken anyway (PTalk for instance), and even the nominated one forgot about the Portal namespace. --ais523 09:50, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Weak delete. Looks redundant. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after its current uses have been fixed up. Ansell 11:07, 27 November 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find attributing across different language Wikipedias uncalled for. The whole concept of displaying interlanguage links in the left margin should indicate quite clearly that infornation is likely to be shared across Wikipedias. Also, no other languages than German have adopted this procedure, which indicates that it is an anomaly. Alternatively, I would condone that the template be changed into a talk page template. meco 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I yield to the consensus seeing this should form a precedent for other languages and other Wikipedias. I do however still question the choice to place it on the article front page instead of on the talk page. __meco 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Attribution is used in a lot of other places, like for when we copy text from PD sources. Interwiki links provide no indication that the text was used to create the article, only that it exists. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I think this is an excellent idea. Ideally we would have a generic template that allowed you to attribute any language's Wikipedia by use of an ISO code field, so the same template could be used regardless of whether the translated text was from the de wiki, or the eo wiki, or the zh wiki, etc. --tjstrf talk 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, attribution template just like {{1911}}, {{Planetmath}} or similar. Note that WP:TIE asks for every translation to acknowledge its source on the article page. There just don't seem to be templates to do it for other languages. Kusma (討論) 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, GDFL Attribution. Agathoclea 10:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma and Agathoclea, unless someone comes up with a generic "translated from XX" template per tjstrf's suggestion, in which case I would say delete in favor of that new template. —An gr 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. - Ekki01 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Interwiki links are probably the best thing about Wikipedia. They allow you to learn so much about an issue beyond the entry at hand and beyond conventional dictionary functions. For instance, Germans call RCA cables "Cinch-Kabel" - different words, same things, and the German looks like it was taken from the English. The English for "Lebensabschnittsgefährte" is "significant other," though the English contains connotations of what Germans call "Bezugsperson" that are not in "Lebensabschnittsgefährte". In other words, Wikipedia has the potential to be an amazing multi-dictionary almost by accident. It even provides evidence of Saussure 's argument that bread is not the same as French "pain" or German "Brot" because each of these cultures has different images when they hear the word, and bread has a different cultural standing in each of these cultures. Wikipedia provides pictures, histories, etc., not just definitions, and for those of us who can read more than one language the comparisons are enlightening. There is always potential for different value judgements, which alone makes cross-referencing worthwhile. Finally, it is simply not true that "no other languages than German have adopted this procedure". See the Dutch, French, etc. cmorris35
- This isn't about interwiki links though; it's about a separate template identifying the article as having been translated from the German article. —An gr 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a Template:De. One of them is probably redundant. Punkmorten 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say Template:De is less useful, since it doesn't provide the name of the original German article or the date of translation. However, it's being used in hundreds of articles, and I for one don't want to go through them one by one and convert them to this template, which would mean not only adding the name of the German article, but also burrowing through the history to figure out the date of the German article that the translation is based on. —An gr 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Kusma and the others above. Badbilltucker 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template now has usage instructions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. Baristarim 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kusma. --Boson 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kusma and the above arguments. Olessi 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - How can we reference something from German Wikipedia if we don't have a template? Kingjeff 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to have this kind of source information, we need to keep in mind that a wiki page does not meet WP:RS. If sources are not provided in the source text, they need to be sought out independently (if they are provided, they can just be translated along with everything else). Not sure if that's what you meant, but thought I'd mention it. -- Visviva 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea is not to suggest that the German original is a reliable source. A translated page without any sources will still have to be tagged {{unsourced}}. (And this will usually be the case with articles translated out of German, since German Wikipedia seems to have some sort of phobia against sources.) But it isn't just "a good idea" to inform readers that the page was translated from the German article; it's probably required by the GFDL, since the original author of all GFDL-licensed text has to be traceable, and translating isn't considered original authorship. —Angr 12:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that can also be done through the edit summary (that's how I've usually noted it), or on the Talk page... however, I agree that this template is a good idea, and should be replicated for other languages. -- Visviva 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But wouldn't a great German article have sources like a great English article? Therefore, it should be perfectly ok to have this template. If an article in German Wikipedia doesn't meet the standards of policy, then it's thei problem, not ours. Kingjeff 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should, but might not. (From what I understand, standard practice on DE is to mention sources only in the edit summary, which creates a WP:V nightmare). Also, depending on the topic area and the weakness of EN's coverage thereof, it is often worth translating even articles that are far from great. -- Visviva 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to something that can be consistent with other languages. Am sympathetic to the argument that it should be on the talk page, but similar source templates mostly are not. May go create Template:From Korean Wikipedia now. :-) -- Visviva 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not useful, and could constitute nonsense. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see it applied before I make up my mind to delete it. __meco 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who decides what constitutes "too many templates"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, see Template:Toomanyboxes, a related, if more frivolous version of same. 68.39.174.238 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or see User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes if you aren't an admin. --ais523 11:49, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete We have {{skiptotoctalk}} if the boxes get that bad. Hbdragon88 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that the template should be deleted, but I don't think skiptotoctalk should be used. There virtually never needs to be that many templates on a page, and the unnecessary templates should simply be deleted instead (the large ones should be trimmed, as well). The skiptotoctalk adds another template and enables the keeping of frivolous templates. -- Kjkolb 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's too many templates, logic indicates that adding one more will not alleviate the situation. Delete. (Radiant) 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not as good as the userfied version I linked above, and inappropriate in most namespaces. --ais523 11:49, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Recreation of twice deleted and BJAODN'd template. --cesarb 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously, we had people who were too lazy to clean things up, and placed a template instead. Now, we apparently have people who are too lazy to even remove templates?! What next? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Jahangard 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has too many delete recommendations. Please add more. Chris talk back 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a magical template-eating template using CarnivoreFunctions. If CarnivoreFunctions haven't been invented yet, just delete. -- Visviva 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to me that if an article is overusing templates, a talk page discussion would be a better way to handle it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge M a rtinp23 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant with {{Infobox Football club}}. Rolando 13:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with {{Infobox Football club}}. My guess here would be that whoever designed their infobox doesn't know how to do parser functions, so someone decided they needed a separate infobox for teams with 3 color sets. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is an inferior duplicate of {{expert}}. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's hideous and useless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my eyes! Delete. Ugly, useless, what Night Gyr said. pschemp | talk 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. __meco 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gah, shoot it now! Redundant, and Ghu help us if it spreads! Xtifr _tälk 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure that the creator never passes their graphic design classes. Black on brick red? Ouch! --tjstrf talk 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, could we just redirect this to {{expert}}? It's not a bad alternate title. Plus, editorial solutions are generally better than all-or-nothing decisions that require administrator enforcement. --tjstrf talk 08:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought template redirects, while supported, were strongly discouraged. And the template is unused. Might be better/easier to just delete it while we still have a chance. Xtifr _tälk 09:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you certain? There are redirects for many of our most used tags like {{cn}}, {{bv}}, and {{template link}} to name a few. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but basically, it's a question of how likely the template is to need replacement someday. Core templates would be basically exempt, but {{expert}} might get replaced with {{expert-since}} if it was decided to track these by date (as has happened to several other cleanup templates). It's at the bottom of Wikipedia:Redirect. Xtifr _tälk 11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Destroy. Exterminate. [That colour scheme is really bad!] ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it quick. Chris talk back 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:100110100 with reason "there is already syntax for the NOTOCs." Does it really help to type {{notoc}} rather than __NOTOC__? TimBentley (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a template for __NOTOC__?100110100 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thryduulf 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh noes, I have to type 0 more characters to just use __NOTOC__. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just learned how to use the syntax command instead. Cyberia23 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep __NOTOC__ seems weird to use. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please don't hide magic words behind an unnecessary template that can be vandalized and uses 0.0001% more server load for no positive effect. Kusma (討論) 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. How is that easier to remember than the original syntax? Will just slow down database. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people know it and use it, and the case for deletion is unconvincing. Making things easier is worth a mere 0.0001% (one ten thousandth of a percent) increase in server load. If vandalism is a problem, just put it in permanent, full protection. -- Kjkolb 00:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant, worthless. pschemp | talk 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how does this make anything easier? ~~ N (t/c) 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many fewer people are aware of the "__" syntax for magic words than are aware of the "{{" syntax. Thus, there is a *slight* convenience factor here. -- Visviva 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless redundancy. —An gr 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and relatively exclusive template, with a bias towards American TV shows. I can't see it doing anything other than adding a massive list to whatever article it gets added onto. Wafulz 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it would be a useful template to American viewers of American reality shows, and they would be the primary viewers of these articles as well, so the bias would be lost on the target audience. It's a little peculiar that the template hasn't been added to any articles yet, however, assuming this will take place, my vote is to keep the template. __meco 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are too many reality shows to include all of them, so this is bound to be flawed either way. Each show can have links to its own series and to a general list of reality shows, but you don't need to put a link on every one to every other. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be useful. Reality TV has been a huge phonemena. The sub-development of a template should not be the basis for its deletion. Baristarim 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When considering the inclusion of all reality TV shows of even one genre, check out the length of List of reality television programs. There is really no way to keep the template's size practical without compromising its neutrality. --Wafulz 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shows should not be lumped in by genre. No bias against splitting this off into a separate template for each show, but this is going to get big really, really fast. Hbdragon88 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Category:Reality_television_series and subcategories for everything that could end up in here! Per Night Gyr, Create templates for each individual show as needed (like Template:Big Brother UK) --Stoive 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme burninate before it gets too big. Templates for each programme might be useful, but not a huge reality TV one. Especially since reality TV adheres to the Holy Roman Empire nomenclature (in being neither reality nor television). Chris talk back 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template, apparently used exclusively for vandalism. I'd nominate this for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure if it technically qualifies. At any rate, no pages use the template, and those that did (for vandalism) were reverted. Fieari 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Khorshid 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as WP:CSD G2 (vandalism). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep M a rtinp23 18:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a POV template for same reasons as Template:History of Turks. It is making POV claims that pre-Kurdish peoples were Kurds for 100% certain and this is also an ethnic template of which we dont see any others on WP. Also there is current country of Kurdistan and there are dozens of POV issues related to renaming this as "History of Kurdistan". We dont have "History of Aryans" or "History of Persians" or "History of Indo-Europeans" or "History of Germans" or "History of (put "stateless" group here)" etc. Khorshid 13:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Where it says non-Kurds are Kurds? It only have a section for early ancestors of Kurds. Second, why we should not have templates for history of ethnic groups? who told you Wikipedia does not need that? The nomination is clearly POV and biased. Nice try! :) lol Awat 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother! Please assume good faith! I have no bad intention. Khorshid 13:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's useful to organize and give an overview of articles about Kurds. Bertilvidet 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.per Bertilvldet.Must ^TC 15:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep useful and organized. Ozgur Gerilla 16:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks decent enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I agree, this template does have POV. It needs to be corrected. Chaldean 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - r u joking? If someone thinks that something is POV in the template please point it out and let's work together to correct it. But the idea behind the template is definitely valid, Kurds have not had a "typical" history, like the histories of certain sedentary nation-states, so it is definitely ok. Because of historical reasons, there are many Kurdish communities who have been living in even Georgia for centuries, so yes, the idea behind the template is valid. Baristarim 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would a "History of Kurdistan" template grasp the subject matter in its entireity since, the controversy over the exact borders of Kurdistan aside, Kurds, as a people, have not had the similar history as a bunch of land with human-made borders. Let's not forget that it is the humans that are important, not some random land whose borders were drawn in a men-only exclusive club in Europe.. Baristarim 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Template:History of Kurdistan. Great idea! Khorshid 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Change to history of Kurdistan, then it will match other templates.Khosrow II 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Yezidis in Georgia? They have been living there for a long time.. Please stop playing with wikipedia like this. Everyone knows that Khorshid nominated this template for deletion because of the debate going on at the TfD about Turkish history template. Khorshid also nominated other Kurdish related articles for deletion, so I really see this as a bad-faith nom. I really don't understand what the problem is.. Baristarim 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to history of Kurdistan. Anything before the Shaddadids in that template has nothing to do with Kurds other than the fact that the geographical location matches more or less. I wouldn't mind this template if it started with the Shaddadids.--Eupator 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually in the Corduene article sources available showing the relation between Kurds and Corduene. Ozgur Gerilla 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete M a rtinp23 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly on Main Page but now disused; according to the talk page, it's apparently useless now due to technical reasons. Kavadi carrier 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:hiddenStructure is one reason, the SEO-like nature of this another, and the robots.txt exclusion making this useless is a third. --ais523 09:54, 7 November 2006 (U T C)

Relisting to generate further consensus M a rtinp23 13:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and insofar as CesarB, who addresses the uselessness of the template at its talk page, and ais523 seem to know quite well whereof they speak. Joe 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instant delete textless no text at all. templates must have text. Jer10 95 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates must have text or pictures(opininal).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". cesarb 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. _→AzaToth 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the above guideline is indeed binding, I'll go ahead now and subst the template on all the pages where it's used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Go ahead and delete now, it won't be needed again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus back in March, but this time it should be deleted. Not useful for navigation, not necessary in any way, in fact not used at all. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, a half template someone never got to finishing 2.5 years ago; if it's really that critical to use (which it's not), it would take like 3 seconds to remake it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. And I don't understand the template's raison d'etre: "jeu de paume" means tennis in old French, why was this template even created??? Baristarim 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. I have also nominated a few more like this, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 21. Andrwsc 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus back in March, but this time it should be deleted. Not useful for navigation, not necessary in any way, in fact not used at all. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, useless and unused. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, a half template someone never got to finishing 2.5 years ago; if it's really that critical to use (which it's not), it would take like 3 seconds to remake it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. I have also nominated a few more like this, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 21. Andrwsc 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
speedy delete 1998 is the only years in this template.
templates with has years on it it must have peceeded by:1997 and Suceeded by: 1999.Jer10 95 23:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:Imidazopyridine. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused here. The version of the template that you didn't nominate contains more information (one more link, to ATC code N05), but I'm not sure what to make of the page that is linked. It looks like a long list of pharmaceuticals that is more expansive than the template, suggesting that either template is redundant to the list article? Can you comment? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:MTRStations. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I subst:'d this onto the template it was used on, as should have been done in the first place. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily it would be an editorial decision to remove this text from all Glock pistol pages. However there's a nested set of templates here, {{GLOCK uppercase}} inside {{GLOCK pistols}}, which is then transcluded into the articles proper. I don't believe this text is appropriate in the template; there's an argument, maybe, that it could go on the main Glock page. -- nae'blis 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inappropriate use of a template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the template. Could you give me arguments on why it is inappropriate? I’m open to it, I just want to know. If deletion is decided, what about including the text about uppercasing right in the {{GLOCK pistols}} content?
David Latapie (✒ | @) 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because including the text in the template makes it difficult to edit from the article, and impossible to modify to work better with the existing text in the article. subst:'ing it into the articles would get the text in there and leave the possibility of modification, but I don't agree with the phrasing of this template either. Do we really need a template for every company that names its products with idiosyncratic capitalization? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi David; I think a good analogous article would be SONY - the company is very consistent about using all capitals in their trademarked merchandise/publicity, but our article doesn't mention even mention it because it's a relatively minor marketing tactic (and the above all-caps version is just a redirect). I wouldn't personally oppose the text being included a mention on the Glock page, but you might want to bring it up on Talk:Glock first to demonstrate consensus. I think putting it on all models' pages is overkill, that's all. -- nae'blis 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note No comment as to the verbiage of this template, but it is being used to add a consistant message to many realted pages, that's what templates are for after all, no? It would also be trivial to make an edit link appear that would edit the template. If the argument is that the text should simply be added to the 25+ articles it is in, that just makes it harder for editors to "fix" things about it, as they would start a fork unless appiled to all articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Consensus on this issue has been reached elsewhere as well. --humblefool ® 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Squad 2003 Confederations Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unneccesary international template, for a fairly minor competition. ArtVandelay13 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To many. Matthew _hk t c 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the consensus at WikiProject Football is to allow templates for World Cup and current club only. Punkmorten 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 03:34 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep WhiteHero 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wearethebestfenerbahce 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deliogul 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There was another discussion on these types of templates here. There should be World Cup and club templates, and that's it. Allowing Euro, Confederations Cup, Copa America etc. templates will lead to footballer's pages being cluttered with unnecessary templates. For example, look at Shunsuke Nakamura's page. CanbekEsen 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Turkey doesn't participate in the Conf Cup every year you know :)) Baristarim 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Punkmorten. This issue was already discussed, btw. --Angelo 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These are getting out of control. -- Mattythewhite 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clutter. As said, Nakamura's page is full... Sam Vimes | Address me 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Punkmorten. sʟυмɢυм • т •

Keep Willie200 c 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Punkmorten and CanbekEsen. Poulsen 13:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an announcement for a recent policy proposal to semi-protect all policy pages. First, tags like this are arguably not the best way to announce a proposal (indeed, we have RFC and the Pump for a reason). And second, the proposal-as-written appears to have failed already, although some compromises are being discussed. At any rate we no longer need this template. (Radiant) 14:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should never have been created or added to these pages in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposal is a bad idea. Septentrionalis 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text of the template alone, "This is a template. This template serves no other purpose than to notify Wikipedians that that this is another template, part of Wikipedia's growing collection of templates," is a good enough reason for its deletion. This template serves no purpose. Except to add to the template namespace. Might even be a good WP:BJAODN. Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Preposterous 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and delete. We've got a nice collection of templates, and it's good to know someone's keen to add to it, but... Grutness...wha? 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unneeded attempt at humor. Neil916 (Talk) 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Grutness and Fbv65edel that this would make a rather good BJAODN entry. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that is an odd template
Delete, and replace with a template saying "This is no longer a template.". Eugène van der Pijll 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Ceci n'est pas un template}}? (Radiant) 09:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN and delete. If a template is never transcluded, is it a template? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it can be substituted instead. BJAODN sounds good. TimBentley (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an attempt to get into BJAODN, so let's leave it out ;) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's try to see the bright side of life. it's pretty funny in a existentialist way. :)) Baristarim 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. It's not obvious whether the template was designed to waste space, or to tag other templates that waste space; either way, it's been made now and we can't free the space up. --ais523 09:53, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Not sophisticated enough to elicit more than a pained groan. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not funny enough for BJAODN. Now if it had been more like this:

This is not a template. If it were a template, it would be part of Wikipedia's growing collection of template messages. But it's not, so it's not.

That might actually have been a little funny, especially with the useful links. But it's not, so it's not. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceci n'est pas une delete. Chris talk back 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Not a template.
Template: This is a template is not a template. if where a template, it has to have a box in any color. stub templates are acceptable.
Jer10 95 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. This template is a mess. The very idea of this template has a nasty pan-turkic bias - and the fact that it's only used on half the pages it's linked to (and not even the page that heads the template!) is a very bad sign. --humblefool ® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

File:Presidential insignia of Turkey.jpg

Insignia of the Presidency of the Turkish Republic (for the signification of the 16 stars, see [2]. May the fors be with you!)

Delete This template is a racial template, and it does not match with the other similar templates, which are nation based, such as History of Russia, History of India, or History of Iran. Further more, other than the fact that this is race based, it is inaccurate, unacceptable, and misleading to group a whole bunch of people like this. The history of Huns has nothing to do with the history of the Seljuks for instance. The template says history of Turks, as if all Turks have the same historical background, which is false. Furthermore, what if there was a history of Aryans template, or a history of Arabs template? Would it be correct to group all Arabs or all Aryans (Iranic peoples, not Nazi's, LOL) into one template? Certainly not, as Egyptians have a completely different history than Iraqi's and Persians have a completely different history than Scythians. Deleting this would be the best suggestion I could give.Khosrow II 23:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates? Right off the bat, there is no one-size fits all policy on this. History of Turkey is not the samething as History of Turks, who have been an emigrating nation for millenia. History of Turkey comprises Byzantine, Hitite etc elements, where as History of Turks comprises many other elements. Turks, unlike some other peoples, have not been sedentary nations, so it is normal that History of Turks is quite a different subject than History of Turkey. Not unless, of course, you are claiming that Turks as a race have been living in Turkey since 5000 BC. Now, you wouldn't be doing that, would you? :)))))) Baristarim 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is common concensus that the picture for the template will be changed...

Strongly keep. because historically Turk is Turkic so if you say History Of Turks, its the same thing.Unsigned at 04:23, November 18, 2006 by User:Metb82Must ^TC 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. I really do not understand you ,guys, why you are so biased against the name of Turk and the history of Turks. I always come across this type of biased discussions. i.e., look at the discussion below: "I think we need to decided one and for whether to use Smyrna/Izmir or Constantinople/Istanbul in this article. I personally lean towards Smyrna and Constantinople, as there were in use in English during the time period and furthermore Ataturk did not officially change the names of the cities until the 1930s.- Alexius Comnenus There is no general use in that form in English: I advice you to go http://maps.google.com/ and type Symrna, you will see only one place in GA not in Turkey, instead, if you go and type Izmir , You will reach to Turkey and Turkish links. On the other hand, if you type Constantinople in http://maps.google.com/ , you will end up 28 links with USA not with Turkey. However, if you type Istanbul in googlemaps you will be absolutely directed to Turkey. In addition if you notice that I am using Turkey instead of using Turkiye (which I am opposing but absolutely widely used in English) and also not writing Yunanistan instead of Greece. This means I am seperating my objective and subjective. I advice to do so, otherwise we can not reach a consensus. --- Zkaradag" Being biased made you so blind that you can not see concrete evidences like above. However, since this is universal source of information, we have responsibility of being neutral. Otherwise, we can not make any cntribution to this project. I am making my PhD in University of Toronto right now, and I can post as many as scanned pages of books which accept that the roots of Hungarian and Turks are same just because of Huns (all of them are published in Hungary). In addition, there are journals named Turan printed in Hungary, too. Best wishes. Zkaradag...

Delete as per Khosrow II above. On what evidence is this template based on? History of Turkey has nothing to do with byzantines or Hitites. Turkey came in existance in 1923. Hence the history of Turkey CAN NOT comprise Byzantine or Hitite ???? etc elements???. What Byzantine elements does the History of Turkey have? You are confusing yourself with the geographic area. NOT Turkey... the area... shares history Aristovoul0s 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? Of course by Turkey I mean the geographical area, otherwise I would have used "Republic of Turkey". And history of Turkey has a lot to do with Byzantine and Hittites. There is a different article for the History of the Republic of Turkey. In the same way that "History of the French Republic" is not the same thing as the "History of France". I am sorry to say but, it is you who is confused about the notions we are using here. Baristarim 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what do the Byzantines and Hittites have to do with the Turks, other than common geographic area? with 'Turkey', we mean the 'Republic of Turkey'... with 'Asia Minor' or 'Anatolia' we mean the geographic area. i would be really interesting to listen something about the "connections" between modern Turkey and the Byzantines and Hittites... But, please, no Pan-Turko-Kemalistic crap of the style: the Hittites were early Turks, nor crap like the Byzantines are ancestors of modern Turks (such a case will be like: killing my father and begging the court to show mercy and let me inherite him, cause i am an orphan!). Hectorian 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's all take a chill pill here. You very well know that I have NEVER said that Hitites were ethnic Turks, it is extremely common knowledge that Turks entered Anatolia in 1071. That was not my point, I said "History of Turkey" and not "History of Turks" comprises Byzantine elements. The difference is similar to the one between "History of France", "History of the French Republic" and "History of French (people)". History of France also included Roman and Germanic elements, History of the FR republic however is clearly different. Turkey is not only Anatolia, Istanbul and Eastern Thrace is also part of Turkey while they are not part of Anatolia. And it is kinda funny that you should mention "Hittites were early Turks" since that is a very interesting look at the subject: If some people are claiming that "Turks (or Turkish) of today" are "Turkified native Anatolian populations", then it would be completely contradictory for you to disagree with the statement "Hitites were early Turks" since you agree with the fact that the descendants of Hitites were later Turkified by the Turkic tribes of Central Asia. :))) But even that statement would not be correct since it would be looking at history from the other way around: the academically correct statement is this: "Hitites were the ancestors of many people who consider themselves as Turks in modern-day Turkey". Hey, be careful - we could be talking about my great-great-great..-great-grandfather here :)) You should have said "Were Hitites early ethnic Turks?". By history of Turkey, I mean history of the geographical region, otherwise I would have said "History of the Turkish Republic" or "History of the Republic of Turkey". It is that simple. In fact it is funny that you should mention the Byzantines, since Ottomans have a much more legitimate right to lay claim to the Byzantine legacy than any other nation in the world. It is them that inherited directly many aspects of the Byzantine culture, lands, peoples and even language to a certain point. :)) Greece has a very good case too, so let's call it equal. :))) (don't jump on my flaimbait :)) Baristarim 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? in French: excuse moi? are u kidding me? since Ottomans have a much more legitimate right to lay claim to the Byzantine legacy than any other nation in the world? after a moment of silence for the honor of the slaughtered empire, i will ask again: what?!!! after Huns, Avars, Mongols, Bulgars.... their is a claim for the Greek Byzantines...?! 'bout Hittites, they may indeed be the Turks' great-great.... ancestors, as well as the Greeks, Armenians, Persians, etc, but the modern turks view themselves as 'central asian migrants-settlers-nomads', so, they can calim nothing! and my comment on them was the Grey Wolves' theory, that the Hittites, as well as the Sumerians, the Celts, and (dear God!) Homerus (!) were proto-turks... So, it was not adressing to u, but to anyone who may believe in such crap;-) Hectorian 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean.. There are a lot of weirdo theories out there.. :)) Baristarim 06:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. This template and history reviewed by a pan turkish hand being one of them. Unbased theories with the sole aim to alter history with a turkish POV. See how you got confused? Imagine a casual reader. Is this what its written in Turkish school books? That Byzantines/Hittites elements and e.t.c. are part of Turkeys history??? The area is called turkey now, but that DOES NOT mean that Troy belongs in Turkish history or History of Turkey. Arguments like that are wrong. Turkey is 1923 and afterwards. What amazes me is that i see no Iranians supporting their history from these Turkish claims... Unbelievable!!! Aristovoul0s 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you are really assuming here.. I never denied that Troy for example was an integral part of Ancient Greek history. Please read my posts carefully, I had enough of being called a Pan-Turkist by people who are not able to see the points that I am trying to make. When I say "Turkey" instead of "Republic of Turkey", I mean the geographical area.. There is a similar difference between "France" and "French Republic, "Russia" and "Russian Federation" or "Russia SSR", "Greece" and "Greek Republic".. One is the land, the other one is the political structure. Turks have entered Anatolia in 1071, so obviously Hitites were not Turks.. What I was trying to say however, was that "Turkey", as in the geographic area, carries elements of Byzantine/Hitite history. I didn' say that "Turkish" history (as in race), includes Hitites. Please read my comments carefully before insulting people. History of "France" also includes Roman elements, and yes that is what is thought in French schools. Schools in France also teach that "History of France" also includes Germanic, Catholic elements.. FYI, I didn't grow up in Turkey, so I never had my "brainwashed" by Turkish "propaganda" and "that stuff that is taught in Turkish schools".. Please try to understand what I am trying to say, my example about France is the one you should be talking about.. Please refrain from calling people "Pan-Turkist" etc at every single opportunity. Baristarim 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a violation of WP policy as a racial template and makes a false claim that all Turkic peoples are connected, that they are all the same, etc. This is going beyond nationalism and into very bizarre areas of racialism ideology similar to the Nordic myth. See also History_of_Turks for more background on the racialistic nature of this template and the nationalistic nature (from the Turkish (Turkey) ideology). For the History of Turkey, a good and legitimate template already exists: Template:History of Turkey. Khorshid 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which policy you are talking about since "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates do exist (the latter talks about religion AND race). So that argument falls flat out. Actual contents of the template could be discussed, but there is nothing wrong with the underlying idea since, as I said many times, History of Turkey is not the same as History of Turks because Turks have been an emigrating nation. Baristarim 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read my other posts about the difference between History of Turkey not being the same as History of Turks. So following your logic, we can assume that Turks have been living in what is now Turkey since 5000 BC, before Armenians, Kurds and Greeks... Hmm, that's interesting :)) Without Gokturks, there would be no Seljuqs, without them Sultanate of Rum and Anatolian Turkish beyliks would not have existed, and as such Ottomans would not have existed and Republic of Turkey would have never been founded. I don't get it.. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that history of Turks as a people is not the same thing as History of Turkey since Turks have been emigrating for millenia? Baristarim 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template is not racial and therefore no reason to delete. It doesn't give any racial messages. It only gives people easier navigation for Turkish history. All Turks are connected in somehow; by history and cultural roots. Template doesn't claim that all Turks are united nor they live together right now. Through out history, important Turkish states had existed. And template tries to show this important goverments. Even if they are not connected directly, they are connected in the historical and cultural base. It gives some clues how and where Turks had been. For these reason, there's no racial or pan-Turkist approach with this template. Also be reasonable, it is not logical to give racial messages by a navigation box. The only reason for Khosrow suggested it for deletion is his personal reasons. Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu are Turkic states. When we put this navigation box next to Iranian sidebar; they didn't like it and they removed it. The reason they gave was "there is too much template". This explanation is given by Khorshid. The anon user is me: cagataycebi — cagataycebi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

LOL, what do you mean this template is not racial, is it not based on a race? I'll let you answer that for yourself.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then; let me answer: Turks have common roots of their languages as Heja Helweda said. Nobody in here looks for genetic relations except you.

Yeah a great LOL Khosrow since you have been trying to prove to all of us that "Kurdish history" template is not about the Kurdish people as a race but Kurdish people as a group (???). Unless I have learned my English in Mars, they pretty much mean the same thing. Baristarim 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is large Turk history and the owner countires have templates like "History of Turkey", "History of Kazakhstan" etc but there is also very much Turkic state under Turkic management nevertheless population's largely native people, this template very needed for history of Turks. If the template would be deleted some vandals will show Turkic states as Iranian, like what Khosrow II and others done in Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu etc, this is no lesser than to show Germany as Turkish state or Andorra as Spaniard. Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:81.215.112.148 who voted on this page is an anon, and possibly Zapardojik himself.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP User is not Zapardojik. It is me! Wikipedia is a free enviorement. Therefore most of the time I don't get log in. You can check cagataycebi as much as you like.

Note also that, above claim was not made by an admin, nor was it verified by check user. (I am not an admin either). Baristarim 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I said possibly. Also, I have confirmed it. I replied to this anon on a talk page and Zaparodjik answered me. Also, their editing is connected and similar in fashion. But I have talked to an admin about anon voting, and it turns out that votes by anon's dont get counted anyway.Khosrow II 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying possibly and then you are sayin "I have confirmed it". How can you confirm something that's possibly? How can you confirm something that's not true? If your cultural knowledge is no different then your conspriacy theories, then we should not argue any more. You are trying to mislead people by claiming we are the same persons. Very well my friend, learn my name: cagataycebi

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, I don't know.. In any case, don't forget that wikipedia is not a democracy, it is about concensus, but only if the concensus is formed after an academic debate. So it doesn't really matter how many votes one "side" gets :)) There are no "sides". Baristarim 04:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, as far as I know, Turkic people are all related through common roots of their languages, hence the connection between Turkic people is not a false claim. I suggest to rename it to the broader term Turkic History.Heja Helweda 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming their histories are the same is a false claim. Secondly, history templates are based on nations, not races. The huns had nothing to do with the Seljuks, the Mughals and nothing to do with Ughyurs, etc... Secondly, the Huns were a confederation of peoples, not just one group, although Atila himself was a Turk, so whose to say a person can bunch up the history of the Huns with Turkic peoples and not with Iranics, or other Indo European peoples who joined the Huns. Also, the same case with the Mughals, whose to say the Mughals (Mongols) were Turkic or a part of Turkic history. Couldnt they also be part of Indian history, or Pakistani history, or Pashtun history, or Persian history? This is why racial templates do not work.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite.. There is a "Jews and Judaism" template where is mentioned the history of jews throughout centuries and in many different countries. As an emigrating nation, Turks also have a history that has been divided over time and geography. Why is this so hard to accept? This attitude is really offending you know, nobody is trying to be disrespectful to Iran or aything. Go ahead and create a history of Iranians template. I would have no problem with that. But as I pointed out below in my vote, history of Turkey and history of Turks are not the same thing for historical reasons. Baristarim 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is a religious group, not an ethnic group. We are talking about a template based on race, which is misleading and innacurate.Khosrow II 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews, however, are an ethnic group. There is Judaism, the religion, and Jew, the race. I have met Jews who have become catholics, but they still call themselves jew in the racial sense. Woody Allen who is atheist, still calls himself a Jew.

Nobody is saying they have the same history, but it is undeniable that their history has been and is interconnected. Turks are an emigrating nation, therefore it is normal that history of Turks are not the same thing as history of Turkey. There is also a template about the Kurdish history in the History of the Kurdish people. Look, history of peoples and nations are not similar to one another, some are sedentary, some are stateless, some have been living in their lands since writing has been invented and some have emigrated. So, what can be true for one nation might not be true for another. There is no rule that we cannot have a template about the history of a race. And, as I said, as an emigrating nation, there can be a history of Turks template since their history has been divided over time and space for centuries. Baristarim 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is anything racist or offending to somebody else please point out what it is. I don't understand what is wrong with having a history of the Turks template. Turks are a people that have emigrated and settled in various places, unlike many sedentary nations. Therefore it is relevant enough to have a template to cover the different phases of that journey. Please, tell me why it is so offending to you? I really would like to know. I haven't created this template, but if I had, I am sure I wouldn't have created to offend anyone, least of all Iranians, with whom the Turks have had an intertwined history for millenia. Please keep cool people, what makes you think that there is this Turkish conspiracy out to get someone?

As for the use of Turks instead of Turkey - it is a very legitimate choice since, as I explained above, they are not the same thing. History of Turkey includes Byzantines, Kurds, Hitites etc. History of Turks is the history of an emigrating nation. Turks are not a historically sedentary nation, and since Turks arrived in what is now Turkey only in 1071, the logic is that they must have existed before 1071 too. And that in other countries, regions etc. History of Turks is distinct from that of the country of Turkey. There is also a template called "Jews and Judaism" where is mentioned the history of Jews in many countries. Is that racial too? Who can pretend that history of Israel is the samething as history of Jews (Jews in the racial sense, not religious sense)?? So please people, take a deep breath, relax and be assured that there is no Turkish conspiracy out there to get any Iranians. :))Baristarim 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic peoples are not all the same people, and they do not all have the same history. Having a history of Turks is based solely on POV, as people have to choose and determine what is Turkic and what isnt. Its a template based on POV.Khosrow II 03:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why do we have a Kurdish history template? Or a Jews and Judaism template? Nobody is saying they have the same history, but saying that they are all interconnected. Without the Seljuqs, there would not have been Ottomans and without them there would not have been Republic of Turkey. Seriously Khosrow, why are you so offended? Believe me, nobody is trying to belittle Iranian history or anything, why do you find it so wrong that Turks talk about their history? Turkic people are not the same people, true, but they are all interconnected and they are all branches of the same tree. The language structure for one attests to that. And it is not based on POV, some people might think it is, but I see a very legitimate academic work behind this. Are you claiming that Turks of Turkey have been living in Anatolia for the last 5000 years? If not, you also have to see that their history transcends time and borders of today. Nobody is trying to lay a claim to Iranian lands or culture u know :)) Baristarim 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to make Wikipedia a better place, that is why I find it so shocking that it is always the same people who seem to be starting trouble for no reason with ridiculous things. Kurdish history is about one group, not a whole race. The Turkic history template is simply misleading and inaccurate. Tell me, how are the histories of Huns and Mughals connected? They are not. This template is just a sad attempt to portray a nationalistic feeling. This has nothing to do with Iran or Iranian culture at all. If this template stays, then I will immediatly create an History of Indo Europeans template, because, according to you guys, its ok to bunch up a whole racial group into one template, whether their histories are related or not.'Khosrow II 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go ahead. Study of the history of Turks is not a sad attempt to do anything, it is a very legitimate field of study because history of Turkey and history of Turks are not the same thing. As I said, Turks have emigrated to Anatolia after 1071, where were they before then? I will repeat one last time, that history of Turks as a race has been divided over time and space, whether some people like it or not! And as for the Kurdish history template. What does that mean that "it is about one group, not a whole race"?? Are you joking? Kurdish people as a group is the same thing as Kurdish people as a race. Or is Kurdish people as a group different than Kurdish people as a race?? If there is a difference, what is it? Look, you have said that there weren't any "history of people/race" templates, I just showed you that there are, Jews and Kurds. And Jews have their own country, but what is important is that a major part of their history has passed outside of Israel. Look, there is no one-size fits all policy on this, it is case by case. As an emigrating nation, history of Turks template has a very legitimate raison d'etre. I also don't understand this Turkic/Turk argument. There is no such thing as "Turkic". That is an invented word. What exists are "Turks" and "Turkish citizens" (citizens of RoT). There are many Turkish citizens who are not Turks (Kurds, blacks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians etc), and there are many Turks who are citizens of other countries. I am not at all saying this to pretend that Turks of today have many similarities nor to launch a crusade to reunite all the Turks of the world. But please understand that I, along with some other Turkish editors, find it very offensive to be treated as pan-Turkists or racist for pointing this out. Please tell me, what can I, or some other Turkish editors, do to assure you that there is no pan-Turkist crusade going on? I seriously mean it. Look, whether you believe it or not, I don't like pan-Turkism. If there were any such edits, I would revert them. Well, in any case, I don't want this vote to become a debate between me and you, so I will end my lecture :)) cheers! Baristarim 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: what i said about Turk/Turkic was not an attempt to pretend that the history of Turks in Turkmenistan is at all similar to the Turks of Turkey. They are completely different to a point of irreconciliability, as evolution of languages attest. What I was trying to say however, the similarities that still exist prevent their complete separation into different races. But just know that, I was not trying to pretend that they should be reunited or something. I only use Turkic as an adjective, not to define a different nation. As for the connection between the history of different Turkic states et al. I cannot pinpoint the exact connection between Huns and Mughals maybe since I am not an expert, but what I do know is that a majority of the states listed in the template are extremely linked to one another to the point where they wouldn't have existed without the other in a historical timeline. Ottomans, Republic of Turkey, Seljuqs, Turkish beyliks, Gokturks and other smaller states are connected in a timeline, just like the dynasties of China or Iran. If there were no Seljuqs, there would not have been Anatolian Turkish beyliks, and therefore Ottomans would not have existed, and as such there would not have been Turkey today. So there is your connection. Baristarim 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems straightforward enough to me. I know these things can turn into nationalistic quagmires but, jingoism aside, it makes sense as a template. I'm not really certain that it's needed, but I don't see any reason why it needs to be deleted, either. Kafziel ^Talk 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a navigation template which simplifies surfing through Turkish states in History. It has nothing to do with ethnocentrisim, please assume good faith. It's not an article, its entries just shows that the mentioned state contains somewhat related with Turkish history, that's it. If we consider the templates from the negative side, we should also nominate other templates for deletion also. I still do not understand how a navigation template turned out to be nominated for deletion. The template can be improved in the futute, if you want to contribute, better to state your comments in the talk/discussion page, rather than voting for deletion. I support keeping this template. E104421 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a racial-based POV template to lump many pages to Turkey, based on outdated racial theories. For example, Khwarezmian Empire or Ghaznavid Empire have nothing to do with the history of Turkey, they didn't control any part of Turkey, to be a part of "Turkish History". They might have had "Turkic" elements, as in related to Turkic people, but that's disputed and racialist in nature. --Mardavich 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actual contents of the template could be discussed, but there is no policy against "history of people/race" templates, as shown by "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates (the latter talks about religion AND race). As such, there is no need for deletion. History of Turkey as a country is not the same thing as History of Turks. History of Turkey also includes Byzantine, Hitite etc. elements, whereas, as an emigrating nation, "Turks" have a different history. Not unless, of course, you are claiming that Turks have been living in Turkey since 5000 BC :)))) Baristarim 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Why do this iranian gang sabotage all Turkish related articles? Keep of course...--Karcha 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Khoi khoi 02:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP your personal attacks at once or you will be blocked. Khorshid 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see any personal attack. Is there? To whom? Please stop to put unmeaningles tags here.Mustafa Akalp ^TC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turkic history is not the same thing as Turkish history. This template is Pan-Turkist.--Euthymios 11:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]