![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 19. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
If you are here then you noticed the template. This is based off of the template {{ Sep11}} and is intended to group articles related to this topic. -- StuffOfInterest 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do some victims get more attention than the others? I see the three notable victims are professors, but what about the students? The fair thing would be either to list all of the victims or none. That's just my two cents of course. I agree. I think this very 'notoriety' is probably what set Cho off in the first place. contribs).
Though I support retaining the template itself, I question the inclusion of this section of the template no matter what you call it, or the template's inclusion in this or any of the other bio articles of otherwise notable people who died in the shootings. Within the bio articles, it is unbalancing, placing far too much emphasis on the manner of their deaths, as if the rest of their lives was a mere footnote to their deaths -- very tasteless, too. The fact that they died in the shootings is already included in those articles, & Wikipedia users interested in the bios of otherwise notable victims can find these articles by way of the List of victims article, where they are all wikilinked. -- Yksin 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose dropping the map image out of this template. It just takes up more space than justified. -- StuffOfInterest 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I will try not to turn this into a revert war, but i don't think her link she but kept. Given that the template itself is already under question... adding links to articles who are probable for deletion seems foolish. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, that link should be changed from "Media Inaccuracy" to "Inaccurate Reports". At first glance, the term "Media Inaccuracy" suggests that the media as a whole has been inaccurate, whereas the article itself is more of a review of inaccurate reports. -- Bletch 12:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this irks so many people, but I do think that it needs to be reformatted.
Instead of the extant design, I think it needs to be a non-intrustive navbox at the bottom, such as:
The sidebar style is usually reserved for huge topics, like Quantum mechanics or Esperanto. I think a navbox that lies low, like the Beethoven one above, would attract fewer deletionist agendas. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope none of those comments were made with any cutting sarcasm. I certainly meant no offense on your behalf, and I apologize if you received my comment in that manner. Furthermore, I am neither endorsing nor expunging this template (see struck comment). But as it were, there is no consensus either way, and it will most likely stay. If it survives, I think it would serve a great function for this event only because it is a hot event that many readers looking for centralized content would want to know about. I, personally, don't consider this a critical issue, but you definitely should reiterate that argument on a more visible page.
On a brief digression, I solicit your excellent template skills for determining whether {{ UCLA}} should be redone. It seems to me slightly larger and less picturesque than the others, which are solely your creations. ALTON .ıl 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that the TfD has ended, how about readressing the inclusion of victim articles? It seems pretty much a conclusion that any student articles will go, but several of the professor articles have already survived AfD. The biggeset debate ongoing right now seems to be over non-professor teachers. If we can find an appropriate title to use, such as "Victims (with articles)", should these article links be included in the template? -- StuffOfInterest 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very confused as to the implication of these individuals' involvement in the massacre. Both Giovanni and Roy taught Cho, the perpetrator, and Giovanni spoke at the ceremony. Both are highly regarded English faculty members at VT. However, they are neither victims nor perpetrators. Categorizing them under "people" amongst victims and the individual who committed the crime seems highly out of place; it implies that they had a larger part to play other than doing their jobs, speaking to the media after the incident, and giving a speech. I suggest they be removed from the template, or be classified under a different section. "People" is far too broad. María ( habla con migo) 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I state this not as a member of the VT community, as I am not, nor did I personally know any of the victims, though I do know people who did know victims.
I don't have any issue with the box linking to victims who have Wiki pages. Nor do I think every victim meets the requirements of having his/her own article. However, I strongly believe that using the term 'Notable Victims' is wrong. To those of us who frequent Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense. 'Notable' is a term commonly used within the community to describe something as being article-worthy. However, take a step outside of the Wikipedia community, and read it as an individual without any familiarity to the project's policies & terms may read it. To only state that "These 5 people are the notable victims" comes off as saying "These 5 people who died meant something, these others were not really noteworthy". Yes, if you read the entire article, you know that no one of the lives lost was any less tragic than another.
Is Emily Hilsher not notable?
Did Ryan Clark not ever make a difference in someones life?
How about Matt La Porte?
Or Erin Peterson?
What did Leslie Sherman not do to make her loss of less note than anyone else?
What makes those 5 randomly selected names "Not Notable"? No, they don't have the notability for their own Wikipedia Article. But in this template, 5 individuals are prominently elevated as being "Notable".
The box is useful, and the 5 links should remain. However, I simply urge for a simple change in title to something that would not be found offensive to someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia's terminology, because I guarantee you there's plenty of people connected to these "Non-notable" victims that feel they are every bit as notable as any of the others. Coastalsteve984 ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What about Instructors Killed? The people on the list are precisely the victims who were instructors (most of whom, by the way, are not notable by dint of WP:PROF, unlike what is suggested above). -- Lambiam 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the "victims" links citing WP:NOTAMEMORIAL as well as WP:UNDUE. While the shooting is a tragedy in every sense, Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize any one person or group of people. I do not believe that this template should exist, but will not contest it if its used as an informational/academic device to point Readers at other related articles. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The Navbox lists main articles and also links to the Category for the main article, its hardly non-useful. The Sept 11 vertical template that it was copied from was deleted in favor of a horizontal template, so perhaps we should follow suit. Obviously there are people who wish added emphasis be placed on this event, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it or memorialize the victims. Please do not add back the links for individuals, these people are already mentioned in the main article. Any additional emphasis is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Scalhotrod Contrary to your edit summary for your most recent reversion, any contested edit requires discussion and/or consensus (see WP:Consensus). My position is that your interpretation of the policy is incorrect, therefore, the edit is incorrect. That makes it controversial, requiring discussion and consensus. Your edits have reverted previous consensus to include links to the articles in an attempt to create a new consensus to delete those links. It is, therefore, your responsibility to seek consensus. Please stop deleting the links. There is very little point in having the template if it can't function as the navbox it was designed to be. Please seek consensus (perhaps even an WP:RFC) before making any further changes. Thank you.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Picking apart my comments make them no less poignant. You are asserting that these people should be included in a Navbox that is to highlight a "series of articles on the Virginia Tech massacre" because they are notable, but your logic conflicts with itself. They are notable in their own right and thus have their own articles, that makes their relation to the shooting coincidental unless you are asserting that the creation of their articles (and Notability) was because they are shooting victims? Which is it? The only logical way they should be included in the Navbox is if the intention behind their articles was to further explain or note some aspect of the incident, but none of the articles do that. Their Wikilinks in the body of the article should suffice, but you choose to highlight these people in a special template, why? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, based on what you stated above, it seems that a new deletion discussion should be started. And if you believe that the Navbox solves a potential orphan issue with the targeted articles, then perhaps a deletion discussion needs to be revisited for those articles as well. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Virginia Tech massacre → Template:Virginia Tech shooting – The article has been renamed; this template, the navbar, and the category should also be renamed 184.244.227.24 ( talk) 08:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 19. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
If you are here then you noticed the template. This is based off of the template {{ Sep11}} and is intended to group articles related to this topic. -- StuffOfInterest 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do some victims get more attention than the others? I see the three notable victims are professors, but what about the students? The fair thing would be either to list all of the victims or none. That's just my two cents of course. I agree. I think this very 'notoriety' is probably what set Cho off in the first place. contribs).
Though I support retaining the template itself, I question the inclusion of this section of the template no matter what you call it, or the template's inclusion in this or any of the other bio articles of otherwise notable people who died in the shootings. Within the bio articles, it is unbalancing, placing far too much emphasis on the manner of their deaths, as if the rest of their lives was a mere footnote to their deaths -- very tasteless, too. The fact that they died in the shootings is already included in those articles, & Wikipedia users interested in the bios of otherwise notable victims can find these articles by way of the List of victims article, where they are all wikilinked. -- Yksin 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose dropping the map image out of this template. It just takes up more space than justified. -- StuffOfInterest 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I will try not to turn this into a revert war, but i don't think her link she but kept. Given that the template itself is already under question... adding links to articles who are probable for deletion seems foolish. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, that link should be changed from "Media Inaccuracy" to "Inaccurate Reports". At first glance, the term "Media Inaccuracy" suggests that the media as a whole has been inaccurate, whereas the article itself is more of a review of inaccurate reports. -- Bletch 12:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this irks so many people, but I do think that it needs to be reformatted.
Instead of the extant design, I think it needs to be a non-intrustive navbox at the bottom, such as:
The sidebar style is usually reserved for huge topics, like Quantum mechanics or Esperanto. I think a navbox that lies low, like the Beethoven one above, would attract fewer deletionist agendas. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope none of those comments were made with any cutting sarcasm. I certainly meant no offense on your behalf, and I apologize if you received my comment in that manner. Furthermore, I am neither endorsing nor expunging this template (see struck comment). But as it were, there is no consensus either way, and it will most likely stay. If it survives, I think it would serve a great function for this event only because it is a hot event that many readers looking for centralized content would want to know about. I, personally, don't consider this a critical issue, but you definitely should reiterate that argument on a more visible page.
On a brief digression, I solicit your excellent template skills for determining whether {{ UCLA}} should be redone. It seems to me slightly larger and less picturesque than the others, which are solely your creations. ALTON .ıl 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that the TfD has ended, how about readressing the inclusion of victim articles? It seems pretty much a conclusion that any student articles will go, but several of the professor articles have already survived AfD. The biggeset debate ongoing right now seems to be over non-professor teachers. If we can find an appropriate title to use, such as "Victims (with articles)", should these article links be included in the template? -- StuffOfInterest 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very confused as to the implication of these individuals' involvement in the massacre. Both Giovanni and Roy taught Cho, the perpetrator, and Giovanni spoke at the ceremony. Both are highly regarded English faculty members at VT. However, they are neither victims nor perpetrators. Categorizing them under "people" amongst victims and the individual who committed the crime seems highly out of place; it implies that they had a larger part to play other than doing their jobs, speaking to the media after the incident, and giving a speech. I suggest they be removed from the template, or be classified under a different section. "People" is far too broad. María ( habla con migo) 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I state this not as a member of the VT community, as I am not, nor did I personally know any of the victims, though I do know people who did know victims.
I don't have any issue with the box linking to victims who have Wiki pages. Nor do I think every victim meets the requirements of having his/her own article. However, I strongly believe that using the term 'Notable Victims' is wrong. To those of us who frequent Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense. 'Notable' is a term commonly used within the community to describe something as being article-worthy. However, take a step outside of the Wikipedia community, and read it as an individual without any familiarity to the project's policies & terms may read it. To only state that "These 5 people are the notable victims" comes off as saying "These 5 people who died meant something, these others were not really noteworthy". Yes, if you read the entire article, you know that no one of the lives lost was any less tragic than another.
Is Emily Hilsher not notable?
Did Ryan Clark not ever make a difference in someones life?
How about Matt La Porte?
Or Erin Peterson?
What did Leslie Sherman not do to make her loss of less note than anyone else?
What makes those 5 randomly selected names "Not Notable"? No, they don't have the notability for their own Wikipedia Article. But in this template, 5 individuals are prominently elevated as being "Notable".
The box is useful, and the 5 links should remain. However, I simply urge for a simple change in title to something that would not be found offensive to someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia's terminology, because I guarantee you there's plenty of people connected to these "Non-notable" victims that feel they are every bit as notable as any of the others. Coastalsteve984 ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What about Instructors Killed? The people on the list are precisely the victims who were instructors (most of whom, by the way, are not notable by dint of WP:PROF, unlike what is suggested above). -- Lambiam 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the "victims" links citing WP:NOTAMEMORIAL as well as WP:UNDUE. While the shooting is a tragedy in every sense, Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize any one person or group of people. I do not believe that this template should exist, but will not contest it if its used as an informational/academic device to point Readers at other related articles. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The Navbox lists main articles and also links to the Category for the main article, its hardly non-useful. The Sept 11 vertical template that it was copied from was deleted in favor of a horizontal template, so perhaps we should follow suit. Obviously there are people who wish added emphasis be placed on this event, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it or memorialize the victims. Please do not add back the links for individuals, these people are already mentioned in the main article. Any additional emphasis is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Scalhotrod Contrary to your edit summary for your most recent reversion, any contested edit requires discussion and/or consensus (see WP:Consensus). My position is that your interpretation of the policy is incorrect, therefore, the edit is incorrect. That makes it controversial, requiring discussion and consensus. Your edits have reverted previous consensus to include links to the articles in an attempt to create a new consensus to delete those links. It is, therefore, your responsibility to seek consensus. Please stop deleting the links. There is very little point in having the template if it can't function as the navbox it was designed to be. Please seek consensus (perhaps even an WP:RFC) before making any further changes. Thank you.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Picking apart my comments make them no less poignant. You are asserting that these people should be included in a Navbox that is to highlight a "series of articles on the Virginia Tech massacre" because they are notable, but your logic conflicts with itself. They are notable in their own right and thus have their own articles, that makes their relation to the shooting coincidental unless you are asserting that the creation of their articles (and Notability) was because they are shooting victims? Which is it? The only logical way they should be included in the Navbox is if the intention behind their articles was to further explain or note some aspect of the incident, but none of the articles do that. Their Wikilinks in the body of the article should suffice, but you choose to highlight these people in a special template, why? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, based on what you stated above, it seems that a new deletion discussion should be started. And if you believe that the Navbox solves a potential orphan issue with the targeted articles, then perhaps a deletion discussion needs to be revisited for those articles as well. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Virginia Tech massacre → Template:Virginia Tech shooting – The article has been renamed; this template, the navbar, and the category should also be renamed 184.244.227.24 ( talk) 08:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)