Jump to content

Template talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope

[edit]

What is the criteria for inclusion of something as a "related event"? - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would do away with it. This sort of open-ended inclusion is how we ended up with the template about the January attacks on the November attacks article, which makes absolutely no sense. LjL (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the type of thing which concerns me, yes. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I repeatedly tried to remove it but it was repeatedly readded, and my complaining on the talk page was no use.
I think the right way to handle this sort of thing is to have a separate template (an "ISIL" template, for instance, which luckily already exists) listing the terrorist attacks they perpetrated. Then that template can be added to all the relevant pages. LjL (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the issue. Are the "related events" things that involved ISIL anywhere in the world, "terrorist" actions in 2015, "terrorist" actions in France, events involving so-called Muslim extremism ... the possibilities seem pretty endless without some sort of criteria. (I've been careful with my words because, for example, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, although I accept that the common view is that this was indeed a terrorist attack). - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band

[edit]

@178.94.166.186: re: Example text, I could ask why don't you try to reach a consensus before adding it? The band was on stage when the attacks happened, yes. Many things were happening at the same time, but this is a template that should link to the main related events and concepts, and these are just people who happened to be there. I don't see the relevant and I don't believe there is a worthwhile relevance. LjL (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC) °[reply]

I don't, either. Seems more like a way for a fan to get a mention of their favourite band in a navbox. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP reverted again with the same edit summary, even though we are here to reach a consensus, and the IP is not. Tells me something. LjL (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your one opinion is not consensus. 178.94.166.186 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush and me makes two, not one. On the other hand, you are one. And you are being disruptive. LjL (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for fourth and fifth opinion before removing it. 178.94.166.186 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. You added it, the burden is yours to justify the addition. LjL (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your point? LjL (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LjL is clearly wrong. I support 178.94.166.186. Yossimgim (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be WP:HOUNDING me. You came here out of the blue right after I had an argument with you on WP:ANEW. LjL (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I lived in Paris for 6 years. I have my own opinions on this matter. Please don't project accusations. Yossimgim (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must think editors and admins are stupid. LjL (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While stalking etc does go on, I don't think it is likely to impact greatly here and proving the pattern can be problematic. Certainly, one clash doesn't justify such a claim. I'd let it drop for now, LjL, unless you do indeed have evidence of some sort of pattern. That said, Yossimgim, your rationale is completely useless and will have no impact at all on any decision made regarding this discussion. I think you need to review WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was a fair bit bigger than the particular edit here. You can check the editor's contributions page... LjL (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did make this change without knowing this discussion was going ahead. It was then reverted. Oh well. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the individual band members and the support band are not necessary, but why would the main band themselves be excluded, John? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much irrelevant to the attacks. They survived, nothing happened concerning them. They're not a band of such notability that anyone thinking of the attack will think of the band, either (although people who know the band may conversely think of the attack, making a mention of the attack probably appropriate in the band's article). LjL (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but I was asking John and your comment of "They're not a band of such notability that anyone thinking of the attack will think of the band" is quite frankly bollocks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You probably failed to notice, but this is not John's talk page, it's a template's talk page. LjL (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No shit, professor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

@LjL: For your information, WWGB kept removing the template from the main article and the reactions article every time I added it with the simple edit summary of "Relevance?" I was confused myself. Check the article's edit history if you don't believe me. Parsley Man (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From which article? This is the template about the November 2015 Paris attacks, so in my view, it should only be included within the November 2015 Paris attacks article (although I've had disagreements about that sort of thing in the past). This templates includes events related to the Paris attacks, but it is, itself, about the Paris attacks, not those related events, so that's the article it belongs in. Anyway, see the section I've started below: what's the difference between the Brussels attacks and the other "Related events" listed? LjL (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2016 Brussels bombings article, I meant. Parsley Man (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsley Man: well then, as I said, I agree with WWGB that the template should probably not be included there, but that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be listed within the template. They are two separate things. The title of the template concerns the Paris attacks, not the Brussels attacks. LjL (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... Parsley Man (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Including the Brussels bombings

[edit]

The last time a mention of the 2016 Brussels bombings was removed from this template, it was done with the justification that they are not "notable", but clearly they must be very notable since they have a prominent article that was even featured on In The News. It was stated that WWGB was the one making this claim, but I don't see them editing this template or discussing it on this talk page; if it was discussed elsewhere, well, it wasn't the right place.

In any case, this template lists several attacks under "Related events" where the only thing in common is that they were seemingly perpetrated by ISIL, and I have seen no evidence or reasoning on why the Brussels bombings would somehow be different from other ISIL-perpetrated attacks in Western countries. Since the article about them does claim ISIL responsibility, with sources, until there is some concrete reason to differentiate those attacks, they should remain as part of this template.

The Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings article, on the other hand, has no place in this template. It is just a WP:SPINOUT of the main article and, as such, linked from within it; it shouldn't be linked from a separate template. LjL (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks&oldid=1234357158"