Template talk:Native American mascot controversy

Indigenous peoples of North America NA‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Discrimination Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

After a round of splitting to reduce the size of the main articles, I created this template in my user space to keep track of them. The number of articles seems sufficient to warrant general availability and usage.

When I created this template, I noticed that it was rarely the only one on a page, so I made it different from the default. I see not reason to reconsider this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, a more subtle color scheme, but differentiating from default.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly it signals that among the sports navboxes, this is a distinct topic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick survey, it appears that navbox colors are generally either the default or arbitrary. Exceptions are sports teams, and music groups; the latter having a color scheme specified in its template. Looking for social issues, I found that Genocide uses black on white, so I copied that.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, so basically you only added it because you wanted it to be different? I don't care enough to edit war over this anymore, but that is not really a valid reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93 You seem to misunderstand my reason. You assert color must be purely informational directly related to the topic? If so, you could be very busy changing all the non-conforming templates to the default color. Differentiation of elements on a web page serve other informational functions that promote interest and understanding. It is called web design.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, "You assert color must be purely informational directly related to the topic?" That's exactly it. Just adding color without any other reason has no benefit and usually ends up causing edit wars like this. Wikipedia should not be used as a testcase for web design, it's primary purpose should be to educate and spread knowledge. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secifying colors again, this time I used the basestyle parameter to specify a neutral background.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, you might as well just use no colors if you are trying to go neutral. I'm still not sure why you are so adamant on adding color here when it serves no actual purpose other than you liking it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my purpose, but you reject it. I selected neutral colors to avoid conflict with any apparently sacrosanct "team colors". I thought we had agreed to disagree.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since visual differentiation, as I outlined at the beginning of this section, is not understood as sufficient justification, I have changed to the pale yellow background used by the navbox on Native American rights as well as several other related topics.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder is needed that the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is Wikipedia has no firm rules. Apparently a second editor who usually works on sports related articles concurs with a rule regarding navbox colors, that "color must be purely informational directly related to the topic".

I have been an editor for ~14 years. My entire purpose is "to educate and spread knowledge", which mean I stick to topics that require expertise. My academic expertise is in the social sciences (BA and MA), my work experience has included being a computer programmer doing web-based applications, my life experience is as a visual artist. I am certain that the default color for navboxes (CCCCFF "periwinkle") was entirely arbitrary. My using another color for this topic is not a "testcase" but a reasoned decision that an alternative color furthers the purpose of providing information, in this case that on pages that have other navboxes mainly about sports, this navbox is a different category of topics. As I say above, other templates also vary from the default colors for similar reasons; color differentiation communicates. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, I still fail to see how adding arbitrary colors (this is the third color scheme I've seen in the last week) with no other connection to the topic is educating and spreading knowledge. Your point being that WP has no rules is just a crutch used to defend your own personal preference of keeping the colors (anybody can use this argument). Like I said before, I don't care enough to edit war on it anymore, but this would not likely be to able to convince other editors in a proper discussion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: Rearrangement yes, but not erasing history.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Sorry about the extra pings, got this in the wrong section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, it's all good. Hopefully the group name change is acceptable? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The team itself remains part of the topic, so there should be a direct link. Eventually there will be a new group of pro teams that changed; Redskins, Eskimos, and soon Indians, with links to both the new names and the old. Perhaps this would include Golden State.

By the way, I tried to AfD the "Redhawks" but it failed.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said take it to the talk page and even though I'm not the original person who changed, I'd like to suggest that it at least be denoted. Cleveland and Atlanta are *clearly* at different points here. The template that I'm most familiar with is Template:Same-sex unions which has in the past (there are none currently) noted with * those where the country has already completely confirmed that it will happen, but there is an implementation date.Naraht (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the early announcement of the name the Cleveland Indians will play as next season, I also pondered when to make changes to the many articles that refer to the team. The deciding factor for me was that the main article

WP:CRYSTAL only applies to speculation. Confirmed future events (which an announced name change is) are exempt from that. That being said, we should wait until the main article gets moved. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As I put in the section above, I think preferred would be to leave it where it is, but add a note (probably an asterisk) and explain at the bottom of the template that an asterisk is "Announced but not implemented". There are certainly limits to Crystal (we are fine with an article for the 2022 World Cup), but this more of a "Will be implemented". And even if someone managed to find a good reason *not* to use the Guardians, (Let's say at random that the Cleveland Guardians was the name of the local branch of the Klan from 1920-1950), I simply can't see them playing as the Indians in 2022.Naraht (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]