Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2

[edit]

Template:Belgrave (band)

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgrave (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. No navigation. Mhiji (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Bruce Forsyth

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bruce Forsyth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary navbox. Mhiji (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, why not use it instead? Looks ok to me... Rehman 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, take a look at the links in the infobox. On which of those articles are you going to place this template? I don't think television articles want navboxes for individual participants. If they didn't the entire bottom of the page would explode with navboxes. A navbox is good for navigating a collection of subpages, but none of these pages are really a subpage Bruce Forsyth. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up, going through the links, it appears someone just took the navbox for Will-i-am and repurposed it, without changing the links. I am going to attempt to clean it up. After that, it may well be a useful navigation box. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent I fixed the problem that the navbox was filled with Will-i-am links, by replacing it with a list of his shows. However, these need to be cleaned up a bit before I can say if it is a viable navbox. What a mess! 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your earlier comment that we don't want navboxes for individual participants. If we did put this box on every page thats linked to within it and made similar infoboxes for other presenters there would be hundreds of navboxes at Have I Got News For You! There's already a list of his appearances on the Bruce Forsyth page already at Bruce_Forsyth#Television_and_film therefore putting it on that page would not help. There's a trend with TV articles to have navboxes for the programmes rather than the presenters and have a list on the presenter page of TV appearances. Other presenters do not have navboxes so I don't think we should start a trend really... Mhiji (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mhiji. Kudpung (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Bbref

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bbref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (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 section.
[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, per T3. Rehman 14:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bury-Altrincham line link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Jetlag

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jetlag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Jetlag2

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jetlag2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Hamlets in England

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are thousands of Hamlets in England, linking them all into one template is a pretty tenous link. Including buildings in hamlets is shakier still. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk is also going to be proposed for deletion for the same reasons. Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Religious text primary

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious text primary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete for the following reasons: (1) This template grew out of a previous TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30#Template:BibleAsFact and was supposed to "improve" on it, but has not. (2) On the surface, the template may appear to be aimed at all religions, but in reality it is exclusively used against only Biblical, mostly Judaic and also Christian, topics See: Pages that link to "Template:Religious text primary". (3) On the other hand, for example, NOT ONE of Islam's Category:Qur'an and Category:Hadith or Hinduism's Category:Hindu texts, all filled abundant texts that are used in even more articles, ever get slapped with this template in its over two years of existence. (4) It is therefore obvious that this template is used to push for an anti-Biblical POV on the specious grounds that it's asking for "better" "secondary sources" and violates WP:NPOV in its language when it presumes to elevate one set of literature (secular) over another (religious, in this case Jewish and Christian). (5) Therefore, this is an open and shut case of a violation of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and it also violates WP:NPOV policies since Wikipedia is neither pro nor anti the Bible or any subject really, it is NEUTRAL. (6) It's actually funny because the Bible is the world's oldest and most widely relied-upon book (the word "Bible" means "book" in Greek) and it would look very funny if articles about scientific theories would carry the proviso that they are not reliable unless sourced by the Bible. (7) Anyhow, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 29#Template:NotJudaism when "Template:NotJudaism" was deleted on the grounds that it was "Inflammatory and divisive" and to be consistent this should be no different. (8) Even archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, perhaps the most notable advocate of the minimalist school critical of the factual accuracy of many Biblical narratives, have not taken a position as strong as assuming that everything the Bible says about history should be presumed "false" as this template obviously implies. This template incorporates this extreme position and runs counter to all religion editors' considered consensus to report Biblical narratives describing the ancient monarchies and the like with neutrality as to their factual accuracy, and then give various perspectives including that of theologians, historians, archaeologists and others. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons: (1) This is a special case of Template:Primary sources suited to religious texts. I can't see how the wording's neutrality can be improved unless we want to get rid of it and use Template:Primary sources itself. (2) Religious texts of all kinds are not considered reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. (Similarly, neither are the Ilias or the Heike Monogatari.) Pointing that out seems worthwhile because articles on religious topics are often sourced only to religious texts. (3) That the template is currently used mainly (or even exclusively) on Judeo-Christian topics is irrelevant. If IZAK feels that certain articles on Islam or Hinduism only rely on religious texts as sources, he can easily add this template. (4) I can't judge what the Template:NotJudaism used to say, but this one doesn't seem divisive or inflammatory. Thus, I don't see the analogy. (5) The template does not claim or imply that everything religious texts say about history should be presumed false. But it shouldn't be presumed true either. All the template does is ask for secondary sources. If scholar X concluded in journal Y that the religious text in question is historically accurate, fine, add that. Huon (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following: Primary sources, including religious texts, are OK to use as long they are carefully employed to supports a description of what the source says. Further interpretation or synthesis must rely on secondary or tertiary sources. That is not the impression I think many editors would gather from the current template. The existing Template:Primary sources is sufficient to cover misuse of religious primary texts, is free of any perceived anti-religious or anti-article bias by encouraging editors to supply better references, and is less likely to be illegitimately employed by edit warriors. • Astynax talk 03:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the {{Primary sources}} template is more than sufficient and that therefore there is no need to have yet another duplicate template that is deployed exclusively against Jewish and Christian Bible topics. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: where the template is being applied is where primary sources are not just being used to convey what the source says, but also that it is history. Furthermore, even when we use primary sources purely to describe what a source says, the analysis of secondary and tertiary sources is still desirable (compare our articles on films - we prefer them to contain more than just a "plot" section). Jheald (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with Astynax that Template:Primary sources covers all such misuse of religious texts that the discussed tag may be directed against.
    P.S.: I take exception to IZAK's saying that the Bible is the oldest book, it is a highly illuminating book no doubt(I've read it partly), and certainly widely read and studied but its surely not the oldest book. Tamicus (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Tamicus: Your observation is well-taken. However, the Bible is the world's oldest most famous and by far the most influential book. I agree that the words "one of the world's oldest books" would be more specific, but it's just that no other known ancient book, dating back 3,000+ years, is on a par with the Bible which is in a class all of its own. IZAK (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IZAK only appeals to the religiousness and gullibility of editors in this dishonest attempt to get rid of a template that may implicitly critique his religious beliefs. The Bible, or any other religious book, is not reliable when it comes to establishing history. In many articles religious texts are abused to convey some history that is inaccurate or plainly made-up. That is what the template is intended to prevent. NOTHING in the Bible that is assigned to any time prior to the 10th century has been confirmed archaeologically or through historical research. Any articles that touch on issues that would be relevant in t history of the ANE as well as in biblical contexts must be written so that they unmistakably show the biblical references as unscientific and unconfirmed. Also the phrase "according to the bible..." is insufficient, because it implies that the issue is real and only the details in depicting the issue may vary from source to source and the bible being one of the sources. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly CUSH devalues himself by resorting to violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, against a fellow user, in his usual ultra-secular anti-religious POV diatribe, that in fact he openly trumpets on his own user page. He would take all the world's religions, none of which was "invented" by any of us, that collectively add up to tens of thousands of years of knowledge, wisdom and morality, and sacrifice them all on the ash-heap of atheism's altar because of his anti-religion highly POV prejudices, while in truth and fact WP is neither an anti- nor pro- religion encyclopedia. It would be great to debate all the issues with him on their merits but tragically the only "method" he knows is slashing and burning anything that he deems is connected with any religion, in fits of obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT that do not become a user of such high caliber. How sad and what a shame! IZAK (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real shame is that editors like you use religious sources to distort history towards religious doctrine. That is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia and is supposed to present accurate information. That excludes information for which no evidence exists. The entire mythical stuff that the Bible assigns to the 15th to 10th centuries BCE has no archaeological and historical confirmation whatsoever. And articles that do not make it sufficiently clear that their content is derived solely from a religious source that is detached from reality need a tag so that editors know that there is work to do and that secondary sources that evaluate the primary source are needed. And just starting an article with "according to <religious source>" is not sufficient. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with the bias inherent in your words. This is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present all significant points of view, especially where no one school of thought has determined on behalf of all the others what is "accurate". We can't exclude describing a significant POV just because you personally don't feel it is "accurate". We describe them anyway. There are many different views of history for the timeframe 1500-1000 BC, believe it or not. There are almost as many different theories on various aspects as there are authors. There is no monolithic "Grand Central Politburo" that determines whose views are "accurate" and whose aren't. And yes, the view of history presented in the Bible is one of these views of history, and yes, it is a significant and widespread point of view for many, in varying degrees. And it hasn't been utterly and compellingly disproven to everyone's universal satisfaction and agreement, last I had heard - despite what you may think. Therefore, NPOV policy means just what it has always meant from the very beginning: ideally, we present all the widespread points of view significant to a given topic even-handedly and neutrally, without excluding any, an without attempting to use this project as a vehicle to get our favorite hypothesis declared "accurate" and all the others "inaccurate". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not believe that any of the reasons offered in the nomination justify deletion. Regardless of the origin and historical use of the template, its wording and message is neutral and most definitely not limited to Christianity-related topics. As Huon noted, the template neither claims nor suggests that "everything the Bible says about history should be presumed 'false'". It merely stresses the importance of and need for reliable, secondary sources. There are, of course, circumstances when it is appropriate and useful to utilize primary sources, but that fact does not nullify the core policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Even if there is consensus to discontinue use of this template, the proper course of action would be to replace transclusions of the template with {{Primary sources}}, not to just remove all transclusions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed Black Falcon, the {{Primary sources}} template is more than sufficient which only reinforces the need for this duplicate and blatantly prejudiced template (that's only deployed against select Judeo-Christian subjects!) to go. IZAK (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing prevents the use of this template in articles about topics related to Islam, Hinduism and other religions. A case could be made that the template duplicates the function of {{Primary sources}}—although {{Primary sources}} is perhaps a little too generic—but I see nothing "blatantly prejudiced" about it. From a technical standpoint, I would support merging the two templates by means of a "religious-text" or "rt" parameter in {{Primary sources}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Black Falcon: What you say is all very nice, but the facts remain as I have stated them in the nomination in point "(2) On the surface, the template may appear to be aimed at all religions, but in reality it is exclusively used against only Biblical, mostly Judaic and also Christian, topics See: Pages that link to "Template:Religious text primary" please review all the articles it's deployed at, funny how it's only at articles related to Judaism or Christianity. Thanks for noting that reality, IZAK (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How the template has been used and whether it should be used are separate issues. Where it is currently used is irrelevant as long as nothing prevents its use for other topics. The fact that the template has not been consistently deployed just highlights the need for further deployment unless, of course, the template should not be used in general. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi again Black Falcon: On the contrary, you are only proving my point, that this template reveals a double-standard at work because since it is quite evident that in its two years of existence this template has only been deployed for one purpose of "warning" and "requiring" "higher standards" of Biblically-derived topics above and beyond any others and that it has never been used against any other religions except against Judaism and Christianity, that time has shown and proven that it will almost certainly not be used against any other religions in the future, and that it should therefore be deleted as a below the radar POV-pushing template. IZAK (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't dispute the existence of a discrepancy or inconsistency in the use of this template. However, if the template has been used or poorly or misused, which seems to be the point you're making, then the problem lies not with the template but with whoever misused the template. I have read and re-read the text of the template and there is absolutely nothing which limits its scope to Biblical topics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Black Falcon, you are focusing on one point, while in all, I gave at least eight reasons to delete. IZAK (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I understand, but as I stated at the beginning I don't think that any of them justify deletion. The first three reasons are related to the origin and current usage of the template. The fourth and fifth reasons appeal to WP:NPOV, but I think that the interpretation is incorrecting, since adhering to a "neutral point of view" is not the same as making absolutely no judgments about the reliability or usability of sources. The fifth reason also cites WP:NDA, but that guideline specifically makes an exception for article message box templates which "point to deficiencies in [an] article that should be corrected". The sixth reason ("the Bible is the world's oldest and most widely relied-upon book") seems to ignore Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The seventh reason, citing the deletion of Template:NotJudaism, does not apply, in my opinion, as I can see nothing inflammatory or divisive about this template. The eighth reason is based on a misinterpretation of the template: it does not, in any way, suggest that "everything the Bible says about history should be presumed 'false'", and merely requests improvement of the article via the addition of reliable secondary sources—something which is completely consistent with the original research and verifiability policies. The only other reason—the assertion that {{Primary sources}} is sufficient—is also questionable (see, e.g., Jheald's comments dated "22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)" and "09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)"). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon: We have both stated our positions quite well. There are enough "Delete" and "Keep" votes that agree with either you or me, so no use going around in circles. Vive la différence! Let's see what the rest say. IZAK (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. :) "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress." – Mohandas Gandhi. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template is much clearer and more direct about what is wrong with these articles than {{Primary sources}}, which by comparison can seem vague, cryptic, and unimportant. The directness, and on-policy nature of this template (indeed its creator, User:Shirahadasha, is herself an observant Torah Jew) are why it is worth keeping. Some have speculated above that its directness is also why it has been nominated for deletion. Whether or not that is true (and we should WP:AGF), we should ask ourselves: Is this template an effective tool for bringing articles closer to policy? The answer is yes. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also look at the nominator's position, which simply doesn't add up. He says this template argues that everything the Bible says about history should be presumed as "false". But the template doesn't. What the template says is that everything such a religious text says about history would also benefit from what secondary sources that analyse such claims have to say about them -- that's directly in line with WP:PSTS, and it's policy to seek out what those secondary sources say when they overwhelmingly support the primary account, as well as when they question it. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also surprised by the nom's comments that he feels the template should be deleted because it isn't being used widely enough. If the nom feels that there are similar problems with articles in Category:Qur'an, Category:Hadith or Category:Hindu texts, then (as I do) he should welcome this template as an equal-opportunity tool to try to get them put right. Jheald (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jheald: Without going around in circles, but your last point that "I" should go and add this template into articles citing Islamic and Hindu texts is ridiculous, while the fact that no one dares to do so, even veteran Islamic and Hindu scholars and editors, only proves that it will not happen simply because they fear a backlash and that therefore, by default, this template is used against only the "soft" targets of Judaism- and Christianity-related Biblical topics, and therefore it should go because of its use as only a biased tool. IZAK (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template is a valuable tool for editors to improve articles. Even if it is only used to improve some articles, it is still valuable; but it's available for wider use, and I hope it will get wider use. Jheald (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this template's usage and related links, it's obviously been a "valuable tool" to only one set of editors, those opposing Judeo-Christian-related articles. That is what's called a double-standard and hence it's inherently a template that engenders itself to violations of WP:NEUTRALITY. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could have said it shorter. :) Debresser (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARY and also Huon. I'm gonna include a quote from WP:PRIMARY here: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." If we follow that policy, then articles based entirely (or even mostly) on religious primary sources should have this template on them as a heads-up for readers and as a notice for editors. Also, this template isn't POV-pushing. It's incredibly neutrally-worded. So this template isn't transcluded onto articles in categories about Islam. Why don't you go ahead, be bold, and add it to articles about other religions that rely solely on primary sources instead of nominating this for deletion? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we have an acceptable template already that does not focus on religion or any other factor other than "primary sources". -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Cymru lass: It is all very well for you to advise from the sidelines that "I" should be "bold" and run and slap this template onto "problem articles" in Islam yet (like telling me to stick my head into the metaphoric and even real editorial fire that would ignite instant WP:WAR, with a Judaic editor "daring" to insert a controversial template into the Islamic domain on WP), but as I have stated, in its more than two years of existence no one has dared to do that simply because it would unleash a backlash of protests from Islam editors, so therefore by default, the template is left as a one-sided one-issue tool to be used against Judaism- and Christianity-related articles that makes sense especially since there are better ways to do with a similar template requesting secondary sources. IZAK (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If no one has tried to put this template on Islamic articles in the entirety of its existence, then how do you know that it would cause backlash? Not all Muslims are hot under the collar, and not all editors of articles on Islam are Muslim. You never know if you don't try! Also, I would like to point out that your reaction to the use of this template (seeing it as an attack) is similar to the reaction you assume editors of articles on Islam would have. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi again Cymru.lass: Thanks for responding. Keep your cool. I am stating an obvious fact, that in over two years, this template has only targeted Judeo-Christian-related articles. That's a fact, as based on the template's own related links as cited in the TfD above, see point "(2) On the surface, the template may appear to be aimed at all religions, but in reality it is exclusively used against only Biblical, mostly Judaic and also Christian, topics See: Pages that link to "Template:Religious text primary"." So by all means feel free to draw your own conclusions, as I have presented mine quite frankly and honestly, but please do not put words in my mouth. If you or anyone here who is voting "Keep" wishes to place this template on Islamic- or Hindu- or any other religion related articles, feel free to do so and please follow your own advice, even though this has been studiously avoided for over two years now. Let me know what happens when you do. Bottom line, there cannot be a double-standard, one for Judeo-Christian-related articles and another for the rest of the world's religions that all have notable texts that have been poked full of holes by so-called "secondary sources" but no one wants to open that can of worms for fear of the repercussions. What don't I get? Thanks for your consideration. IZAK (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, true. I'm not exactly the world's first and foremost expert in organized religion, being a Deist, but I do have a basic understanding of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and am coming at each from roughly the same viewpoint, so why don't I look through some of the Islam articles and see if they rely primarily on primary sources? (Can't figure out how to word that one un-awkwardly... oh well!) If there are any particular articles that you have in mind, why don't you put a list on here or on my talkpage? I'll look them over as soon as I can (no guarantees on how soon, though, my studies have been known to drag me away from the Wikipedia gods ). --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 09:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems useful and likely to be aplied, and is worded well. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normal sourcing guidelines apply, no need for exceptions for religious texts and hence no need for a dedicated template. JFW | T@lk 06:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Huon and Black Falcon. Template is neutrally-worded, none of the nom's arguments stack up. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Discussion mentioned at WT:PSTS and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, with a question about enhancing Template:Primary sources. Jheald (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. Problem templates targeting specific problems in specific problem areas is perfectly appropriate. The uncritical citation of the Bible, Church Fathers, and other primary sources is a severe problem in many articles. Thus, the tagging is correct. The existence of other unaddressed areas or uncorrected issues holds no bearing in deletion discussions. The rules being applied more strictly to X topic than Y subject holds no bearing as to whether that rule or template is appropriate. Of course Judaism and Christianity face more scrutiny in an English speaking venue; English speakers are more like to be exposed to and familiar with Judaism and Christianity. None of the arguments for deletion express any rational policy or practical justification for deletion, but instead run counter to the long-standing traditions of the English wiki (SOFIXIT, other crap doesn't matter, etc). Vassyana (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pointed out to me that the nom includes NPOV justification. I still maintain there is no rational policy justification forwarded. The nom claims that NPOV is being violated by one type of literature being elevated over another. NPOV is not some mythical neutral point or "fair view"; NPOV is presenting a topic as it appears in the body of available reputable sources. His claim runs counter to the very foundation of the three core content policies. Reputable, scholarly sources are elevated above primary religious sources as a matter of course in our content policies. The nom may not like it, but that's the way it is and has been for quite some time. A long-term editor arguing that favoring reliable secondary sources over ancient primary sources is a violation of NPOV is either clueless surprisingly unaware of our basic policies or disingenuous. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vassyana: while your erudite comments are most welcome, your disparaging and condescending violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not. Kindly apologize for your latter comments that "A long-term editor arguing that favoring reliable secondary sources over ancient primary sources is a violation of NPOV is either clueless or disingenuous."! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also seem to misconstrue AGF. It is a presumption that applies in the absence of evidence, not an absolute shield. I acknowledge the NPA violation borne of hasty and unduly insulting wording. For that, I apologize and have corrected my statement. The essential point remains intact: I cannot see how a long-term editor, especially one that has been involved in a multitude of conflicts and policy discussions, can make an argument about policy that directly conflicts with a widely repeated, fundamental principle that is an inseparable part of our core content policies and have it rationally interpreted as anything but a startling lack of knowledge or gamesmanship. Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vassyana: Those who know me, know that I do not play word games, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I can tell prejudice when I see it and there is no point in calling this template anything but a one-sided tool to attack only one kind of articles, those related to the Biblical heritage of Judaism and Christianity. Had the template been deployed at least a couple of times in relation to other religious then I could see that my assumptions were lacking, but based on the existing evidence as it is, it has not been, so my points are quite cogent, as the many who are voting to "Delete" agree with me as well. No one is saying that requiring secondary sources on WP is problematic and that is not the point. I am looking at not just what this template "says" it claims to want, but "how" and "when" it has been deployed and in that instance this is a very problematic template. Therefore, for you to dredge up personal complaints or degrade the perspicacity and wisdom of a fellow user is utterly unacceptable. Stick to the points and merits of the TfD and please do NOT personalize this debate by dragging nonsensical and absurd arguments into it. Stick to the subject and please avoid attacking the nominator and in that way violating WP:NPA. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said, that the template "violates WP:NPOV in its language when it presumes to elevate one set of literature (secular) over another (religious, in this case Jewish and Christian)". That is the exact opposite of the truth. I strongly recommend you re-read that policy, as well as WP:PSTS, WP:V, & WP:RS. Your other complaints are largely "so fix it" problems. I promise you that my next 100 edits will be adding this template to articles besides Judaism and Christianity topics. I will also post a request at WikiProjects Religion and Countering Systemic Bias for editors to help apply the template equally and appropriately across all religious areas. You've got the last word. I don't want to bog the discussion down further. If you want to continue discussing this, please hit my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia is chock full of articles that quote a few religious source verses (most commonly Bible in my experience, but that may be biased by what articles I'm a regular on), selected to lead you to some (implicit WP:Synthesis) conclusion. This happens with religious texts far more frequently than with secular ones, so I see no reason why we shouldn't have a template specifically tailored for this eventuality. Also, unlike most secular primary sources cited on Wikipedia, the religious texts in question are typically written in an antique form of a foreign language, meaning that issues of translation and meaning become even more critical, making a good secondary source all-but-essential. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change color to yellow. 71.252.113.85 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The applicability of this template depends completely on how the sources are used in the article. Religious sources are completely acceptable in a situation where their content is being discussed or explained. The reason for keeping this kind of a template would be the cases in which religious sources are being used as credible evidence to the contrary of observed facts (e.g. natural sciences). The primary sources template seems to do this job pretty well but I'm not sure whether there still should be a more specific template for religious subjects, so for now I vote "keep". But, regarding user IZAK's reasons for deleting the template: the fact that this template might have not been used consistently in all religious article is related to the nature of how Wikipedia works: people edit only what they are interested in, other people editing non-biblical religious articles might not even have known about the existence of this template. IZAK seems to want to argue based on one geologists opinion and the age of the Bible that it could also be used as an equal source in articles related to the scientifically observable world. I don't see how defending the "truth value" of the Bible (based on his personal beliefs so it seems) is in any way related to keeping or deleting this template. Thus, only his point no. (1) was in any way related to the actual discussion. --piksi (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - original research interpreting religious texts is quite common. This template explains the error and distinguishes it from other type of primary source usage. A useful template. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is indiscriminately being added to too many articles on religious topics: see here for instance. (Examples: Nighantu which is not religious at all; Saṃsāra (Buddhism) which is mostly sourced (search the page for "Waldron"); Matsya Purana which describes the contents pretty much as secondary sources do, Yellow Emperor where pretty much every line is sourced. Of course some of these articles have problems and sourcing issues, but that does not mean this template make sense.) If an article describes the contents of a religious text — usually based on a description in some secondary source, even if no source is cited as such — or narrates the plot/outlines of a religious myth/story, this does not automatically mean that the article is using a religious text as a primary source. If an article about a novel or a film narrates its plot or lists its characters, we don't accuse it of using the novel/film as a primary source; at most we can say it's unreferenced. In fact, this template is being added to articles that don't have a source at all (and already have a tag for being unreferenced); how much more absurd can it get than to accuse an article both of not using any sources, and of using some (unmentioned) text as a source? I see more cases where the template is just an unhelpful and inaccurate eyesore than cases where it actually helps; no evidence that this template helps anything. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nighantu is an ancient text and cites the ancient commentator Yaska; they are firmly Hindu texts. Samsara features a good-sized biased selection of religious text quotations, which are not explained by outside sources. The Matsya Purana notes the most important part of the story and that the norms of standard Vedic life were revealed in the text, both of which need secondary sourcing. The Yellow Emperor makes several uncritical references to traditional and religious texts without secondary sources to provide context or counterpoint. If you have problems with the usage I am implementing, bring it up on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll discuss the specific examples and your usage on your talk page (apparently all ancient texts are religious texts?!), but is it your position that an article can be both unreferenced and use some text ("or texts") as source? If so, I mention again the absurdity of the position and reiterate my delete vote for now. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if Vassyana were over-eager in his application of the template, I don't see how that's a reason for deletion of the template itself. If we were to follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, inclusionists would have to argue for the deletion (heh!) of {{afd1}}. Huon (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The primary sources template is sufficient. This one is used by editors with an ax to grind against the Bible. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus: it's not that editor predilections wind up pointing this template with high or perfect exclusivity toward one subset of potential articles. It's that having such a template tempts editors of all stripes to use it to perpetuate RPOV/SPOV debates while pretending to be talking about something else, and a primar. And while evidence for that assertion is harder to come by, we all know that it's true, excuse me, verifiable. JJB 02:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: and use the editorial-free Template:Primary. I'm here to tell you someone's "next 100 edits" indiscriminately inserted the template into articles on literature, philosophy, abstract concepts, (especially boarderline subjects shared by both philosophical taoism, religious taoism, and, well... China), culture heros, mythical deities, numerous dragons, fictional characters... and the closest I've seen it get to an actual text that's held to be numinous was on Guo Xiang, the classic collected commentaries plus reader's digest version of Zhuang Zhou. Like so many of them, the article actually had a secondary source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I think this provided an ample demonstration of how disruptively it has been used, (and will continue to be). Now we know it effectively targets religions like Hindumism and Taoism because an English translation of the religious text was published along side anything like a comprehensive treatment; and it's practically a smart bomb for all those minority neopagan religions because if they have no religious text, any source can be considered the body of their religious text. All without having to fuss over reading it and making verifiable changes to the article. Please! just brand a philosopher like Mencius as religious text in a big box at the top of the page. It doesn't even matter if it contradicts the article. It works on theosophy, mythology, it works on fiction... after all, someone at sometime, somewhere might reasonably have called some part of the subject religious... and anyway, it's about improving the sourcing; that's all that's being suggested. And a tiny FYI for the reader, just so they know the sourcing is unreliable in those types of articles.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and many others. As Machine Elf 1735 noted, the "editorial-free Template:Primary" is sufficient for any situation where this template might be used. This template is an example of WP:CREEP that is not needed and can encourage POV-oriented tagging. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:OpenStreetmap

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OpenStreetmap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:REM

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:REM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless! Mhiji (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Denominazione di origine controllata

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denominazione di origine controllata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:DOCG

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DOCG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:UsertalkHeader

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UsertalkHeader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary duplication of Template:Talk header. Easily confused with Template:Usertalkheader which is a redirect to the former. Mhiji (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Template:Talk header. Thought to go "delete", but lets save that old history. Rehman 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page history does not seem to contain anything overly useful (and 2006 is not old enough, in my opinion, to preserve it for historical reasons). A redirect from UsertalkHeader to Talk header is confusing and unlikely to be used, and redirecting to Usertalkheader is unnecessary since the search function will resolve the capitalization difference. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Premier League Top Scorers

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Premier League Top Scorers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. No navigation. Creates confusion as name is similar to Template:Premier League top scorers. Mhiji (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Lorem ipsum

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Merge to allow for both formats. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lorem ipsum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lorem Ipsum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lorem ipsum with Template:Lorem Ipsum. Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Kannur District

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kannur District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kannur district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Kannur District with Template:Kannur district. Duplicate navboxes. Should be merged. Mhiji (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Infobox scale

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox scale with Template:Infobox Scale. Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_2&oldid=1146552907"