Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 February 5)
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5 edit

Template:Cancelled 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Avi 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cancelled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What on earth is this? I looked up If I Did It and was immediately greeted with this, which wouldn't look good to the reader. Given that that book and a number of cancelled projects would be notable, if they remain cancelled forever the article will have this tag forever, and I do believe there's a general rule that cleanup tags are expected to be temporary. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Information that will forever be speculative does not belong in Wikipedia. -Amark moo! 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current status for a topic should be mentioned in the article (preferably the opening paragraph[s]), not in a banner. Such banners for future or current items are necessary because the information can change rapidly; the same cannot be said for cancelled topics. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only speculation allowed in Wikipedia is other people's, and even then only if it is going to be resolved in a timely fashion. Chris cheese whine 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant clutter. `'mikka 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't like "current event", where the user needs to know that the information is incomplete because of time concerns. Being cancelled is a final event, and there's no need to warn a user -- the article will talk about that, just as If I Did It does. - grubber 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Such banners should only be used as needed and on a temporary basis. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as all above. Notability is completely seperate from the cancellation status of an event/project. If it was worthy of mention before it was cancelled, it is just as worthy afterwards, and it doesn't need an ugly and distracting template on top of it. Not to mention that there is massive precedent to just state cancellation information in the head of the article anyway. This isn't staying, there's no point to continue with this TfD. (|-- UlTiMuS 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:RIAN-image 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Avi 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RIAN-image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is completely incorrect image copyright tag. This copyright tags and all imges with it must be deleted as Improper license (Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission") (CSD I3) Alex Spade 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comment:

See Copyright policy of RIAN (in Russian)

This copyright tag can be appilied only to text materials from RIAN.

Материалы, опубликованные в открытом доступе на сайте RIAN.RU, не могут быть воспроизведены телеканалами, радиостанциями, газетами и журналами без ссылки на РИА Новости, а сайтами и страницами в сети Интернет (в том числе и сайтами и страницами СМИ) - не могут быть воспроизведены без гиперссылки и ссылки на РИА Новости. Письменного разрешения агентства для воспроизведения материалов из открытого доступа не требуется.

There is absolutely another policy to images (photomaterials).

Все фотоматериалы, размещенные на сайте RIAN.RU как в открытом, так и в закрытом доступе, являются интеллектуальной собственностью РИА Новости, а также иных авторов и правообладателей, разрешивших Агентству их использование. Каждое воспроизведение, последующее распространение и переработка фотоматериалов может быть осуществлена только с письменного согласия РИА Новости.

Concise translation of underline text

Every reproduction, redistibution and remaking (derivative work) of photomaterials must get literal permission from RIAN.

--Alex Spade 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per the nominator, that's not what the image copyright says. -Amark moo! 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short addition: The problem is, that English version of Copyright statement is missing the paragraph concerning images.--Vaya 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mistaken template. `'mikka 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm agree with Alex Spade --Butko 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47Talk 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So why not ask permission? I'm not farmiliar with WP policy on getting permission for things, so if there is one, let me know. If nobody is interested in asking, I'll do it myself. --Oceanhahn 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With-permission images aren't allowed on Wikipedia, even if permission is granted, except as fair use. ([1]) or see WP:CSD. --ais523 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{db-noncom}}{{permission}}; if the images have invalid copyright terms, they should be deleted (deleting the template without rediring would leave them existent but with no copyright information). --ais523 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The proper redirect would be {{noncommercial}}. --Random832(tc) 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, we're both wrong, it should be {{permission}}. --ais523 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It's worse than that, {{permission}} is only if permission is sought and granted. Any such images should be deleted. --Random832(tc) 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Presumably, if it's a with-permission image and permission hasn't been granted, it's copyvio. So the redirect should then be to {{nld}}, in that case (trickier than usual because nld must be substed). --ais523 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Coredesat 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since when do we go around labeling any one particular nation, and listing territories disputed by just that ONE SINGLE NATION? Japan has been singled out here, and mentioned in a manner that violates WP:NPOV. There are nations which dispute the territories with Japan, and they should be mentioned equally and in an NPOV fashion. Anyways, therefore this template is POV and should be deleted (unless, of course, it can be salvaged in an NPOV fashion).--Endroit 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Creates a bias towards Japan since the islands are disputed by other countries (China, Taiwan, Korea, Russia, etc). Considering how certain articles like Dokdo are having a difficult time settling POV/NPOV discussions, this template isn't contributing positively. on camera 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A few points: 1) Template was created for navigational purposes, for those readers who are interested in reading about what islands are territorially disputed by Japan. I know I am personally one such reader. 2) If other editors are interested in territorial disputes of other nations, I highly encourage them to create similar templates. But the fact that other such similar templates do not exist is not grounds for deletion of this template. 3) I disagree that the template violates NPOV, as it is a fact that these are disputed islands that are claimed by Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nominating editor has implied as much that he himself is interested in Japan's island disputes, as he has stated else where that he, in fact, has in his watchlist all four of the articles linked by the navigational template[2]. I do believe this navigational template would be useful to him as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see the usefulness of the template for navigational purposes, but this is by its very nature a POV issue. The fact that it's not called "Japanese islands disputed by other countries" or the like is indication of a bias. Additionally, as this appears to be the only navbox of its kind (at least within Asian subject matter), it stands out. I do not know of a way to rephrase the name of the box to be NPOV, but perhaps the creation of similar boxes for other countries, or the incorporation of other territory disputes between other countries can help to soften the blow and spread the issue around equally. I am sure that the creator of this navbox had relatively innocent (unbiased) intentions in creating it - s/he simply thought it'd be useful - but by its lone nature it nevertheless appears biased. What say we create a new one that incorporates all the territory disputes between all of East Asia, or all of East & SE Asia, or something to that effect, so that no one country is singled out. Surely "Territory disputes in East Asia" is not a biased title against any one country... LordAmeth 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had actually given thought to the naming before I created the template itself. "Japanese islands..." would be POV, because those islands are in dispute. "... claimed by Japan", however, is NPOV as it does not say that they are "Japanese", and it does not say that they are not "Japanese". The islands are simply "disputed islands" that are claimed by Japan. I don't know how the template is POV. Plus, the fact that other similar templates do not exist for other countries does not make this one POV, and it certainly does not qualify this template for deletion. I have noted that editors interested in territorial disputes of other countries should be encouraged to create similar templates. And please note - I have never been against the expansion of this template to include other island disputes in Asia. The nomination for deletion is unwarranted. While not required, I want to point out that the nominating editor has not tried to work with me to address his accusation of POV violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to ask again - how does the fact that this template centers around Japan's island disputes make the template POV? What exactly is the template biased toward or against? I honestly don't know. The template makes no comment or implication toward the legitimacy of Japan's claim to these islands. It does not say that Japan is the only country with island disputes with other countries. It's a simple illustration of facts. These islands are disputed islands that are claimed by Japan. So how exactly is it POV? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try not to take things personally; by saying "Disputed islands claimed by Japan," it's "ignoring" the others' claim to the islands. It could have been a more neutral choice of words since the islands' ownerships are disputed. Read the NPOV tutorial and you'll see many reasons why something may be POV. I much rather see LordAmeth's suggestion of "Territory disputes in East Asia" as a new template since it's not favoring any country's claim over any other and still maintaining it's "usefulness." oncamera(t) 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So because it doesn't mention the other countries by name, the template is biased toward or against Japan's claim? The template is specifically made for Japan's island disputes, so of course it mentions Japan by name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So many rhetorical questions; it fails to mention the other countries--ignoring their claim, even if unintentional. A template with only three islands now seems minute. oncamera(t) 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please assume good faith. Those are not rhetorical questions. If this template is POV, exactly what issue is it biased toward or against? What statement is it making that makes it POV? If there is really no bias, then this template is not POV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template should really only include Dokdo and Kuril because those are islands they claim while the other two are already being administered by itself. Good friend100 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can certainly rename the template and its header to something like "Disputed islands controlled or claimed by Japan" or "Disputed islands administered or claimed by Japan", as I suggested in the Talk page of the template. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Oncamera. Ypacaraí 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all navigational issues may be easily handled by a list. Microcategories make sense only if they are part of a broader standard and used for uniformity. `'mikka 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There aren't enough islands in dispute by Japan to warrent this being a category. Davidpdx 02:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a category, but a navigational template made for readers who are interested in island disputes that Japan is involved in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe LordAmeth's suggestion was made in good faith, but yet another example of wikiality at work. Wl219 06:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Create a template more neutral to both parties in the disputes. Hermeneus (user/talk) 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template and create something like "Disputed territories in East Asia". Or create "Disputed territories claimed by [insert a state name here]" templates for each states and use all the claimants' templates for articles. Listing only one side's disputed territories in a article is certainly not neutral. --Kusunose 09:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've pointed out, the lack of similar templates for other countries does not make this template POV. This template was created specifically to navigate Japan's island disputes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lack of similar templates for other countries may makes use of this template POV. If an article mentions that Japan has other territorial disputes, it would be better to mention other party's disputes in the same manner for balance. --Kusunose 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again - how is that POV? The template does not comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims or any other countries' claims. It does not state that Japan is the only country ever to have island disputes. And I don't even know if this POV argument is saying that the template is biased toward or against Japan. How is it biased? And what is it biased toward or against? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) keep, per Hong Qi Gong. I disagree with the nomination's claim that there is a POV problem. Even if the title had to be changed (to something like Template:Territory disputes involving Japan?) or the contents enlarged (to include the territory disputes of other East Asian countries), the topic is not inherently problematic. However, I think the template has limited usefulness as it stands because it has so few constituent links. It would be just as easy to list the other three articles in the See Also section. Dekimasuが... 12:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the template were to be kept, I support renaming to Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan because related articles are names as "territorial dispute" and "Japan". --Kusunose 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like Kusunose's suggestion. In addition, regardless of the issue of whether or not the current template is POV, it would surely be helpful and useful to have similar templates for other countries, no? LordAmeth 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will go ahead and move the template name to that suggested name. Additionally, I am actually working on a similar template for the PRC. However, I still don't understand how the lack of other similar templates automatically make this one POV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is an obviously political argument.--Watermint 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not a POV issue, so much as it is a WP:BIAS issue. Just because the Japan-related areas are tagged, it doesn't preclude Korean- or Chinese- or any other areas from also being appropriately tagged. The solution to WP:BIAS is not to delete the ones which are created already, but to encourage others to complete the loop. Neier 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. The template makes no comments to the legitimacy of Japan's claim, and does not take a side in any argument. The accusation of POV violation has so far been unfounded. And I'd like to point out again, not only have I encouraged other editors to make similar templates for other countries, I've actually started work on one myself in a subpage - User:HongQiGong/scratch. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Somebody would need to complete similar templates for all 3 countries IN AN EQUAL FASHION. Based on WP:BIAS, we should expect similar complaints, to which we shall create templates for their rivals: PRC, Syria, and Argentina. Then if all 6 templates can sufficiently withstand similar challenges, I shall lend my support vote also.
      If Dekimasu, Neier, and LordAmeth believe these 6 templates would be reasonable tests as well, I'll follow through to make sure these 6 templates are created in an equal fashion.--Endroit 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be fully clear where I stand on this issue - in light of all the above discussion - I think that creation of such templates would be a good idea, in general, but the status of this template we're discussing doesn't have to be contingent upon their creation. A comparable example might be Template:Christianity. There's nothing inherently POV about the template, but if there weren't equivalent templates for other religions, Wikipedia would be less complete. It's not an issue of formal policy, of morality or POV bias, per se, it's just a good idea. Thank you, HongQiGong, for coming up with a good idea, which we can now take inspiration from to create similar templates for other territorial disputes throughout the world. LordAmeth 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do people think of this? Template:Territorial disputes involving Israel and Template:Territorial disputes involving Syria - I included "Israel" as a disputed territory because its status and sovereignty are not recognized by many states and organizations. The article on Hatay Province says the issue is resolved, but with a "citation needed" template. I see now that knowing how to name and label these things can get kind of tetchy in individual particular situations, but the navboxes should nevertheless prove useful in the end. LordAmeth 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe that's a very good start. There's a couple of points I need you to check though:
            1. The templates already have had {{tfd}} and {{NPOV}} tags. Should we leave them on? or start out without them? (I suggest we remove both tags... until somebody adds it back, then we can leave them on.) I deleted those 2 tags.... until somebody adds it back, then we can leave them in.--Endroit 14:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            2. I believe Kusunose was checking if each of the linked articles were categorized within Category:Disputed territories (directly or indirectly). If we apply the same standards as we have for the Japanese template, if Israel and Hatay Province are not categorized within Category:Disputed territories, we may need to leave them out. (On the other hand, we may want to catagorize Israel and Hatay Province under Category:Disputed territories instead).--Endroit 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have created Template:Territorial disputes involving the United Kingdom, Template:Territorial disputes involving Argentina, and Template:Territorial disputes involving the People's Republic of China as well. Please make any corrections, and check whether Mainland China and/or Northern Ireland should be included or not. (HongQiGong, sorry if you created PRC already. We'll just have to combine them somehow.) If everything looks OK, we'll start adding the templates into the respective articles.--Endroit 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would appreciate it if you withdraw this unjustified deletion nomination then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The template DID single out a particular country to begin with, and that's why we are having this discussion. I'd say the jury is still out, until we can apply similar standards for other countries. As I said above, I'm trying to use Israel and United Kingdom as the litmus tests. I'm still waiting to see what everybody else says, so I can't withdraw right now. Let's see how everything goes first.--Endroit 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just to get back to you, of course I am happy for there to be similar templates for other countries. My main objection is still the same... if there are only two links in the template, is it a useful template? So I still wonder if broader "Territorial disputes in Asia", "Territorial disputes in South America", etc. templates might not be more useful. It's just that I disagreed with the POV premise of the nom. Dekimasuが... 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The dispute in the Spratley Islands involves 6 different countries (PRC, ROC, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines), so we're looking at having 6 little templates hanging there at the bottom. Another problem is that Template:Territorial disputes involving the United Kingdom spans 3 or 4 continents, which are in totally different places. Perhaps it makes more sense to group by continents, for a cleaner navigation, with regional conflicts all grouped together locally in one place. Also, Antarctica is already covered by Template:Antarctic claims, so perhaps we can use that one with minor midifications.
                  • I'm satisfied that the NPOV issue is headed towards settlement, but I guess we still need to agree on whether to group by coutries, continents, both, or something else. Also, I don't think they'll just let us delete the Japan template without wider consensus, so if we create the continent templates, we'll probably have to keep a few country templates for a while.--Endroit 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fact that the template is specifically about Japan does not make it POV. How many times must I repeat this? The template does not comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims, so how does it violate POV? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I was adding Arunachal Pradesh, Bhutan, Socotra Rock, Gando, and Baekdu Mountain to Template:Territorial disputes involving the People's Republic of China for you. Please use it.--Opp2 06:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I just tagged the disputed territories involving PRC, UK, and Argentina. Taiwan was reverted immediately. Let's see if anybody from there joins discussions here. If things go well, I'll try adding disputed territories involving Israel and Syria.--Endroit 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Taiwan's special, since it's not a particular territory disputed between two states, it's two states which each claim the entirety of the other's territory. You'd have to also add a {{Territorial disputes involving the Republic of China (Taiwan)}} to the PRC article (and to the Mongolia article) to be NPOV. However, I think cases where one state _entirely_ claims another's territory, and also claims its sovreignty is illegitimate, is of a different kind (incidentally, this would mean Israel per se should also not be listed in its own template, since that's similarly not a territorial dispute as such). Also - on an unrelated note, does a dispute in which one nation does not recognize another's claim, but does not make a claim of its own, count? This would apply, surely, to some of the "not recognize Israel" types, and also to the US's opinion on the northwest passage and the north pole re Canada. --Random832(tc) 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As mentioned above, having a disputed territory template for each nation in the world would unnecessarily clutter articles, above and beyond the POV issues of the template itself. There's already a List of territorial disputes which can be used for navigation (and for that matter as a standard by which to judge a relevent template - there is no List of territorial disputes involving Japan). A template of East Asian disputes seems a better compromise and doesn't clutter pages needlessly. -- Exitmoose 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look at Endroit (talk · contribs)'s contribs he seems to be engaged in creating every possible territorial dispute template and slapping them on every possible related article, all with edit summaries inviting comments on this particular TfD. I swear to God I have never accused anyone of this before, but this is the clearest example of WP:POINT I have ever seen. --Ideogram 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll stop if we reach a consensus here to stop. If you don't like it, go tell an admin.--Endroit 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. --Ideogram 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideogram, be sure to follow the rules like everybody else. "I hate templates" is not a good reason to unilaterally delete templates, as you explained in Talk:Taiwan.--Endroit 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to wikilawyer me. If you want to engage in discussion and try to establish consensus, you are welcome to. Your template-adding spree indicates you have no intention of discussing with anyone. --Ideogram 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look who's talking. At least I've discussed with a few people in this talk page. Ideogram, you have discussed with 0 (ZERO, count them!) people in Talk:Taiwan before deleting ALL templates in Taiwan.--Endroit 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. You can keep up the disruptive behavior if you want to, and I will let the admins deal with you. --Ideogram 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideogram, you cannot unilaterally delete templates like you did in Taiwan. Doing so may be considered vandalism. Considering this is WP:TfD, I suggest very strongly that you follow procedures to discuss deletions here rather than unilaterally deleting templates. Please be carefull, because if you keep it up, I will report you for vandalism.--Endroit 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it was a clear violation of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV by HongQiGong when he created a template for Japan only. Furthermore, HongQiGong said that others should create similar templates while not attempting to create them himself. I've done just a little of the dirty work for him, creating these templates. But now he's accusing me for creating the very templates he told us to create. What's the problem now, HongQiGong? Did you only want to keep the template for Japan? I told you that's POV.
Also, the idea of navigation using templates is not a bad one, and the discussion may not necessarily head towards outright deletion. As Dekimasu and a few others have suggested, it may be decided that the templates may be grouped by "region" or "continent" rather than "country".
Closing admin, if this template gets shot down and deleted, all the similar templates we created here should be deleted as well. Or if we opt for grouping by "region" or "continent", all these themplates should be converted at the same time. Thank you very much.--Endroit 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read what WP:POINT means. You created those other templates and added an invitation to comment here in each and every edit summary when you added those templates to various articles. Furthermore, I had already mentioned twice here that I started work on a template for the PRC[4]. This was way before you went on your template-creating crusade with the purpose of getting this template deleted. And I have never ever said I only want to keep this template. I thought it was good you created those other templates - have I ever complained that you did? If you hadn't actually tried to send out so many invitations to this discussion by adding other templates to other articles, I would not have even thought you violated WP:POINT. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan. Nothing POV about that title, and the template looks like a helpful navigation aid to me. — coelacan talk — 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have categories for this kind of thing and as others have mentioned, having one only for Japan is non-neutral, while having one for every country in the world with a territorial dispute would be ridiculously messy. However I'd like to express my strong distaste with the nominator's actions in creating a ton of new templates to illustrate his point, which is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. -Loren 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete partly on the basis that there are only 3 actual disputes involved, & this isnt worth a template. Lets keep to the actual issue of this particular template DGG 06:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had considered this before making the article. But I thought the alternative, a category, would also be too small to be worth it. That's why I made this template instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:46, 13 February 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Template:Messianic Judaism 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 page.

The result of the debate was Clear consensus for deletion -- Avi 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous nomination was 36-19 (65% to 35%) in favor of deletion. But the closing administrator stated "no consensus, lean towards keep". So I am renominating this template for deletion, as there must have been some mistake in the decision to keep the article in the previous tfd. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate in a limited form per my reasons in previous tfd.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you believe that there was a procedural error in the previous TfD (for instance, that it was not closed correctly, or that the closing result didn't reflect the arguments given), you should list that TfD at Deletion Review rather than relisting the template at TfD. --ais523 10:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, was listed only a few days ago. Plus besides, it should be kept anyway. Mathmo Talk 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A deliberately confusing catagory that has little to do with Judaism. Guy Montag 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Most articles in the template are not about "messianic judaism" (whatever that may be) but about mainstream Judaism. Deliberately confusing. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete previous TfD should have resulted in delete, and none of the plethora issues raised in the previous nomination have been addressed, with the exception of the removal of the laughingly inappropriate Gartel that had been added to the template. A drastically trimmed down version might justify retention, but the template in its current form is unjustifiable, and no genuine effort has been made to address any of the concerns raised by many Wikipedians in the previous TfD. Alansohn 13:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a Messianic Jew and I have a gartel that I got from my local Messianic synagogue. Do you want to see my gartel? I can send you a picture. I didn't want to fight keeping Gartel on the template, not because it's not relevant, but because the current article on the Gartel isn't really a good article - perhaps I should improve it with a picture of my gartel! The "plethora" of issues have been addressed in the template's talk page, most notably by the voluminous sourcing I provided for each and every single item currently in the article list. So far no one has disputed any particular items, nor disputed the sources. If you would like to dispute certain items, PLEASE post them, I would love to discuss them. As such, no one is discussing them except bandwagoning Messianic articles and templates to death. inigmatus 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be honest, though, Inigmatus, a gartel link in our Messianic Judaism template would probably be pushing it. You would probably fall into the category of an "Orthodox Messianic Jew", so you have a gartel. The vast majority of us Messianics don't, though. Even most Orthodox Jews do not wear a gartel; only the Chassidic ones (and not even all of them). Of course that link was already removed a while back, so I don't see why it's even coming up here as an issue. None of this, of course, is remotely relevant to deleting an existing article. It is completely relevant to changing an existing article. Noogster 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous nomination. I do agree with ais523 that this should have gone to deletion review though, as the closing admin, RyanGerbil10, had to have miscounted or somehow gotten mixed up. DanielC/T+ 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template implies that these are a series of article about Messianic Judaism, but that simply isn't true. The section on "Jewish Denominations" and "Christianity Denominations" imply that Messianic Judaism is a member of both, when in fact it is a member of neither. Jon513 14:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some say Messianic Judaism is Christian (ask most Jews), some say Messianic Judaism is Jewish (ask most Christians), and still Messianic Jews will say they are neither Christian, nor rabbinic Jewish - but they do claim to be Jewish. So including info in both sections relevant to Messianic Judaism, fulfills the purpose of the template. inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's odd. The only sourcing we've seen seems to support Christians seeing MJ's as Christian. I'm therefore confused by the claim that "some say Messianic Judaism is Jewish (ask most Christians)" JoshuaZ 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this copy-cat confusing template that leeches off the {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} and {{Judaism}} templates. It should have been deleted after the first vote, which was held open for too long a time [5]. (Nominated Dec 31, '06 and closed Jan 11, '07.) The first outlines [6] for this template were fine, until it started aping the Judaism and Jews templates and it's gotten out of hand since then, acting like The Blob. IZAK 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template has remained the same since the last VfD, and even months prior to its first nomination. It hasn't bloated. It's stayed the same, accepted by the community at large, and only disputed by those who have something against Messianic Judaism. I am rather quite amazed at the interest in any Messianic Judaism VfD, and wish that the sheer number of people that are obviously Jewish from their user pages, who vote to delete Messianic Judaism articles and templates, could actually care to participate in the actual Talk pages of the respective articles... perhaps then things might improve! But as such, no one wants to improve anything but force their own point of view! So then bandwagoning becomes a constant theme in these VfDs by the Jewish editing group. inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuestionWhy?
  • Delete While there is place for such a template, it should not confuse the user. gidonb 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHow is the template confusing? Did you know that the articles listed in the template are in fact relevant to Messianic Judaism?
So is the weather forecast (how to dress and drive to activities). Why not include only articles on this religious movement in the template? gidonb 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is neither specifically about Messianic Judaism, nor does it clarify any issues. Rather, it almost appears that its purpose is to mimic the Judaism template to lend a veneer of Judaic acceptance to this new religion. Many of the articles in the template link to the Judaic versions, as there are no Messianic versions. It leads to confusion and a lack of clarity in the articles, the exact opposite of what a template, and wikipedia as a whole, is striving to accomplish. If a template which is specific to Messianism, and distinctly Messianic, and serves to identify and explain Messianism is created, that would be a completely different story. -- Avi 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIf the purpose of the article was to "lend a veneer of Judaic acceptance" then it has obviously failed from the very first change. Please assume good faith. The template was created to link articles RELEVANT to Messianic Judaism, and currently all articles listed are relevant to Messianic Judaism, please see the talk page for sources.
  • Delete - per nomination. There are many problematic aspects with this topic that needs to be resolved before something as definitive as a template can be put up without confusing readers. --Leifern 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHow is it confusing? Is the concept of Jewish believers in Yeshua something that makes one's head explode? Is the template that links relevant articles to pages related to a faith of early Jewish Messianic believers somewhat hard to grasp? Traditionally the followers of Yeshua became Christians - but the earliest followers were simply Jewish believers in Yeshua as the Messiah. That is what Messianic Judaism is. Again, what is it that is so confusing that Jews would exist today that would seek to continue the similar beliefs of early Jewish followers of Yeshua? inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good, informative template which could provide lots of relevant info on the appropriate article and is generally good.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The last nom set off a religio-political flame fest, and I believe the MJ community editors realize the inadequacies of the template need to be addressed. It's still a relatively new template, the previous TfD is still pretty recent, and it's a small community—give them time. Renominating this TfD so soon indicates (to me, anyway) that some people's attitudes toward MJ border on hostile—as ais523 said, there are other ways to handle TfD's whose resolution you disagree with. (Please realize that simple democracy is not always the best way to resolve conflicts.) Now, hostility may be the case in RL, but hopefully in WP we aspire to a higher level of congeniality. The concerns are being addressed, which you would know if you've read Template talk:Messianic Judaism. If you have ideas for improvement, weigh in there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Blob. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, commandeers the Judaism template, deliberately giving the false impression that the movement is accepted in traditional Judaism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhen I look at the template, I am not given the impression that it's accepted in rabbinic Judaism. If anything the listing of separate Judaism and Christian sections dispels that "false impression." inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and recreate, if necessary, in substantially different form. I'm reproducing my comments here from the previous TfD. See my lengthy comments and arguments with User:Inigmatus there, as well as on the template talk page. The template is simply unacceptable as it is, since:
  1. It deliberately obscures the nature of Messianic Jewish (MJ) belief, and seeks to downplay the differences between MJ belief and the widely accepted view of mainstream Jewish belief. It does so with the use of weasel words like "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus" (at the very least, it should say "Jesus (Yeshua)" since "Jesus" is the name most people use to refer to that figure) and "Apostolic" instead of "New Testament" (again, the latter is the more common term). These words obscure the fact that these important elements of MJ are regarded by most people as essentially Christian elements.
  2. Obfuscates Jewish and MJ terms. "Prayers and Blessings" is a link to List of Jewish prayers and blessings. "Jewish prayers and blessings" are not the same thing as "MJ prayers and blessings". In contrast to this "Religious practices" links to "Messianic religious practice'. It also lists terms like "Apostolic" (sic) alongside important Jewish texts like "Torah" and "Talmud" as if these belong in the same category.
  3. The template neglects many other important elements of MJ, like Mary (mother of Jesus), Saint Joseph, Virgin birth, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, etc., which most non-MJ people would regard as essentially Christian, but which certainly belong there since they are central figures in the religious belief scheme that MJ ascribe to.
  4. There are many other similar problems with the template, too numerous to mention.
It's not just Jewish denominations who regard MJ as non-Jewish, but as I said above, the vast majority of mainstream Christians, religious scholars, philosophers of religion agree upon this. —Batamtig 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is proof that the template is needed as those opposing the template are unfamiliar with Messianic Judaism as practiced by thousands of Torah-observant followers of Yeshua:
  1. Yeshua, Apostolic, and other terms are quite frequently used in Torah-observant Messianic Jewish synagogues.
  2. MJ prayers and blessings are the same as found in Jewish prayers and blessings. Most Messianics I know (including myself) use the Artscroll Siddur (Sefardic version) on a daily basis which contains the prayers found in the article. If anyone disputes this, they are welcome to come daven with us during Sunday morning Shacharit. Send me an email for an invite.
  3. The template is not to promote Christian concepts. It's purpose is to showcase articles relevant to Messianic Judaism. As such the template can become bloated. See Template:Judaism as a good example of bloat. Furthermore, a link to an article containing important figures to Messianic Judaism is included, listing not only those above but also many many others.
  4. There are no other "similar problems too numerous to mention" that haven't already been addressed and responded to. Currently if someone wishes to dispute the current template article list, I'd be glad personally for some actual substance to dispute! As such, no one has presented any real hard reason to not include certain articles in the template without resorting to the root basis of emotional contempt for anything Jewish that smacks of accepting Yeshua as the Messiah. True intellectual discussion is greatly welcomed, and to be honest, I'm quite desperate for it as I feel the template can actually be improved by it; but it won't happen if these pointless, baseless, and somewhat emotional VfDs continue instead of the normal consensus process of discussing things on talk pages first. inigmatus 02:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Yossiea 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK. Beit Or 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Deceptive templates should have no place in an encyclopaedia. -- Olve 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is largely redundant with the regular Judaism navbox, and is simply not necessary, when all of so-called Messianic Judaism can be included into a single link on that navbox, or on some other navbox of minor Abrahamic religious sects or something. In any case, regular mainstream Judaism believes in a Messiah, just not that that Messiah is Jesus; so, really, all Judaism is Messianic Judaism, and the name given this sect here is a misnomer and misleading. LordAmeth 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "Rather, it almost appears that its purpose is to mimic the Judaism template to lend a veneer of Judaic acceptance to this new religion. Many of the articles in the template link to the Judaic versions, as there are no Messianic versions." Indeed. The template section

Judaism · Denominations
Timeline · Early history · Schisms . Pharisees · Sadducees · Essenes . Diaspora · Aliyah
is particularly weird in this context. Gzuckier 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if the purpose is to confuse the reader, the template does the job well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWelcome back to another MJ VfD Humus. These VfD's wouldn't be the same without your well-detailed and reasoned input. inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mixes Judaism links with "Messianic Judaism" which is a different religion. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A difficulty in this naming scheme is that Judaism has a contemporary messianic-fervor movement which appears to be more numerous and more influential than this one. See, for example, Yechi. When Jews talk about messianic Judaism, they simply don't refer to this group; it's not clear that this group uses the term more notably than the folks in (for example) the Yechi article. At any rate, given the potential for confusion about which messiah is being referred to, the group that advocates Jesus as messiah might be better off focusing on articles that cover their own practices. Otherwise, if a general template is insisted on that covers mainstream Judaism and mainstream Jewish messianism, perhaps it should include more about the variety of other Jewish Messiah claimants that have existed in Jewish history, such as Bar Kochba and Shabbatai Tzvi as well as the recent Menachem Mendel Schneerson. --Shirahadasha 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your reason is probably the only reason to consider a change to the template, except it wouldn't be a delete, but rather a rename. I would agree with your point, except that "Messianic Judaism" seems to be a term commonly accepted by the public to refer to Jews who believe Yeshua is the Messiah.
  • Delete per previous debate --Redaktor 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentLet the bandwagon begin. Perhaps Pinchas will be next.
  • Comment point made. Admins, can you please see that no one is offering up any real substance as a valid reason to delete the template outright? inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above. --DLandTALK 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no reason to delete this template, it is a good template that needs only some improvement at best, and does not need to be deleted; the scope of the project is already too big. The reason this template has so many links from the Judaism template is because various aspects of Messianic Judaism do not differ enough from Rabbinic Judaism to require their own articles. I notice something strange: every time a Messianic template/article is about to be deleted a large number of Rabbinic Jewish Wiki editors all come in and vote with "as per above" their cited reason, as if someone is planning this, or staging a coup. As for the term "Messianic Judasim", in the United States where the movement is concentrated, the term Messianic Judaism is almost universally recognized as referring to this particular religious movement. There is no issue with that. And let me say it again: if this article needs improvement, or things added to it such as "Apostle Paul", then we have no reason not to do it. But this falls under improving an existing template, not deleting it. Noogster 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading and confusing. Various tools, such as templates, categories, etc. are means for clear separation of topics and ease of reference. All aspects that, in the words of JoshuaZ, "[[do not differ enough from Rabbinic Judaism" must be discussed in a single article, Aspects of Rabbinic Judaism common with Messianic Judaism, which would be a useful thing for encyclopedia, and provide a convenience for systematic research. Now the template is unnecessarily bloated. `'mikka 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From your comments, I suppose you'd be fine with Template:Judaism on Messianic Judaism. In which case your vote to delete is merely a vote to delete because it is redundant with another acceptable template that could be used. Am I right? inigmatus 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I don't think he was saying that, Inig, but if that's his actual objection, then the Messianic Judaism template would perfectly satisfy those needs while making it clearly recognizable that Messianic Judaism is not the same religion. For example, no one I see criticizes the Catholicism template (or any of the many other denominational Xtian templates out there) for not sticking with the main Christianity template. Noogster 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Kirby, if you want to "recreate" then you shoot your own VfD nomination in the foot. Per policy two things are amiss: this is a second VfD too soon to a previous one in which you claim the reason for this second VfD is because "there was a mistake made in the decision to keep the article" in which case you need to follow process to have the decision be reviewed. Second, your personal nomination states to "delete and recreate" - yet to recreate an article de facto admission that the template should exist in some form. This falls under "improving the template" - a TFD criteria that has not been met as you admit that the template can be recreated better. Interestingly enough, you have put forth no valid reasons to recreate, nor use for its recreation. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the reason really for deleting the template in the first place, by any reasonable manner other than to seek to enforce an administrative removal by vote - of which I am sure by now you know that Wikipedia doesn't develop by majority opinion, but rather by consensus. A vote of which as the previous user mentioned, the MJs are quite outnumbered to stand up against - and thankfully Wikipedia exists to force discussions on the issues to improve MJ templates, rather than discussing them in disqualified VfD noms. Perhaps if you want to recreate teh article, why not post something in the template's talk page to address your concerns and room for improvement, rather than going the VfD route? I ask the reviewing admin to consider the near-constant hostility MJ articles and templates face by the non MJ Jewish editing community; and to also consider that this new VfD is steps outside the scope of wikiprocess to enforce a particular community's bias against the topic. inigmatus 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "Speedy"-worthy as there was no breach of process. You may have meant "strong" keep. -- Avi 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely per the same concerns I expressed in the last TfD( which caused me to change my mind midway from keep to delete). There simply aren't enough articles which are actually about messianic Judaism to justify a navigational template at this time. Unfortunately, given how few independent sources there are on the topic, I doubt there will be enough articles for the forseeable future. Since the movement has only a few tens of thousands at most, this shouldn't be too surprising. Presumably if the movement grows we will gain more sources and articles and then a template will be reasonable. Until that time, this template isn't useful. JoshuaZ 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JoshuaZ, it would be reasonable if I completely disagree with you. Like countless Wikipedia Religion Templates out there, the Messianic Judaism template has links to various articles (particularly in the question of Judaica and Biblical Jewish history) that are shared by at least one other existing religion, and would only cause clutter if new perspective articles were created because various aspects, honestly, are too similar to make. In a month of that you'd say "this Messianic Kippa article is redundant, delete it!", and we'd be right back to where we are right now. Also, Messianic Judaism definitely has more than "a few thousand people". There about 50,000, approximately half Jew, and half Gentile. And that is if you're going by the strict definition of "Messianic". If you count any current Jewish group that keeps Torah and believes in Yeshua as a Messiah (such as Netzarim groups in Ra'anana, Israel http://www.netzarim.co.il/, or those in the New York Tri-State Area http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Eliyahu3), then the numbers might be closer to 60,000. Noogster 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that this nomination is most likely out of process. If the reason for nominating is (as I believe the nominator is saying) that the previous discussion was not closed properly than it should go to Deletion Review and then if not overturned there, users should give it some time before renominating. There's probably no point in fixing this now since the discussion is already in full swing, but that's how it should have happened. Having said that, I think some of the points made above make a lot of sense. If there are articles on Messianic Judaism's interpretation of these topics, than by all means link them, but it is confusing to have a template for a religion that links primarily to articles that don't discuss that religion in the text. GabrielF 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons given at WP:TfD reason 4, POV. If the template were better designed, it would not confusingly mimic the Jews and Judaism templates. --Dweller 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a navbox, and it serves it purpose of laying out a set of links pertaining to the topic, along with the optional pretty picture. All seems in order, except perhaps the choice of links (but that can be easily cleaned up) so I am voting keep. But isn't this what most people here want? I see a lot of votes mistitled as "delete" when they really just want the template changed, or a deletion review filed. As it is, this discussion has editors voting on multiple issues which skews the number of people who feel one way or another about its deletion. I haven't seen any real convincing reasons for or against the template itself. I have seen some good arguments about what belongs on the template, how Messianic Judaism should be categorized, and whether or not the topic is notable enough for wikipedia, but not much else. The last TfD revolved around a nomination that, when summed up, stated that the navbox should be deleted—not because it was unhelpful (if that's a word), but because it was a pain in the ass to maintain. In case anyone forgot, this is a discussion concerning the deletion of the template on Messianc Judaism—not whether or not the topic should be removed from wikipedia, nor whether or not the last TfD was handled properly, or whether or not the template requires cleanup. It is about deletion of this navbox. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate in limited form per Kirbytime and inigmatus. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure why this keeps coming up, or why certain editors believe people of this religious faith can't have their own template. -- Kendrick7talk 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Artificially inflated, misleading template. El_C 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Excuse me, but exactly HOW is this template artificially inflated? If you're looking for the most bloated template on Wikipedia, the Judaism template is probably that template. The template is in no way misleading: it is made clear from the beginning that MJ is a separate religion so it gets its own template, and all (or virtually all) the links are relevant to the subject matter. Admit it, you're bandwagining, El C, clearly violating policy, and your vote should thus not be counted. Noogster 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, watch out where you throw your accusations. Don't force another editor to incriminate themselves, especially when it's all a matter of opinion. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is artificially inflated in that it includes many topics scarcely related to the subject matter.
  2. I did not claim concern with it being inflated, but that this inflation is artifical, thus, misleading.
  3. Virtually all the links are not directly related to the subject matter, that is the problem.
  4. I will not admitt to "bandwagining" [sic.], because this accusation is false and without basis.
  5. I fail to see how I ("clearly"?) violated policy with my five-word opinion to delete the template.
  6. There is no chance the closing admin will discount my opinion on such incoherent grounds.
  7. I do, however, feel that your call to do so reflects poorly on you. El_C 10:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it be imprecise if I said you are wrong in your assessments in more than one case? Rebuttals:
  1. Name a single topic, even ONE, in the current template, that is unrelated to the theology, practices, or views of Messianic Judaism. Failure to denotes an incoherent position. At best, we can easily add some things that should have been there in the first place (such as Apostle Paul), but that makes the current TfD a completely wrong course of action.
  2. If you can't answer my challenge of successfully naming even one unrelated link in the template (and describing why), then that proves that the template is indeed not artificially inflated at all.
  3. Once again, name even a single one that is not related to the subject matter, and give your explanation as to why you feel it does not belong. I will gladly disprove your assertion and provide reliable sources supporting the contrary.
  4. Bandwagoning in Wikipedia terms is voting identically to a vast majority of members of a particular group, without adding to the conversation, using the same elementary reasons they cite (even if those reasons have been reasonably challenged as false in the past).
  5. Bandwagoning has always been bad form on Wikipedia.
  6. Incoherent is hardly the term I would use to describe my extensive contributions to this discussion. If there is anything concerning my position that you fail to understand, then I will gladly elaborate on what is asked.
  7. No, I don't really believe that it reflects poorly on my status at Wikipedia to have such a position (unless I have violated some minutiae of policy). The Messianic editors at Wiki are clearly one of the most bullied, unnecessarily monitored, yet law-abiding and ethical groups on the site. For anyone (and most such persons are from Wikiproject: Judaism) that beliefs that's OK, let me be a bit more blunt than I have been in the past: Get out of our faces; we know a lot more about our own religion than you do. We are ethical, law-abiding, and fully willing to work within policy to achieve good, factual articles. How much more so if much larger and more influential parties are not constantly attempting to drive us into the mud. Noogster 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, with improvements Most of the people who want to delete it want it done because of their own personal religious agendas. Rivka 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wouldn't say that their continual failure to provide valid reasons for wanting the template deleted is based on personal religious agendas (opposition to MJ certainly isn't a part of Judaism's theology), but it does denote a very real and strong bias, and tendency to bandwagon issues, by a large sector of the opposition voters. Noogster 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per nom - "delete and re-create" is nonsense in the first place, a vote to "delete" means you don't want an article (template) there at all. Also, most of the delete votes are objections either to it looking "too similar" to another template (so, what, Judaism is the only topic allowed to have a huge article series with small fonts?) or having "misleading" links - to anyone who has a problem with the current content of the template, I say SOFIXIT. --Random832(tc) 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My comments expressed in the previous vote. —Dfass 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We don't have your previous vote anymore, so please state your objections to the current template HERE. Failure to do so denotes the lack of one or more valid reasons for voting. Noogster 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the links in this are quite unrelated to Messianic Judaism. "Rather, it almost appears that its purpose is to mimic the Judaism template to lend a veneer of Judaic acceptance to this new religion. Many of the articles in the template link to the Judaic versions, as there are no Messianic versions." I can't agree more. The template is very misleading. — coelacan talk — 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Name a single link, a single one on the template that is unrelated to the religious practices or culture of Messianic Judaism, and explain why you feel that way. Or you are clearly bandwagoning the issue like very many of the other editors. Inigmatus said it best: if this template was made to confuse people that Messianic Judaism is somehow mainstream Judaism, it has obviously failed from the very first edit. No, this template is a list of topics relevant to Messianic Judaism; at most, there are a few things that could be added that are currently missing. Noone criticizes the Catholicism template, for example, for having many of the same links as the Christianity template. We've been over the template's use of Judaism articles before, in case you haven't been listening, and various aspects of Messianic Judaism are too verbatim with Rabbinic counterparts to get their own articles; we don't need a Messianic Kippa article! Regards. Noogster 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should keep your foot out of your mouth - there is no Catholicism template! Why is that? Because it is subsumed under Template:Christianity. Case in point. --DLandTALK 13:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh, well I was about 99.9% sure that there was a Catholicism template, since virtually every one of those Christian denominations has one (and Catholicism's the largest). I guess I'm factually errant in this case, but have no less of a point, because the same thing I said applies to any of those denominational templates. Noogster 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. Since it is close to being Shabbat (at least, in the U.S. where I live), and both of the two main groups in this discussion (Wikiproject: Judaism and Wikiproject: Messianic Judaism) observe it, I suggest that this discussion be postponed for approximately the next 24 to 30 hours. Thank you. Noogster 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with Shirahadasha above that more Jews today refer to the Yechi types as "messianists" than to the Jewish-Christians. Not only should the template be deleted, since its very design creates confusion, but even the topic discussed in the Messianic Judaism article should be reconsidered, perhaps: Judaism is a messianic religion that has had many messianic candidates... In any case, the unique ways that Jewish-Christians syncretize the two religions should be described in an article (perhaps not of that title), but not in a template meant to be widely used as a mark of that syncretism on numerous articles.Dovi 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Side comment: User:Shirahadasha's argument about Yechi and the Chabad "messianists" is nonsense, as there is currently no confusion about what and who is being referred to with the term Messianic Judaism. This, besides the fact that they are hardly similar at all in nature. Shlomke 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I think it would be refreshing if there could be a delete vote from just ONE non Jewish editor. This VfD smacks of POV bias that it's sickening. The notice at the top that this VfD has been included in a list of Jewish deletions, only begs for a bandwagon effect of biased editors against Messianic Judaism to delete per nom, or delete for some reason other than a valid VfD reason. I would ask that the admin take this into consideration, and I would ask for more obvious third party neutral participants in this VfD (which isn't even submitted correctly per policy anyways!) - perhaps maybe get some Muslim editors in here to help form a consensus. Praise God these VfDs aren't decided by majority vote... or else there would be no Messianic Judaism articles on wikipedia. inigmatus 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:UsernameAllowed 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 12:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UsernameAllowed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across this when I saw the massive redecorating at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Seems a lot of stuff is being added / changed without a lot of thought being put into it or something. I'm sorry, but a preformatted message to tell someone that their username is ok? We're not robots, this is not what these kinds of messages are for, I beg someone to end this insanity. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It should be noted that this is a very recently created template and has no connection to the review of warning templates by Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. My understanding of this template is that it sprung out of discussion at WP:RFCN that it would be polite to inform users that their usernames were being discussed. {{UsernameDiscussion}} was created as a result. This template seems to have followed. Given that {{UsernameDiscussion}} would have been used, this template serves little purpose as simple note of the outcome should probably suffice. WJBscribe 08:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw my delete opinion on the basis that it is a part of the ongoing development of templates to smooth the WP:RFCN process. There may be arguments about what it should say, but there's no harm in it existing for those who don't wish to write out a message. Better that a template be used than no message at all. WJBscribe 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. What use does this have that can't be typed far more succinctly manually? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote this template as a followup to {{UsernameDiscussion}}, so the user need not worry about the original notice any more, or wonder why he can't find the discussion at WP:RFC/NAME. I included explanatory text in case no-one had notified the user of the RFC in the first place -- as has sometimes been the case. "Note of the outcome should probably suffice" -- indeed, but such notes have sometimes not been posted. Subst'ing a template is quicker and easier than typing out a note from scratch, so perhaps that step will be more often taken. It's also my hope that, as scripts and bots enhance WP:RFC/NAME, notification can be automated, so that adding an entry at WP:RFC/NAME automagically puts {{UsernameDiscussion}} on the named user's talk page, while closing/deleting that entry as "Allow" does the same with {{UsernameAllowed}}. I see that people have actually begun using this new template, which suggests to me that they find it useful. Please give it time to pass the test of actual use, and perhaps benefit from revision by actual users. If it's a "better mousetrap", the beaten path to its door will indicate this. If it's never used (because people prefer to type up notes from scratch), then the gate can be shut on a path overgrown with grass and briars. Fair enough? Ben 09:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why do we need a template to say it? We're not robots. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do we need templates for anything, when we could type everything from scratch? It saves time and effort, and helps consistency. Ben 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I figured the vandal and welcome templates were just because no one wanted to put a lot of effort into them. As for telling someone their name is ok, I think that they would just sort of learn this from the resulting discussion. -- Ned Scott 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, IF they see the {{UsernameDiscussion}} in time to get over to WP:RFC/NAME before the discussion is closed and deleted. But after that, they won't find the discussion on that page, and may have to search awhile for it, so that only after some time and effort will they learn that the original notice is now moot. When the fire's out, you turn off the fire alarm. When the missing kid's found, you call the searchers back in. When the RFC's closed as "Allow", you tell the user "Never mind, the name's okay, but here's where to see the discussion if you're interested, and here's how to change your name if you decide to anyway" -- which is exactly what this template does, with links and explanations to help the often-new user. Personally, I don't want to type all that every time, or have to cut-and-paste it from somewhere else, when simply typing "subst:UsernameAllowed" does the job. Less effort for the writer, yet more info for the reader, than the typical hand-typed note. If you'd rather not use the template, then don't. But please let those of us who want to use it, have it available. Thanks! Ben 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know why you made the template, I'm telling you it's a dumb idea.. sheesh. It's so easy to say "Ok, you're good" or "nevermind" that... whatever.. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Correction, that I think it's a dumb idea. I've been wrong many times before :) -- Ned Scott 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • In accordance with WP:APBB, I assume the presence of a belly-button, on your behalf and my own. Ben 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per nomination and in an easy to read format, definitely a good one.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're starting to standardize the way we do things over at RfC/U, and this is a step in that direction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a useful step towards a series of templates that could help smooth out the RfC process and make it more responsive. SteveMcCluskey 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the community really wants this, then ok, but I'm a bit confused. Vandalism happens many times a day, and new users come to Wikipedia many times a day, so these messages happen a lot. How does the traffic for user name concerns compare to those messages? Here's an idea, if the user name is ok type "Ok, you're good" (15 chars) vs {{UsernameAllowed}} (15 not counting the {'s). This is not the same situation as vandal templates or deletion notices. It's just needless formality for the sake of having a template for every possible message. Like I said, keep it if you want, but I think it's a dumb idea and should not be recommended to general wikipedians. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ok, you're good" might say it all to an experienced Wikipedian who knows the ropes, but I expect many (if not most) challenged usernames will belong to fairly new accounts, whose users may need the explanations and links. Ben 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because people like templating, but I will troutslap anyone who tries to make this template mandatory. -Amark moo! 05:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To fleetly fend off the fearsome fish-in-the-face, I offer this inoffensive template usage note: "Feel free to write your own message from scratch, or paraphrase this template in your own personal style. This template is not compulsory, it exists for anyone whom it may help to save time and effort in typing or in finding the links." Or, as I said above, "If you'd rather not use the template, then don't." Having ready-made shirts on the shelf doesn't, and shouldn't, keep you from making your own if you prefer. Ben 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not just that, but only a handful of editors are ever going to use this template. This isn't in the same vein as, say, {{Test2}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no fan of this template, but the arguments made here have shown me that it doesn't need to be deleted. We can keep going with the TfD if anyone wants, but it seems pretty clear that it will be kept anyways. No biggie. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then, move to close. Ben 09:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_5&oldid=1164246830"