Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9

edit

Template:LORD

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 maintain status quo at this time. This discussion is much less related to this template and much more related to the Manual of Style, and therefore further discussion should be happening there. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD for said discussion. No prejudice toward any future discussion over this template resulting from any outcome over there. JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary. Against MOS. Redundant to Template:Sc Mhiji (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends - If "Unnecessary. Against MOS. Redundant to Template:Sc" is true, then Delete. If, however, "Unnecessary. Against MOS. Redundant to Template:Sc" is not strictly true, then Keep. I'm wondering if LORD is easier to understand/use than Sc. If so, Keep. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:GOD (sorry I should have listed them together really...) There is nowhere in MOS where it says we should be using this format, so surely it shouldn't be used... The section which mentions deities says that they should be named as "God, Allah, Freya, the Lord" etc. [[User:Mhi

ji|Mhiji]] (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, starting with my comment at the Template:GOD discussion. To Legitimate, yes it's easier, and yes it's not redundant (as the Template:Sc docs say). To Mhiji, thank you for admitting that "against MOS" is an argument from WP:SILENCE, which is of course invalid as soon as the silence is broken, which it has been now. Thank you also for demonstrating that the backup reasons for these two noms (those not stated in the nom) are actually more an interpretation of what MOS doesn't say rather than anything else. The two sections on this topic, which you quote, relate to initial-letter capitalization, not to the small-cap stylistic traditions that have been accepted over time, which Template:sc makes clear are at least five: GOD,, and UNICEF. Yes, that's what it says.

You, or others, may need to know about the difference between God and GOD, and Lord and LORD (brief background). As the article tetragrammaton made clear (until the deletion template you inserted broke the article and over 50 others), "In English translations, it is often rendered in capital and small capital letters as 'the LORD'." "LORD" is a personal name, "Yahweh" (or the equivalent) in Hebrew; "Lord" is a title, "Adonai" in Hebrew (literally "milord"). Because both primary and secondary sources make much of the distinction between naming and titling a deity, and because great significance is often drawn from which of the two words appears in a Hebrew text, English translators for more than 400 years have used an all-caps or small-caps formulation to distinguish the two. (I have also often seen the form "ADONAI" used to indicate the presence of "Yahweh" in a text, which should indicate that GOD and LORD are frequent enough that they have their own alternatives.)

"GOD" is rarer because it is used to translate "Yahweh" when immediately adjacent to "Adonai", which is then translated "Lord" (in this case a repetition with "LORD" would obviously lose a lot in translation). Thus GOD is a name and God is a title, just as above. I don't know how many GOD's you deleted when you deleted LORD's, but right now there are still between 50 and 100 LORD's in WP; and, as I said, even if there were no GOD's in WP it would still be a functional template.

Which brings me to the observation. I would think that with you nomming a lot of templates, you would not be completely tone-deaf to the challenging nature of your actions here. It appears you did not seek guidance at any WikiProject but suddenly began changing templates in articles en masse. You neglected edit summaries, which is not constructive. You nommed GOD by claiming it is unused, and you later nommed LORD, considering both "unnecessary" (which is never a deletion argument in itself). You probably didn't know that nomming a widely used inline template would break the 50-100 articles it remains in, but it does. You might not have seen my comment on the first TFD while you were posting the second, but certainly LORD is a much more used name than GOD, and so even without my comments it is quite a leap to nom LORD immediately after GOD as if there is not a significantly higher bar to reach prior to deletion. After I apprise you of the facts on the ground, you argue that Template:Sc is just one editor (wrong, if it were, the next editor to disagree would've cut it; instead, it's consensus); and that since MOS, speaking of initial caps, advises of "God" and "Lord" but neglects separate discussion of "GOD" and "LORD", the latter are actually contrary to MOS; that is, your arguments reveal something really entrenched. Also, your later argument contradicts what you did earlier, because you retained the small-caps in all articles with "/small" tags instead of the template; what were you going to do, lowercase all instances in a second pass once the TFDs passed, to comply with your reading of MOS? Or just ignore your own reading? Or change "LORD" to "Yahweh" throughout or some equivalent, contrary to common English practice? In short, I suspect this is a very bad path to keep going down and you might want to back out before you go much further.

Now to the actual concern, which I am going to guess on your behalf if you don't mind: I can certainly understand if you believe that "GOD" and "LORD" are biased because no other deity gets such a special typographical convenience. Such an argument would at least be an honest statement of position and have roots in an attempt at consistency. If that is your position, first, you should have stated it in the first string, or in the second, instead of alluding to it indirectly. Then, on its merits, it still will not pass, for the simple reason that any deity, or any sovereign in fact, who wants a special typographic convention strongly enough generally gets one. I've already referred to TIME, UNICEF, and UNESCO. Another that comes to mind is "the artist formerly known as Prince": I don't know if he ever got his symbol into Unicode or not. In religion in particular, we have Latter Day Saints redirecting to one article and Latter-day Saints redirecting to a subsection thereof, in an attempt (incomplete I think) to distinguish the two meanings; if you confuse one for the other, or act as if they could redirect to the same place or one is unnecessary or unused, you will hear about it indefinitely from all sides. There was also a big argument, unresolved I think, that cherem and herem, the same word, must be retained as two different articles; and never misspell or mispunctuate Saviours' Day. The happenchance that these two templates are the only two cases of common small-caps traditions when limiting references to deities is not sufficient to derive a case of bias against other deities.

If this keeps up I'll notify a WikiProject and maybe I need say no more. JJB 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I do mind.... Why have you "guessed on my behalf" the "actual concern" was that I was making an argument that this is biased?! How have I "alluded to it indirectly"? What did I say to make you think that?!!?! If I'd thought that I would have stated it. And I don't see how or why my views would be anything to do with this? Why don't you read the words I have written and the arguments have put forward instead of attempting to work out what I might be thinking and then attacking me for what you think I had thought!?! I have not contradicted myself...? The thought that this might not be in line with MOS came after I had made the initial nomination which was that the templates are unnecessary because they are redundant to another template (which is a perfectly valid reason for nomination). Again, why don't you read and interpret the words I have written? Why do you keep using Template:Sc/doc as a definitive guideline? I've seen a number of cases where template docs do not follow with other guidelines or reflect current useage etc. You are saying that because no one has challenged it then it is consensus, but I am challenging it now - that is the whole point of these discussions. For every deletion or move discussion, you could use the argument that "this is how it exists at the moment, therefore it is consensus so we shouldn't change it" - if we used that as a valid argument, nothing would ever be deleted or moved or merged.... And how are Latter day Saints/Latter-day Saints, cherem/herem or Saviours' Day at all relevant!? Mhiji (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is utter WP:NONSENSE since every religion has its own views of who or what God is and how God should be named. In fact this template violates WP:NPOV because it conveys an exclusive view of God's name, mostly based on one vague type of Christian thinking (mostly found of WP, but hard to find in real life!) There is no "one way" to refer or call or name God in the broader Judeo-Christian tradition, see for the varieties of names as an example in Names of God in Judaism. This template is a blunder and must go ASAP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK, and thank you, incidentally, for your example that showed me how to correctly list this for wider discussion. In general, we do use self-identifications from religious adherents for how to describe God or gods. But this is not that; the use of these two templates is solely restricted to the case envisioned, namely, primary or secondary sources making clear which of three Hebrew words has been translated. (The third word is "Adon", conventionally translated "lord" in lowercase, to distinguish from the specific form "Adonai".) If you see "the LORD" used in any other case feel free to change it to "God" or what fits the context. I think Kevinkor2's data below is conclusive, particularly in that, in the MOS archives discussion, those against small caps committed the same misunderstanding, presuming that this indicates a special reverence today rather than a translation convention that has hundreds of years of very broad usage. JJB 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and update MOS. This is a typing-aid template used to keep the Tetragramaton (the personal name of God used in the Hebrew Bible) rendered consistently across Wikipedia. I believe that if this typing-aid template is deleted, individual articles will once again splinter into having inconsistent styles to render the Tetragramaton. Also, if we keep this template, I suggest we update WP:MOS so that it is recommended for use.
By the way, thank you, Mhiji, for notifying me! I appreciate it!
Here is information about {{LORD}}:
I found one place in MOS talk where there was debate on the proper capitalization of the Tetragramaton:
Also, please refer to the following sections of Tetragramaton:
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've notified everyone who contributed to this discussion.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually 2 sections of the Manual of Style that would need to be changed for this to be compliant. MOS:ALLCAPS and the section on religious capitalization. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-withstanding the MOS, completely redundant to {{sc}}. It saves three letters when typing; why is a template needed? — Edokter • Talk • 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the standard English rendering of the Hebrew יהוה and has been for hundreds of years. Refusing to use it ignores the consensus usage of reliable sources. Ozob (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that we need to follow the conventions of Biblical sources when quoting them, especially where the reason for doing so is a religion-specific convention regarding the speaking of the name of $DEITY. Nevertheless, if these are currently being used in subst format then deleting them is counterproductive. I would rather that existing instances of {{sc|LORD}} and {{sc|GOD}} were de-substituted in that case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:17, 15 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:GOD

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 maintain status quo at this time. This discussion is much less related to this template and much more related to the Manual of Style, and therefore further discussion should be happening there. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD for said discussion. No prejudice toward any future discussion over this template resulting from any outcome over there. JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Redundant to Template:Sc. Mhiji (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nom is contrary to guidance at Template:Sc, There are dedicated templates {{LORD}} and {{GOD}} for the scriptural use. They are equivalent but streamlined. Preferably do not use {{sc}} for this. Nominator has begun changing a number of occurrences from "{{LORD}}" to the template's content, "L<SMALL>ORD</SMALL>"; due to lack of edit summaries, it is unclear whether GOD is "unused" due to similar changes by the nominator, or just due to attrition. Though GOD is less used, it should be retained for the significant number of cases where it translates the tetragrammaton as an alternative to LORD, both in primary-source quotes and in commentary. It appears to me unreasonable to expect editors to switch either to "G<SMALL>OD</SMALL>" or to "{{sc|G|OD}}" when the phrase is needed, as it surely would be in various places in WP (I dispute the idea that "unused" conveys the big picture here). Even if unused it is natural to permit the widespread users of "LORD" to test "{{GOD}}" and find the concept useful, rather than to have to know about the two alternatives; so even if the assertion is true there is no need to delete a template on some decluttering argument. How many "otheruses" templates do we have again? JJB 22:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The doc at {{Sc}} is irrelevant... It's not a policy or guideline, it's just one editor has added that line. Are LORD or GOD even consistent with MOS?!?! I can't find anywhere where it says we should be using this format, so surely it shouldn't be used... The section which mentions deities says that they should be named as "God, Allah, Freya, the Lord" etc. Mhiji (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I'm sure everyone will notice anyway, but) I've nominated Template:LORD for deletion too, here. Mhiji (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My complete response is there, earlier on this page. JJB 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —JJB 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —JJB 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is utter WP:NONSENSE since every religion has its own views of who or what God is and how God should be named. In fact this template violates WP:NPOV because it conveys an exclusive view of God's name, mostly based on one vague type of Christian thinking (mostly found of WP, but hard to find in real life!) There is no "one way" to refer or call or name God in the broader Judeo-Christian tradition, see for the varieties of names as an example in Names of God in Judaism. This template is a blunder and must go ASAP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is unused.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To IZAK, thanks again, please see prior nom above. Kevin, I would agree as far as saying the proper use of this one is pretty rare (unlike the other TFD). I'd still keep due to my reading of WP:PRESERVE and Dbachmann's statement that it ain't broke; unused is not useless, and I'm deliberately not investigating why it's unused at this instant. However, if community consensus deletes this one and not the other, I don't think forcing editors to use the more complex and manifold templates (as you documented above had been done previously with LORD) would be nearly as significant a burden as in the other case. JJB 15:12, 10 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Minute

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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused duplication of Template:MINUTE. Redirect to that. Mhiji (talk) 21:13, 9 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:Rcl

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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Only transclusion is on the creator's user page. Substitute and delete. Mhiji (talk) 20:54, 9 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:Button

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 keep as under construction with no prejudice to revisiting the issue in the future. JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 19:57, 9 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:Business icon2

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Business icon2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 19:55, 9 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:10TeamRR

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10TeamRR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 19:50, 9 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:R help

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 keep. It is safe to say that the utility of this page has been sufficiently proven, therefore delete is not an option. While the argument to move said page is compelling, I'm also compelled to believe that moving this template might hamper the efforts of the everyday editor who is used to referring to it. While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R help (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content already covered in Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Shouldn't be in template namespace anyway, so I think a redirect is inappropriate. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unused, unnecessary. Don't redirect as would be cross-namespace. Mhiji (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please forgive me, because I find this to be a very useful reference, and I fail to understand how anyone can make such a sweeping statement as "Unused" without actually knowing if it really is unused. Seems like I'm always coming across REDIRECTs that need Rcats, and if I'm not certain which Rcat(s) is appropriate, I go directly to {{R from}}, which redirects to {{R help}}, to find out. I view this reference as a handy shortcut for Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, and this is why editor Dispenser created this page in the first place. His creation comment back in 2008 was "Should've created this a long time ago, would've made searching for the template much easier." Happiest of holidays to you all!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it was unused I meant it is unused as a template (that there are no transclusions of it). If some people do find it useful there's no reason not to keep it in one form or another, however it should not be in template space - quite simply, its not a template. The content does seem to be the same as at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages but is laid out in a different order. If the way Template:R help is laid out is deemed to be more useful, perhaps the Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages could be laid out in the same way instead? I don't think alphabetical order is best for this type of thing - it would be better laid out sorted by function similar to how Template:R from is and how Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is laid out. Or perhaps this could be moved to user space? But definitely shouldn't be in template space. Mhiji (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Profound apologies, Mhiji. This is most certainly a template, and indeed it is a master template. For my explanation, please see my response to editor Bsherr below. Placing this template anywhere else will deteriorate its utility, a utility that is worth quite a bit to those of us who use it often.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until MediaWiki has link/template name completion built in by default or a good template chooser. It was more useful originally as you could start typing {{R from}} and preview to view a list of template. Anyway, it is hard enough to find templates as it is without needing to making it harder. — Dispenser 04:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me, Bsherr. This is most certainly a template. It was created and designed as a MASTER template. To illustrate the importance of this, I'll use my own experience as an example. My WP search field is up at the top of my browser just to the right of my URL field. All I have to do is type the letter "t" in the WP field and a list of several articles that start with "t" are shown within a dropdown list. Just above all those articles are several templates that I use most often (rather intuitive don't you think?). And at the very top of this most-used list is Template:R from. So all I need do is type the letter "t" in the search field, click on the top choice, Template:R from, and I'm quickly rushed to the page herein discussed (remembering that Template:R from is redirected to Template:R help).
Editor Dispenser designed this template as a master template to quickly get editors to where they want to be. It is a shortcut of obvious worth to those of us who use it frequently.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have defined what is a template. From Help:Template: "A template is a page created explicitly for transclusion – the process of including the contents of one page within another page." Is this a template? If so, how? --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits#Tagging, where a "master template" is defined as a template "with nested parameter calls, or used to manage other templates".
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly labeled master templates, like Template:WPBannerMeta and Template:Db-meta, themselves meet the definition of a template. Please prove that this is a page created explicitly for transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that this page was created not for transclusion, but for its usefulness to editors. As the above definition of master templates states, a template can also be created to "manage other templates". Please keep in mind that the definition you cited above is found on a "Help" page, not on a "policy" nor even a "guideline" page. Therefore the definition, which you seem to think is of far more importance than the usefulness of this master template, is there to serve as a helping hand for people who want to learn the basics about templates— nothing more, nor less. So, it is sincerely hoped that it will be this template's usefulness, its functional helpfulness, instrumentality and practicality, that will serve as the most important reasons to Keep this master template.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a master template, because it's not a template. If you're unsatisfied with the Help page I provided, WP:Namespace addresses what goes in each namespace, and this does not qualify to be in the template namespace. If it's useful, then move it to the help namespace and use a cross-namespace redirect. But it cannot stay in the template namespace because it is not a template. --Bsherr (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bsherr, it's not a template or master template because it's not created for transclusion (per Paine). As the name is useful to some users, as Paine and 67.100.126.232 have described, and they feel passionate about using it, then it's probably worth using that name (Template:R from) as a cross-namespace redirect. But this is a help page - it should either be moved to the WP or Help namespace or deleted. As some users find it helpful, we might as well just move it to the WP or Help namespace. Although then there would be duplication as we would have this page as well as Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Most (if not all - I've not checked all of them) of the other template pages (see here) are not set out in alphabetical order, but instead by function, so I don't see why this one should be any different. Therefore how about replacing the content of Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages with the content from this template and adding any content which is not included (basically I'm saying merge the two pages, but have it ordered by function rather than alphabetical), deleting Template:R help and using Template:R from as a cross-namespace redirect? Mhiji (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll have to agree to disagree fellow editors. This is a keeper because its usefulness far outweighs any definition problems it might have in your opinion. In my opinion it is a special-case master template designed to manage the most useful and most-used Rcats. Putting it anywhere else will decrease its utility, and once again editors would find themselves spending extra time hunting down the right Rcat. Only those editors who have had to hunt, only those editors who spend some of their time adding Rcats to Redirects, could fully understand how big an error it would be to delete this master template!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither moving this page nor repeating ourselves serves any purpose. I've justified my opinion, and I leave the outcome in capable hands.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've read that CNRs are still moderately controversial, and that presently the general consensus is to delete newly created CNRs. If this is so, then redirecting {{R from}} and {{R help}} to another namespace would definitely be undesirable!
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise CNRs are undesirable per my first comment above. I'm a bit confused why your now concerned about CNRs but not at all bothered about something being in completely the wrong namespace?! Mhiji (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic that I must DITTO my previous statement about how repeating ourselves serves no purpose. It is obvious, editor Mhiji, that we disagree regarding whether or not this master template is in the correct namespace. From the looks of all the "Keep"s in this section, there is no consensus to delete, but I don't get to make that decision. So as I said, I leave the outcome in Admin's capable hands.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic that again I must say, it's not a master template. The number of keeps or deletes is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Admins make decisions based on arguments. As yet, you have not provided any constructive argument as to why this should be in template space. You've just repeatedly said that it's a "master template". Why? It can't be a master template, because it isn't a template (I'm not going to explain why again... Bsherr has and I have as well, it's all up there ^^^). The section you quoted about tagging is irrelevant...? If you look further up that same page at Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits#Double_transclusion it explains what is means by the term "master template". This is where "we transclude one page in another, and then transclude that page in a third". I agree repeating ourselves serves no purpose - we're just going round in circles. If you have a constructive argument to back up your position, then please do share it. If not, we'll just leave it at that. Mhiji (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not surprising that you brought up that link. That section is an explanation of "double transclusion", "triple transclusion" and "multiple transclusion", and that's all it is. It's odd that you don't expect interested readers to see the second paragraph and how it begins: "Some master templates are . . ." Does this not leave the definition of "master template" open to include other definitions? It must... because the so-called "irrelevant" passage about tagging that I cited previously that added to the definition of "master template" retains its relevancy whether someone thinks it's relevant or not.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you saidimplied when you said that the term is open to a number of definitions ("Does this not leave the definition of "master template" open to include other definitions? "), there is no definition as to what a "master template" is (presumably because the writers of that essay thought that it was obvious what they meant - obviously not everyone has understood what they were trying to say). And really it's rather self explanatory what is meant by master templates and subtemplates.... see here and here. The term "master template" is not really even ever used on Wikipedia - a simple search shows that no-one really uses the term, it's only really used in that essay. Regardless, however you interpret it, that essay doesn't prove anything... It's not a policy or guideline, it's "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". I'm sure you'd agree (please tell me if I'm wrong), whatever you define as a "master template" (not that it actually matters), it has to be a template. If it's not a template, it can't be a "master" template. Again (I know I'm repeating myself again - sorry it's just I feel I have to for you to actually respond to any of the issues I've raised), if you have a constructive argument to back up your position (to keep the template in template space), then please do share it. Mhiji (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to feel like a last word freak. But everytime you respond, you write things that are either half-truths or not true at all. And it's getting old. I did not say that there is no definition for "master template". Indeed, I pointed out one definition, and you pointed out another. The fact that the definitions are in an essay is a moot point. They are still definitions of a device used on Wikipedia, the "master template".
You seem to be trying very hard to sway me. It's not my job to sway you, and it's not your job to sway me. We state our opinions and move on. It's time to move on. Please respond, because I never like getting the last word in. But unless you specifically ask me to answer you, this is my last word on the matter.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise, you're right, you didn't say that explicitly (I've corrected it now). Just stating your position is worthless. Again, if you have a constructive argument to back up your position, then please do share it. Otherwise we'll just leave it there. Mhiji (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Paine (and anyone else who currently uses this template), if you use Twinkle it adds a "Tag" button which brings up a list of all of the redirect categories (very similar to the Template:R help page) and you can add the category with just one click. I'd definitely recommend checking it out. Mhiji (talk) 16:27, 15 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:CFR Line 200

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFR Line 200 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 300 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 400 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 500 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 600 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 700 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 800 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 900 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CFR Line 1000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary templates. Mhiji (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these templates are used in their respective article. And what do you mean about not being necessary? BineMai 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know whether they have in fact ever been used or not, but we do know that none of the above is currently transcluded on any page; see Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates and search there for the particular template names. HeyMid (contribs) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are all used in another template Template:Căile Ferate Române main lines. BineMai 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but they've been substituted into that template rather than transcluded. Since this has been done, is there any reason we need to keep them as individual templates? If any changes need to be made to them, the changes can be made at Template:Căile Ferate Române main lines. Mhiji (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good point. BineMai 18:22, 10 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:Blanked unsourced BLP

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 speedy delete both, per the T2 criteria (non-admin closure). HeyMid (contribs) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blanked unsourced BLP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template's idea is to blank unsourced BLPs for an indefinite period of time, instead of prodding them (which means that they are deleted one week later, if they are not sourced during that time). Per the WP:AN/UNBLP discussion, there is no clear consensus as to whether unsourced BLPs should be blanked. I therefore suggest deleting this template. If this template is deleted, I suggest that also the {{Unsourced BLP flagged}} template is deleted. HeyMid (contribs) 16:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While not every unsourced BLP need nor should be blanked, there may be situations involving unsourced negative material for which blanking may be appropriate. I'd be inclined to leave this in the toolbox, but to edit the template and write documentation that makes it clear that this action is not the norm. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the discussion I linked to above, AFAIK it hasn't been transcluded again. I'm not sure whether keeping templates that have a purpose which isn't supported by consensus is a good idea. HeyMid (contribs) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I don't think the discussion you link to is on point for any blanking, only for mass blanking. But there's nothing in the BLP policy that mentions blanking as a remedy, so that's a reason to delete it. That should also render it eligible for speedy deletion under criterion T2. I'll identify it as that too. --Bsherr (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created that when I discovered that a certain admin was deleting unsourced BLPs, because I thought undeleting+blanking is preferable to undeleting+creating a massive dramastorm on ANI. I'd like to think that it did make it less dramatic (may be not). Don't really care whether it gets deleted or not now. T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedy deleted this on criteria T2. If an article needs to be (mostly) blanked, it can be edited if anyone feels the need to do this. Total blanking should only be a prelude to a speedy delete. Well may be other reason such as possible copyright infringement, followed by deletion or restoral if there was not a problem) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 10 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 radio station

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox radio station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox broadcast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox radio station with Template:Infobox broadcast.
Propose merge Infobox radio station into Infobox broadcast. It seems these templates are sufficiently similar such that they can each take advantage of their overlap in a merge. Infobox broadcast may have always been intended to take over all broadcast media, but it needs a few more fields from Infobox radio station to meet that goal. Bsherr (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have all the same fields available if they were merged. Don't want to leave anything out that could be useful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge while preserving all the fields, as suggested above. ThemFromSpace 01:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the "broadcast" infobox seems strongly designed for television stations and will require extensive revision (not merely " a few fields") to meet the somewhat different needs of radio stations. I see no proposed benefit to such a merger. - Dravecky (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion that extensive revision is required is very exaggerated. Currently, the Infobox broadcast template can accomodate two-thirds of the parameters in Infobox radio station. Each template currently has thirty parameters. A merger of the two would only require forty parameters, ten more than current. The benefit of the merger is the efficiency gained in the introduction of template improvements—both television and radio stations can benefit from template improvements that are presently installed on one or the other. For example, radio stations will immediately benefit from Infobox broadcast's city/location control feature. As future improvements are introduced, both will benefit. --Bsherr (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd add also that another benefit is that information in infoboxes for TV and radio will have the same labels where fields are the same, will be presented in the same order, and will have the same general appearance. This consistency of presentation is asthetically preferable. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the broadcast infobox. - User:Supergabbyshoe] 19:02, 10 December 2010 (PST)
  • Oppose There is no benefit to this at all as both the television and radio templates meet completely different needs like shares, webcasts, translator stations and HD Radio, and adding all of these fields to the broadcast template will create an unwieldy and complex template which is already large enough as it is. Nate • (chatter) 12:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • False. Both television and radio have in common every parameter you just identified: Both TV and radio use broadcast relay stations (translators, repeaters). Both have share data. Both may have webcasts. And both may have analog and digital stations. --Bsherr (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • TV stations never have webcasts except for their minor subchannels (which are unlinkable since they're usually Flash video or a WMV link), the TV box currently has no share data, and there are no virtual frequencies for radio stations, because their digital frequencies are transmitted via their sideband on their existing channel. I stand by my reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding webcasts, would an example of a major station with a webcast disprove your claim? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding share data, is there a reason not to implement it for TV stations? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding virtual channels, this is the first time you've mentioned this parameter. Not every parameter need apply to both. See for example Template:Infobox settlement or Template:Infobox person. But for this particular parameter, I would point out the existence of Virtual_channel#Digital_radio, so at least someone appears to be incorrect. --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia Television Stations Project has generally not linked at all to television webcasts because their availibility varies wildly, along with different file formats. Web streaming of radio is much easier since it's either just MP3, Windows Media, or in a few cases now, Real Media. TV webcasts are usually for only breaking news events and 24/7 rolling weather and traffic data and are in several formats, including Flash, UStream, Brightcove, Windows, Real, and many others. It would be too clumsy at all to maintain a web TV parameter, not to mention the fact that generally the TV stations do not want direct links to streaming in the first place outside of their sites.
          • Meanwhile, we only include Nielsen ratings data for television stations only if it's sourced by a newspaper or industry media article, and only in prose. Arbitron has the sense to link their data easily, but Nielsen is much more protective of it; we had to pull mentioning their defined television markets at their request because of a copyright violation. We're on pins and needles with them enough right now, and to add rating/share data (never mind how it can vary incredibly through the day) is asking for trouble with them.
          • Finally your question about virtual channels, the radio station project has usually focused on making that prose rather than templated, and it's not even in the city station templates. HDTV is an established technology along with subchannels, while right now HD Radio isn't, and right now it remains both on a sideband of the analog channel and is just a step from the regular frequency. At this point it should remain how it is in the template, and a parameter can be added for it in the future. Nate • (chatter) 10:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I fail to see the utility in combining the two. While television stations and radio stations have lots of things in common, a single template to handle both seems too homogenized. While I am generally for using a more general template to in the place of a handful of lesser used ones, neither the radio nor television infoboxes are "lesser used." Combining Red Delicious Apples and Granny Smith Apples makes sense. These are Red Delicious Apples and Florida Oranges. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose The only real similarity between the two is that they broadcast over the airwaves. Having worked in both genres over many years, they are two completely different animals and should be treated as such. One problem I see already: Frequency, or channel? By the time you do two infoboxes incorporating each of those, you might as well have the two separate categories. --Manway (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully two thirds of the fields are exactly the same. Doesn't that demonstrate that they're similar? --Bsherr (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue with that point would be this - why are there so many infoboxes for people. A human being is a human being, and most of the fields in those infoboxes are similar. Yes, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but one can't argue for one and against the other rationally, not in my view. JPG-GR (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThe Infobox radio station template works well for us in WPRS & to switch over to another template seems like too much work for too little result. The current radio infobox has been refined as needed. It's not broken so there's no need to "fix" it.Stereorock (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin - It should be noted that the link on {{Infobox Radio station}} does not properly link to this discussion (it links to [1]) and as someone who has in the past routinely cleaned this page, it's not exactly fun to navigate. JPG-GR (talk) 02:22, 15 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:U-Kiss

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U-Kiss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:U-KISS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not much navigation with only one or two links. If not deleted should be merged. Mhiji (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:31, 9 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:Australian Now! series

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Now! series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Redundant to Template:NOW music albums. Mhiji (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator notified. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 9 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:Parachutes

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) 02:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parachutes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dewaar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Inquilaab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kashmakash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete per all of the arguments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_6#Template:Dookie. Mhiji (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creators are all either banned or blocked. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 9 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_9&oldid=1140386773"