Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14 edit

Template:Alla Pugacheva 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The singer's navigational template consists of three links: the singer's article, a discography article and a redlink to a songs article. The two articles already link to each other making this template unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2018 (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).

Template:Yutaka Ikejima 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation; only one link that's is currently a stand-alone article, the rest have been deleted / redirected for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not everything needs a navbox, and this one doesn't. Just not enough links to justify the clutter. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient navigation with only one article target. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: no navigation left. Last remaining article link was just deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no useful links in the navbox now. --Danski454 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1 non-link and one blue link isn't justification for a navbox, Navbox is evidently useless here. –Davey2010Talk 12:55, 19 August 2018 (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).

Template:Liu Yifei 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once the actresses's filmography was removed from the\is navigational template, only four links were keft: the actress/singer's article and three album redlinks. Therefore, it does not navigate anywhere and is not needed. Aspects (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: May I ask why the filmography was removed?Thyang1990 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per prior consensus that is summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries#Filmography navbox templates, there should not be filmography navigational templates. This also applies that a filmography should not be listed in a singer's navigational template. Aspects (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2018 (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).

Template:Wikinewshas/Scientology 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last article is from 2012; the Wikinews category is automatically linked anyway so this is arguably unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2018 (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).

Template:Boldmono 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure of the utility of this template. I have just converted it to use TemplateStyles, but where bold should be used, more appropriate wikitext such as {{strong}} or even plain wikitext creating <b> tags may be more correct. (And where neither is correct, should the content be bold?)

I don't feel great about merging it to {{mono}} for this reason, but if that is the outcome of the discussion, it is a trivial merge. Izno (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The three articles it is used in it probably should not be used. Replacement 1 (standard wikitext + kbd); replacement 2 (WP:MOSBOLD); replacement 3 (both of the prior cases). I would suggest at a minimum this template is not necessary or desirable for mainspace. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can just be substed where it is used now and deleted otherwise. The edits to those articles have stood without reversion for a week now. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (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).

Miscellaneous border templates 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 August 24. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2018 (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).

Template:G-d 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? Template:D--ocracy? The seven dirty words? This may actually qualify for speedy criterion T2 (misrepresentation of policy), specifically Wikipedia is not censored. In my opinion, if someone cannot write about a topic in a neutral manner without self-censorship, they clearly have a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous TFD nomination (2011). Primefac (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{G-y}} unless there's a real religion which genuinely treats "gay" as a sacrosanct (or execrable) word which is not to be uttered or written. Weak keep {{G-d}} per the previous TfD. Jc86035 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both one could hypothesize any number of religious objections to words, images, or concepts, why cater to two specifically - even assuming that someone's religious sensitivities need catering to at all, and that those sensitivities allow someone to input "G-d" knowing that "God" will appear, this can all be achieved by entering GXXXXXd and doing the search and replace function for "XXXXX" to "o" and one will be alright with one's maker, without these sorts of templates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete both, easily replaced by javascript. ask me if you are interested. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, Primefac made a good faith attempt to assess the usage of the template {{G-d}} which the author NTK removed as "defeat[ing] the purpose of this template". How it defeats the purpose of avoiding typing "God" beats me. The necessity is not even documented in Word taboo. I've never heard of any such taboo regarding "gay". Anyone finding these circumlocutions necessary would be unlikely to be able to edit any relevant page with a neutral viewpoint. Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It "beats you" because you don't understand the purpose of the template, which is to simply to be able to type "God" without typing "God", rather, by only typing {{subst:G-d}}. Conspicuously littering the source text with z-number templates does defeat the purpose of the template, which is to be able to participate equally without compromising, flaunting, or imposing ones peculiar and deeply-held religious scruples. I just used the template two times myself, although I do not ordinarily hew to this dogma, I have met numerous people who do. It costs nothing to offer this as an inclusive option. I would also add that the "G-y" template, whatever it was, had nothing whatsoever to do with the G-d template, and listing them together was in bad taste if not bad faith. The G-d template has been listed before and repeatedly questioned by persons ignorant of the Orthodox Judaism community (where this khumra is largely observed) and this relisting adds nothing to the previous discussion. NTK (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{G-d}} per discussion at previous TfD. Delete {{G-y}} unless evidence is given that this is actually a religious concern instead of a POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{G-d}} and delete {{G-y}}, per Sarek. While I don't hold by this myself, it seems like a pretty inoffensive (and simple) way for someone to contribute in accordance with religious beliefs. Note: I wouldn't like to see this as an unsubstituted template requiring parsing all over the wiki. As a substitution template, it's fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{G-d}}, delete {{G-y}}. There is nothing wrong with a template to cater to religious sensibilities which do not harm the project. I am very much not happy with the undertone of intolerance in Nowak Kowalski's nomination, and this editor should be tr-ted for this nomination. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am being intolerant — intolerant of specific actions and content, not people, that is. You are now (apart from accusing me of bad faith) making a bold claim that someone with sensibilities which prevent the usage of the word "God":
    • would consider using search & replace a violation of the sensibility, and
    • would consider the use of this template "technically not a violation", and
    • would be able to write impartially about topics which require the use of word "God"?
    Because if either of this conditions is not satisfied, this template sees no legitimate use, and is only giving a bad example. (As i can see, my point was not raised at the previous TfD.) That, and the possessiveness of the template's creator pointed out by Cabayi, which prevents us from even verifying your claim. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish Debresser hadn't made it ad hominem. I do. That said, I don't agree that if either of the above conditions is not satisfied, this template sees no legitimate use. In fact, if use of this template is simply easier for an editor than other approaches, then its use is perfectly legitimate. In particular, templates for substitution (as opposed to templates for transclusion) are extremely handy as shortcuts, and don't add anything material to the overhead burden of the project. So how, exactly, is this one a problem? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Nowak is essentially arguing that the religious scruple that motivates one to write or type G-d versus God in the first place is invalid. That may be his opinion, but it's contrary to one held by thousands of religious observers. Others simply deny that this scruple exists, notwithstanding its documentation at Names of God in Judaism and ubiquity within popular Jewish literature. That's simply parochial ignorance. There are plenty of religious scruples, which may or may not be direct commandments but are practiced anyway, and may be mystifying to outsiders. Jews might send a manuscript to an editor writing G-d knowing the editor will fill in an "o", Amish may refuse to drive a car but might hire a taxi. etc. NTK (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose to Frietjes' argument. Not all editor are comfortable with JavaScript. Personally, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it, while with templates I am intimately familiar. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then use the text editor functionality - it's the little magnifying glass icon on the upper right of the box where text is written. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser, you seem to be very agitated by this discussion. I hope you realize this nomination is not an attack on your or anyone else's religion, rather it's simply a discussion on Wikipedia's policies for templates that appear to be relatively unknown in the community anyway. With all due respect, please CHILLOUT. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all agitated. I am familiar with Frietjes for a long time, and he is well versed in technical edits, but I prefer a more accessible Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
your use of pronouns indicates you don't know me that well. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The keep reasons in previous TfD are unconvincing, as they are here too. No evidence that editors wishing to edit Wikipedia will be unable to do so if this work around for a self-imposed limitation that that is a fringe practice at best. Tetragrammaton#Written prohibitions had as its only source a blog post by one guy referring to his personal practice. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that page could use more sourcing. There are multiple other pages on Wikipedia that refer to its existence, and if you are unfamiliar with it, then that speaks to your limited contact with Judaism. "G-d" in English is ubiquitous in Orthodox/ultraorthodox literature online and in print (take a look at https://www.chabad.org/ or any random Orthodox materials), and isn't rare even in Conservative/Reform denominated devotional materials. NTK (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to delete {{G-y}}, but at the moment no clear consensus to delete {{G-d}}. This relist is only for the latter template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{G-y}} per other rationales, but keep {{G-d}}. Useful for quotes of religious texts that use the "G-d" in small-caps format, people who need to type "God" in an article whose religion prevents them from doing so and also useful on discussion pages where people of certain faiths might want to mention God without saying God. I myself am not one of those people, but I see no reason not to allow it on discussion pages. Update the template documentation to indicate that it is not to be used in article space, except as part of a quote, or in an article discussing the use of the term. The argument saying that this template is a misrepresentation of policy is, in my opinion, borderline ridiculous. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a substitution template. When used as intended it is appropriate for use in any namespace to insert the word "God". NTK (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will respond to two of the nominators points in hopes that this does not come up again:
"This may actually qualify for speedy criterion T2 (misrepresentation of policy), specifically Wikipedia is not censored."
On what possible grounds? This is a substitution, typing-aid template which makes no reference or representation of Wikipedia policy whatsoever. The extraordinary claim that this harmless template, which has easily survived at least one previous TfD nomination, should be speedily-deleted should be spelled out more explicitly. In the absence of any grounds it undermines the credibility of this nomination.
"In my opinion, if someone cannot write about a topic in a neutral manner without self-censorship, they clearly have a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia"
That's a narrow-minded opinion. In the first place, it misconstrues the scope of this template, which may be useful to people who might still be able to edit the encyclopedia otherwise, but are more comfortable or find it easier to do so and more in line with their religious scruples using {{subst:G-d}}, versus either typing God directly or using another workaround. But more basically, to suggest that anyone who holds self-censoring scruples of any kind is biased to the extent that they cannot build an encyclopedia, is itself a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia for everyone. We should welcome the constructive participation of all communities, particularly people writing about topics relevant to their own community. The very purpose of this template is to facilitate contributions from those with Orthodox-inspired tendencies writing for a general audience, including audiences like the delete-voters here who find the very notion bewildering and laughable. Frankly the taboo against writing the name of God is far less peculiar and obtuse than many other, more settled Orthodox rules, e.g. regarding Sabbath observance and kosher. NTK (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NTK: Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself. Both the "rationales" that you just contested are over-the-top and don't have a compassionate understanding of how to make it easier for those of differing faiths to participate in this project. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A template that has no effect on either article text or code. A legitimate use, albeit for a small niche of editors. People whose editing habits and constraints are different from those of the average white westerner aren't automatically disqualified from either contributing or using the template namespace. – Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{G-d}} template says nothing about policy so not T2, and is harmless for those who ignore it, but allows devout Jews, who would likely be more knowledgeable and interested in religion, to contribute. --Danski454 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_14&oldid=856263190"