Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 17



April 17, 2006

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Collab-indian
This is redundant template of the article Indian wikipedians' notice board/INCOTW/current and needs to repair every week as indian collaboration article changes every week. Shyam ( T / C ) 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ganeshk  ( talk ) 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Andy123  (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strongly delete, to write takes longer than to write Rock Indian ... but that's not the point, it is a purposless template and should be deleted. --Domthedude001 21:29, 22 April 2006 (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.


 * 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 Circeus 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Luke
Same reason as below. The chapter articles do not exist (except for the first 4). Therefore, the template is useless because it forces the user to click on each link in order to find out if the chapter articles exists or not. And due to the editing pattern of one user, it is highly probable that the remaining chapter articles will be redirected in the near future. Andrew c 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Centralized_discussion/Conclusions, Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text, Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20. John Reid 17:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all the Synoptic Gospels are very similar to each other, so triplicating the content in three sets of articles is wasteful. The chapter/vese divisions are a medieval invention, and cut across some subjects while not dividing others, the divisions are different in each Gospel, making it difficult to point each chapter to a particular topic. It would be better to have a list of all the topics in the chapter in order, which would be rather big, or just a list of the major topics, which already exists as Template:Gospel Jesus. Clinkophonist 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete it now, it will be back later, as there WILL be an article on every gospel chapter and many others as well. The template only links to the article multiple times because Clinkophonist did that, I guess cause he fears red.  Roy Brumback 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm bothered by Content forking. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have roughly the same content in roughly the same order. To triplicate it over three sets of articles, that are organised by nothing more than an arbitrary division created in the 16th century, strikes me as completely inappropriate. Clinkophonist 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This doesn't appear to be content forking, since the information in question wasn't in an article "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." Saying the synoptics all have the same content is kind of odd, and hints a bit at POV, and furthermore, seems beside the point. The Bible and its books, like them or not in their current form, are clearly notable, and a template like this is simply useful to those interested in this topic, and violates no guidelines. I would suggest that the redirects after Chapter 4 be deleted, and the links allowed to remain red until articles are written about them. Nhprman 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Clinkphonist. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Conditionally, The information in Luke 1-4 should be merged into Gospel of Luke.  After the information is merged, Luke 1-4 should redirect to Gospel of Luke just like Luke 5-24.  After that has taken place, delete the template.  Or... make a page for Luke 5-24... as Nhprman is planning to happen (if you chose this one, do not delete the template).  Either way will work, I personally think the first one is better. --Domthedude001 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can understand the case to keep these templates. In the future, there may be a day when every single chapter of the NT has its own article (or maybe every single verse). I personally think that it would include a lot of repeated content, and may not be significant in an encyclopedic sense. But this isn't my place to judge future content. I agree with what Clinkphonist is doing in merging the chapter articles with bigger topical articles that cover all gospels. Because the old pages are being redirected to the main page, it ends up breaking this template so it is useless (as my nom suggests). However, there is nothing forcing us to include this template in any article. So the question remains, do we delete a useless template (and maybe risk recreating it if it is ever needed)? Or do we keep it in hopes that one day it may prove useful (and simply not include it until that day)? --Andrew c 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Andrew c, John Reid, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 26 April 2006 (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.


 * 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 Circeus 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew
Nearly all of the chapter articles have been redirected to other topics or the main article. Therefore, there is no purpose in having a chapter's template when the chapter articles do not exist. It is confusing for the user to have a template that gives the illusion that there are articles on each chapter, when actually the vast majority are just redirects are circular back to the main Gospel of Matthew article. Andrew c 14:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Centralized_discussion/Conclusions, Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text, Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20. John Reid 17:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all the Synoptic Gospels are very similar to each other, so triplicating the content in three sets of articles is wasteful. The chapter/vese divisions are a medieval invention, and cut across some subjects while not dividing others, the divisions are different in each Gospel, making it difficult to point each chapter to a particular topic. It would be better to have a list of all the topics in the chapter in order, which would be rather big, or just a list of the major topics, which already exists as Template:Gospel Jesus. Clinkophonist 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete it now, it will be back later, as there WILL be an article on every gospel chapter and many others as well. The template only links to the article multiple times because Clinkophonist did that, I guess cause he fears red.  Roy Brumback 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm bothered by Content forking. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have roughly the same content in roughly the same order. To triplicate it over three sets of articles, that are organised by nothing more than an arbitrary division created in the 16th century, strikes me as completely inappropriate. Clinkophonist 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get what bothers you about these articles. The synoptics are "roughly" the same, but each version has differences that HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of books have been written about.  Are we really going to put ALL scholarship on say Jesus' death into one article, because as time goes on the info that will be put in on each version of his death will make the article far too large and confusing and I'm sure we'll have to split it up again anyway.  And by your reasoning, we should delete every Star Trek or South Park or The Simpsons episode article, as the info in the article on Chef for example is already contained in all the articles on each episode, thus commiting the sin of content forking.  I'm pretty sure we're keeping the Chef article and each episode article, so we should have each Jesus article as well as each chapter article.  Chapter by chapter on the Bible is far more "scholarly" then episode by episode of a TV show!  Plus, chapter and verse is no less "arbitrary" then breaking it up by event, and there is disagreement on whether an event mentioned in two books is always the same event.  For instance Mark 6 and Luke 4.  Are these talking about the same trip to Nazareth?  Most think so, but certainly not everyone.  Does each event get its' own article or do we overrule some scholars and simply say they are the same.  I don't think you're thinking long term here.  People are going to be putting info on Jesus and other Biblical figures into Wikipedia long after we're all dead, and I'm sure breaking things up chapter by chapter is coming no matter what. Roy Brumback 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Clinkphonist. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not content forking and each chapter of this book is notable and unique enough to merit articles of their own (and meriting this useful template linking to them.) The redirects should be deleted, however, and red links should remain, notifying editors that more work is needed. That's a fair point. Nhprman 01:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because there aren't any articles on the individual verses or chapters. There is a nice article on the entire book of Matthew and a few of the "verses" are redirects to stories or topics recounted in certain passages. I'm all in favor of having more Bible commentary on Wikipedia, but it's premature by a couple of years to have a template keyed to Gospel chapters. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Andrew c, John Reid, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:10, 26 April 2006 (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.