Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 1



Template:Shc

 * 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) 22:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Shc

A user-test, redundant to Coord. No further development nor deployment since the TfD of January 2012; and nothing done to resolve the accessibility concerns. Still only used on one article. The community has expressed no interest in hiding specific coordinates behind a generic icon. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the last TfD showed the community interest in doing that. However, the single article utilizing this template has a kml which makes it redundant in general, so I don't mind seeing away with this since no changes seem to be in the works for coord to make it more visibly pleasing in a repetitive table format. As an aside, I wonder if Wikidata could possibly offer some ideas on this, placing the coords together on one page and referencing them from the table with a link. -  Floydian  τ ¢  08:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per discussion passim, coordinates should be - and usually are - shown in tables, for the convenience of our readers. The attachment of a KML file does not render such coordinates redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're accustomed to coords being accessible through the text links that coord produces, so this little icon isn't intuitive.  If you really really want to have coords accessible without that, it's not hard: put the coords in coord, preview, go to the Geohack page, save the URL, and then place description here where you want it to be.  Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:07, 6 March 2013 (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:Modern Dharmic writers

 * 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) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Modern Dharmic writers

Almost random assortment of authors, with an arbitrary inclusion date. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The same user has already previously made a proposal for deletion with exactly the same arguments for the same template (the result of the deletion discussion was keep). --Trphierth (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – The Buddhist, Hindu and Syncretic Dharmic writers I am familiar with (about two-thirds) clearly belong on the template. Nothing random there. You say the inclusion date (1875) is "arbitrary". I don't see that as a problem so long as the cut off point is clear. I  think some clarification is needed, such as "published after 1850" or "born after 1800". If the term "modern" is a problem, it could be avoided by renaming the template something like "Dharmic writers born after 1800". --Epipelagic (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by JJ - What is it that connects Buddhist, Hindu and "Syncretic" writers? Do they see themselves as belonging on one category? Or is it that those syncretistic writer see Buddhist and Hinduist writers as belonging to the same category? In that case, it's obvious that there are already separate templates on Buddhism, Hinduism, and all sorts of spirituality.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's not clear to me what's the criterion for inclusion, except for popularity in New Age circles. The inclusion of Buddhist and Hinduist writers at the one hand, and "syncretic" writers at the other hand, reflects a Perennial agenda.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please explain what you mean by perennial agenda? If you are referring to Huxley's Perennial Philosphy, I see nothing wrong with it, as similar ideas are found in Hinduism and Buddhism. --Trphierth (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: New Age circle? They belong to ancient religions. --Ekabhishektalk 14:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply by JJ - mixing all sorts of traditions because of perceived similarities, and thereby overlooking the differences and nuances.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: JJ, So, if you are mixing up things, then at least read the article about Dharma mentioned at the top of template, to get a better understanding and their inter-connectedness, and hence the need for common template. Because followers of one may read authors of other dharmas. --Ekabhishektalk 16:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply by JJ - I've had a look at the Dharma-article, but it does not make clear to me why authors of different religious backgrounds should be in one template, and what's the criterion for inclusion. If the commonality is in Buddhist, Hinduist, Jainist or "syncretic" background, then the criterion is so broad that it becomes almost meaningless. If the criterium is in dharma as "the Law that "upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe"", then it's not clear if all those writers uphold such views; e.g. "In modern Indian languages it can refer simply to a person's religion, depending on the context". That's broad too.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - this template has been being misused for a long time. I've tried to remove it from articles which aren't listed in it, but various editors keep adding it to dozens and dozens of articles about spiritual people who aren't even writers. It's not based on any sources, which it should be. I highly doubt that a source could be found for most of the people in the template describing them as a "Dharmic writer", because it's a made-up category intended to enable squeezing unrelated Buddhist, Hindu, and New Age writers together in an idiosyncratic way. Next someone will claim that Aleister Crowley is "dharmic" because some bloggers have written that he is (seriously), and all kinds of "Magicians" will have to be added to it as well. Let's just delete it. Yworo (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Articles or templates that are under deletion discussion should not be removed from articles during the deletion discussion as the result is that less people are aware that it is proposed for deletion, but you have been doing this in many articles after the template was already nominated for deletion. You have removed this (and other templates like the Buddhism template) from many articles where it cleary is appropriate before the AFD, and you also removed it from some articles where the author is on the template itself. For example from the K.D. Sethna article and many others, please put this back in these articles. You also deleted the category "Dharmic writers" which linked to the template under deletion discussion and removed all the articles from the category without any prior consensus or discussion by removing it from all other categories and articles. In one case, you deleted it with the edit summary "remove supercat of Hindu writers". As a result it is in no other category. Why should it be difficult to find sources that Yogananda or any other of the writers is a Hindu and Dharmic writer? Not all Hindus may agree with Yogananda's teachings, but his writings are religious, and from a Hindu standpoint, and therefore I would say he is a Hindu writer and a Dharmic writer, since Hinduism is a Dharmic religion. Nobody has added magicians to the template, so I'm not sure why you bring this up as it didn't even happen, and therefore it speaks in fact for the template. In any case it seems you are just name-dropping without knowing the facts, or you would perhaps not be so suprised at these "blogs", since he had in his early career a Buddhist phase. Again, nobody has added him on the template, because his life and philosphy encompasses more than that, so can you let us know why you bring him up? Nobody has added any of the other magicians of the Western mystical tradition to the template, therefore your fears that they might be added in the future are not well-founded. --Trphierth (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find the suggestion made above by User:Yworo of adding an occultist like Aleister Crowley and "Magicians" to category of Dharmic writers, highly disrespectful. Please refrain from making disparaging remarks about subjects you are clearly not interested, there is no need be uncivil. Also when you making comments like "editors keep adding it to dozens and dozens of articles about spiritual people who aren't even writers..Make sure you also substantiate with clear examples of the "dozens", that can be looked into by others, thanks! I feel there is some confusion amongst some editors as they confuse Dharmic writers mostly of Eastern religions as being "spiritual" or "new-age".--Ekabhishektalk 14:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - An important template, which gives the reader a quick glance of important modern writers of Eastern philosophy, which I believe can be title of the template to make it clearer, as it covers major eastern religions. It has helped me so many times in the past, though for those not interested in Eastern philosophy it would seem of no use, which is fine. I see no fault in it except technical issues of date etc, which can be taken up at talk page. Unfortunate nomination. --Ekabhishektalk 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - "important modern writers of Eastern philosophy" sounds different than "Dharmic writers". Still, it does not make clear what the criterium for inclusion is. Using categories would suffice, I think.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How many readers of Wikipedia (not editors) would you say has any concept of how to use categories, or has even noticed they exist. One in a hundred? Or is that too optimistic. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be optimistic...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But they all know what a list article is. List articles are required to have clearly defined inclusion policies. It is my opinion that a list article would be an improvement over a template. This is a navigation template, and according to WP:NAVBOX, such a template should meet 5 listed criteria, which this template does not appear to meet. In particular, the "subject of the template" does not appear to be mentioned in any of the articles, and the requirement that there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template (Modern Dharmic writers) has not been fulfilled either. "If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate." Yworo (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Epipelagic and also the previous Articles for Deletion discussion for this template pointed out, there is nothing random in the template, and is clearly written on the template talk page, the inclusion date is not arbitrary, the date is in accordance with major events and figures in Hinduism or Buddhism (founding of the Arya Samaj by Swami Dayananda in 1875, the Parliament of the World's Religions, Vivekananda, Theosophical Society, etc).
 * As Ekabhishek explained above, and was also pointed out in the previous deletion discussion, the template is very useful for many. Just because some are not interested in it is not a valid reason to single out this template - there are many similar templates on religions, philophical ideas, cultural movements, writers and so on on wikipedia (examples are  and many more). Based on your logic, a large part of these templates could also be deleted because of "I don't like it". It is your opinion that the template is not useful or appropriate, many others find the template very useful as seen above. Also, the wikipedia editing guidelines are not wikipedia policies, they must be followed by common sense, and in my opinion the template fulfills the guideline good enough. You say a list would be an improvement over the template, but in my opinion I believe a list would be less useful, and would also tend to become too large much faster. Many of the individuals listed on the template do cite each other -- especially within traditions, but sometimes also across traditions. That's not particularly surprising, since they are all concerned with dharma, and sometimes they think that each other have things that are sufficiently insightful that they merit mention. The fact that we can identify pairs that are very different than each other does not make the category intrinsically invalid. Frankly, I suspect that people who are interested in dharma do in fact find this template useful as an easy way to find out more about writers they have heard about, as well as to learn the names of others that might interest them, and this was again already pointed out. --Trphierth (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:Trphierth, completely agree with what you have said, and Thank you for pointing out that it was nominated for deletion once before, which I had missed checking the discussion, and to my surprise the same user had nominated this template way back in 2011 as well, using the exact argument, "Arbitrary and almost random assortment of individuals.."!! --Ekabhishektalk 06:14, 7 March 2013 (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.