Template talk:S-start/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Papacy as an everlasting Holy See, most rather than all...

Resolved

 – The sentence at issue has been removed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

About the claim in the documentation that all titles go extinct rather than most, only 1 exception is needed to disprove an absolute like that (not that the exception of the Papacy excludes the possibility of a few other titles that will last). Anyway, at least 1 title that will never go extinct in the future is that of the Archbishop of Rome, the Pope. Among other things, this is made clear as a Canon of the First Council of the Vatican (1870).

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by Divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church...let him be anathema" (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus) (Emphasis added).

Therefore, as a non-Admin request, I respectfully ask that the documentation be edited to state that most titles become extinct, and that most titles in existence now will go extinct in the future. You can even edit it to say "most if not all" if you feel that the word "most" by itself would give too much ground.

Anyway, we have a source of information (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus) concerning at least 1 title (that of the Pope) that isn't going to go extinct at any point in the future. Therefore, let's change "all" either to "most" or "most if not all." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Mysterious El Willstro: this is the page for discussing the template {{S-start}}, not for posting religious viewpoints. If you have a question about religion, we have WP:RD/H. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about removing a bias from the official Template Commentary, by saying that most titles eventually become extinct rather than all. Do you see the difference? I'm just using the Papacy as an example of 1 title that isn't going to go extinct in the future. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the Papacy will never fall? Every government in human history has fallen except those that currently exist today. The Papacy has only been around since the 300s (or c80 according to tradition) and the Papal States ceased to exist for over 60 years after the kingdom of Italy was formed. While I know what you are saying, I think it is a bit idealistic to assume that the Papacy is somehow immune to collapse. It is a title just like any other and can be dissolved. All of the Latin Patriarchates are gone today, for example. Nothing lasts forever, although some things last for a very long time. Also, just for the record, the pope is the "Bishop of Rome," not archbishop, although he does have authority over all the archbishops. So I do not see a reason to reword this.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 00:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Even without a Papal State, there was still a Pope. The documentation specifically speaks of titles, not states.

Also, Saint Peter wasn't alive in the 300s, but nice try. As for Bishop/Archbishop, he is called only Bishop of Rome in Vatican documents, but in the context of the Pentarchy, the Five Major Archbishops are those of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome. Last but not least, the Patriarchs (Archbishops) of the other 4 of those Sees are still in existence but as Eastern Orthodox Bishops (or Coptic in the case of Alexandria). They are not extinct, as you said, but merely in schism. Claiming they were extinct shows unfamiliarity with the Great Schism and Eastern Orthodoxy. (Unless you were talking about the Crusader Latin Patriarchs, in which case those were all created around 1100 and were not Apostolic Sees like the ones discussed above.)

Back on topic, though, saying that the Papacy will continue forever in the future is not just wishful thinking. Have you actually read the Vatican I canon I pointed to in my original post? If not, go to the source and give the rest of that section of Pastor Aeternus a read. It is clearly talking about "forever" in the absolute sense, and it doesn't leave any room for "a very long time."

Can we at least acknowledge the possibility that Vatican I wasn't lying and that the Papacy, even if it does collapse in the sense of becoming less powerful at times (the Church suffering temporary losses of social influence), will not be abolished? The phrasing "most if not all" would be enough to acknowledge that Vatican I might have been telling the truth, rather than lying or exaggerating. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This request is contrary to at least 3 of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines:

• Verifiability - it may well have been asserted by Vatican 1 that the papacy will last for all time, but as a fact (rather than an assertion) it can't be verified 'til the end of time (at which time we'll all have bigger things on our mind than the accuracy of this template's documentation).
• Neutral point of view - taking an assertion and treating it as a fact is to uncritically take a devout Roman Catholic point of view. We must be neutral.
• WP:CRYSTAL. Too soon.

-- Cabayi (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(changing previous comment) I found the issue complained of difficult to find. The reference is to "s-non". The statement that "all" titles come to an end is in fact original research. The qualifier might conveniently be changed to "most" or even removed entirely. I would suggest that the prospects of America and France ceasing to have a President, and UK a queen or king are similarly remote. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The original statement also fails the 3 criteria set out by Cabayi: it is unverifiable and too soon to say that everything will fall into disuse, and the statement fails to account for the points of view of people who believe that some things in the universe are eternal. I've removed the sweeping generalisation about "all" positions coming to eventual extinction from the documentation, per this discussion. [1] Deryck C. 15:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! The issue is indeed resolved. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

S-non format aligned with s-new

The s-new template, by default, enters New title on the top line with the reason in smaller text on the next line. It would be good to change the format of s-non so that it reads None on the first line with the reason in smaller text on the second line. Greenshed (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Is template "Start box" wholly redundant?

Template:Start box currently redirects to Template:S-start but over 7,000 pages make use of the Start box template. Is there any reason to keep the Start box template in use? I am interested in using a bot to rename all instances of Start box to s-start but want to check this would not cause problems in even a minority of cases. Thanks Greenshed (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Two considerations:

• Do you propose replacing {{end box}} with {{S-end}} too?
• Is the counterpart to {{Start box}} ever something other than {{end box}} or {{S-end}} - something that does more than |}, where the renaming might cause confusion? Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not propose replacing {{end box}} simply with {{S-end}}. The end of tables and succession boxes is a more complex question - see {{end}} which is why I am just focusing on the start box question for now. Greenshed (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

So the proposal is to alter a paired {{Start box}} & {{end box}} with a mis-matched {{S-start}} & {{end box}} in order to reduce confusion? Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that we should work towards consistency across all articles but as with many big jobs, I favour taking one step at a time. Greenshed (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Are they causing any problems? If not, leave alone, per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There is considerable inconsistency in the use of WPML for succession boxes. This makes it confusing for editors new this area of WP. WP:NOTBROKEN is about redirects to articles not templates. Greenshed (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not so long back, there was a user who picked up a one-year block for (amongst other things) bypassing template redirects without good reason. Altering {{start box}}/{{end box}} to {{s-start}}/{{s-end}} was one of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. I was suggesting that the good reason in this case would be to achieve consistency in use of the {{s-start}} series of templates. However, as it is clear that both you and Cabayi are against the move then it seems best to discontinue this discussion as there is not going to be any consensus for such a change. Greenshed (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New succession box/office header

Hello. I recently created {{s-intel}}, it creates header "Intelligence Agencies" to be used with succession boxes for people with designations in Intelligence Agencies. Would somebody please include this in the section 3.4 "Headers"? (Between "Government offices/{s-gov}", and "Heraldic offices/{s-herald}".) Thanks a lot in advance, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

usernamekiran, A few questions:

• Where's the consensus? If asked for an opinion, I'd oppose because the idea of the headers is to group similar offices together, not to provide individual adornment to increasingly differentiated minor sub-groups.
• Why isn't {{s-gov}} good enough? What's so special about public servants in intelligence work that they won't fit in with other public servants?
• Why between {{s-gov}} and {{s-herald}}? Between {{s-hon}} and {{s-legal}} would follow alphabetical order.
• Why do you need a TPE request to update the documentation? Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Hi.

• I was not aware that this would require consensus, so yeah there is was no discussion regarding that.
• It occurred to me just now when I was reading your comment, maybe we can create {s-gov|intel}?
• That one is really embarrassing. I missed the alphabetical order.
• I tried to edit Template:S-start/doc, twice, with a gap of a little time. First around 19:53 IST; and second one was around 02:24 IST, just a few minutes before posting this request. Both the times I couldnt edit the doc, so I thought I was wrong about template documentation being editable; as I have had never edited a template protected template's documentation. Hence the request. (Not trying to gain TE flag if that's what you are wondering Also, I dont think such accepted edit-requests, or edits to templates (the kind of that I do) would be considered during TP request at PERM.)
  So do you think we should create {s-gov|intel}? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:S-start/doc is not protected, and never has been (here is the protection log). What sequence of links did you use to attempt this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

usernamekiran, I'm not 100% opposed, and consensus isn't a requirement to edit here, but it's wikipedia, and consensus always helps. On a personal note, I do favour grouping roles together rather than differentiating them unnecessarily. I note that you're approaching the issue from the perspective of NGA leaders. If this idea is taken forward there's huge amount of rework required across the other intelligence agencies, in the US alone. I've not got the time (or inclination) to hunt out people who have held intelligence roles as well as other senior governmental roles, but a quick scan of Category:Directors-General of MI5,Category:Chiefs of the Secret Intelligence Service, and Directorate of Military Intelligence (United Kingdom)#Directors of Military Intelligence throws up the following for consideration - Antony Duff, Dick White and Hugh Sinclair & John Alexander Sinclair who both held civilian and military intelligence roles.

WT:SBS would be a good (if somewhat sleepy) venue to gather opinions. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for a delayed reply. @Redrose64: First I tried to edit the documentation from Template:S-start page. The spot where it says "Template documentation", and right after that, one can see the options for view, edit, history, and purge. I clicked edit on that, but I didnt have the tab for "Publish changes". So on some page (I cant remember), I manually created a link using [[Template:S-start/doc]]. Then I clicked on the "edit source" tab, but then again the tab for publish changes was missing. It was like viewing source code of any fully/template protected page. But while I was trying to edit, in my few attempts, I did observe that there was the option for "edit source" instead of "view source", like it is on protected pages.
@Cabayi: Yes, as usual, you are correct. This {{s-intel}} thing came to my mind when I was working on the articles of NGA leaders. I also thought about all the required changes if that template was put in use. That's why I tried it on a few "not-so-watched" articles. What I had thought was, if I added it in documentation here, and added the template on few heavily watched articles, then other editors would step in, and update other articles as well. But yes, now I am having second thoughts. I mean now I am asking myself if is it worth it, making all these changes? I would appreciate opinions of both of you, as well as of Primefac.
On other note, do you guys think creating/using the {{NGA leaders}} is a wise move? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

usernamekiran, Given the notion that the headers are there to group similar roles together, the relatively few intelligence roles which are likely to be worthy of a mention AND have a succession (as well as WP:V, WP:BLP & Plame affair issues), I can only conceive of {{s-intel}} being used on the biographies of those very few people who have headed multiple intelligence agencies.

{{NGA leaders}} is definitely wise. I used it in my earlier reply without noticing it was yours. Cabayi (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly have an opinion; the template works and looks like it will see use, so whether it is "needed" is up to the WikiProjects and TFD. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac and Redrose64: Now I think it would be best not to use the template, to avoid almost meaningless edits it will cause. @Cabayi: The reason I created the NGA leaders template was to bring all the articles in "view" of the readers, and to bring them in one place as well. Before the template I wasn't even aware that William L. Nicholson was already in article space, I found it out only after another editor included it in the template. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)