Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18 edit

Template:Serious 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedied as recreation. >Radiant< 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this template is useless, the ref desks are always serious. Arjun 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - editors should discontinue this wikidrama. Addhoc 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kamope · talk · contributions 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm certain this was deleted before, but I don't know under what title. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Strict, the content of which was essentially identical to that of the instant template, was deleted consistent with this TfD. Insofar as discussions as WT:RD seem frequently to focus on the other-than-serious or -encyclopedic nature of certain reference desk threads and insofar as one might, I suppose, thus apprehend a consensus there for the use of this template (although I think it's plain that, to the extent a consensus exists for a particular construction of the reference desks, such consensus is for the maintenance of the RDs as always serious), I'm hesitant to suggest that this be G4ed straightaway, but I'd surely not object to someone else's speedying it. Joe 08:40, 19 January 2007 (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 page.

Template:Drmmt3 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template only serves to escalate pointless edit wars about article tags. Instead of using this template editors should consider improving the article. --Addhoc 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is potentially useful (although I admit unlikely to come up often) when used against vandals who go around removing {{whatever-stub}}, etc., or to warn someone who's owning an article and won't let anyone put a {{wikify}} tag on it (more common, but normally they stop once you explain that the tag's for the benefit of the article). I admit that use with tags like {{NPOV}} could be problematic, though, but this is misuse of the template and not its main purpose. --ais523 18:07, 18 January 2007 (U T C)

Comment - I don't object to {{Drmmt}}, but this version goes too far. I'm not even convinced that removing a clean-up template is a blockable offence. Anyway, it would be better to wikify the article instead of edit warring over a tag, which this encourages... Addhoc 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ais523 Kamope · talk · contributions 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After two warnings, it's pretty obvious that the maitenance tag is disputed... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete potentially useful, but also encouraging controvesy, since the point at which the notice should be removed is not usually obvious. We have enough disputes over article text without adding an additional layer.DGG 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it gets this far, the conflict probably needs dispute resolution, not a blaring template. Superm401 - Talk 04:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the main reason we use templates like {{sources}} and {{npov}} is to let anyone reading the article know that it may not be entirely accurate. And if the user who added the diputed material repeatedly removes the templates while some sort of dispute resolution is in progress, who ever reads the article may think its actually think the materail is accurate. And that would be bad for Wikipedia as a whole. In my opinion, repeatadly removing templates should result in a block, so a series of warning must be given beforehand.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't a blocking offense. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 27 January 2007 (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 page.

Template:Buses-by-adam 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This recently-created template appears to be an image copyright tag for use by a specific photographer who takes candid pictures of buses in London. Most individual photographers use established image tags and source information to identify their work. -- -/- Warren 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, but... the tag mentions that it has to be used in any article that contains the picture, and it isn't. A tag like that on an article is clearly inappropriate, so either the tag should be changed (which only the author can do without copyvio), or the images will have to be deleted. Once this problem's sorted out, a userfy, and preferably placing the same categories as{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} category on it, should sort out the problems. --ais523 18:09, 18 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete Incompatible with Wikipedia policies. Xiner (talk, email) 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I created this using the layout of one of the other templates I created. I just need to reword it.--sonicKAI 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other template was Template:Croydon-tramlink. --sonicKAI 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've listed that one for deletion, too. —Cryptic 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template, orphan the images, and list them at IFD. We provide image credits only on image pages, not in articles. —Cryptic 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary; byt why delete the images?--Osidge 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they're not fair use, and the only license we have for them is unacceptable. —Cryptic 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I created this template. Is there any way of me rewording this template so that it doesn't get deleted? --sonicKAI 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unless someone negotiates the release of these images under an accetably free license - in particular, one that doesn't require us to spam our articles. —Cryptic 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If is use Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, can the images remain on Wikipedia? By the way, Murraypaul66‎ seems to be adding it himself to all London bus articles.--01:44, 6 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Guitar Hero 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template linking two articles and two stubs. The two stubs exist only in that they've been mentioned in stockholder statements, and there's no need to link a series of articles two articles long. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as template creep. -/- Warren 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Combination 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 20 January 2007 (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 page.

Template:Catholic-link 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prior deletion discussion, closed as no consensus, was overturned at deletion review, but consensus was insufficient for outright deletion, so the discussion moves back here. Please consult the prior discussions about the technical details of the usage of this template before voicing an opinion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, imho we should reserve such templates for sister projects. >Radiant< 09:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templates carry a weight of authority. Multiple IPs and new users have mistaken me for an admin just because I left warning templates with stop-signs on their talk pages. This has happened to me often enough that I am certain others here have experienced it as well. Wikipedia should not be giving the appearance of officially endorsing a partisan source, and regardless of intention, this template gives that appearance. This template is a blinking POV barrier to many potential new users, and will discourage participation from many communities whose participation we need in order to thrive. When there is actual useful information in the Catholic Encyclopedia for an article, a plain old text note on the talk page, followed by a user's signature, will make that clear to everyone without inadvertently suggesting any official endorsement. The user applying this template loses nothing when this template is deleted; that user is perfectly capable of using unadorned text to make notes. But the unintended consequences of this template upon the rest of Wikipedia are not worth the slight convenience it may serve. It's one thing to say "this page is within the scope of the Catholicism WikiProject"; it's quite another to use a template to suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) needs to be consulted before the article can be considered finished. The template is being abused and applied even to articles that have already long since passed the point of potentially being helped by CE material, and at least one editor has demanded that it cannot be removed until an article "has all the usable text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article". This is not a progress tracker; it is an attempt to force Wikipedia to mirror all CE partisan content. We should not condone any templates that would be applied whenever a Wikipedia article has not used "enough" of another particular source yet. We should not be beholden to any particular sources, and we should not have to carry around templates reminding us that we haven't used the CE or any other source "enough" yet, as though we should, or must, and cannot shed such templates until we do. Beyond all the POV problems, it's flatly misleading to make a blanket suggestion that the CE can be used in most articles as anything like a reliable source. The CE did not have fact-checking or editorial vetting. It may be occasionally useful to make a simple note on a certain article's talk page, suggesting usage and caveats upon CE content. To those who will argue "keep", I ask in advance, even if the intent and usage of the template were radically altered to avoid CE mirroring, do you believe that the template adds something (besides the appearance of authority and endorsement) that unadorned text on a talk page, with a section header and signature, would not add? — coelacan talk — 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are better than Talk Page comments because (1) they can be tracked centrally, (2) they can be removed when the template has been fully used in the opinion of an editor and (3) because they will not simply be archived (although this is a lesser worry). The objection to any Catholic content is noted, but I'm not sure how seriously this needs to be taken. JASpencer 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a centrally tracked system, that can be added to and removed from easily, that won't be archived unexpectedly, use a subpage of Wikiproject Catholicism, which is even more centralized and isn't as obtrusive to new users. I have not objected to "any Catholic content", so don't start your personal attacks yet again here. — coelacan talk — 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are fine - and in fact were being used through the Catholic Encyclopedia project - but they are still less optimal than a template, in fact in some ways it's even worse than plain text additions. Editors of a "targetted" article will have no idea until CE material is added and will not be able to object (as has been done here). Templates have the benefit of granularity, local control and central monitoring. The other solutions have some but not all elements of this. JASpencer 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, everyone who already watchlists religous articles is well aware that POV content can show up at any time, unannounced. We'll be able to object just fine. WP:RFC doesn't care if there was a template up ahead of time; POV insertions can be dealt with at any moment of any day, with or without that foreboding template hanging over our heads like the guillotine you're starting to imply it to be. Watch out for your own well-intentioned advocacy. You're better off not reminding us that every article within this template's scope is likely to have a surprise hot POV injection at any moment. My sincerest apologies for mixed metaphors, of course. — coelacan talk — 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I said in the previous one still applies: 'these old encyclopedias may be nice to read for nostalgia's sake, in many areas their coverage is wildly outdated. Editors should be encouraged to go to a fine library and consult some solid reliable sources instead; Wikipedia suffers too much already from the 'this source is online'-bias'. I agree with Coelacan who points out a number of other problems above. — mark ✎ 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable online sources are surely as valuable as reliable offline sources? And they have the advantage that they are more verifiable. JASpencer 12:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are valuable. I noted that old encyclopedias are wildly outdated in many areas . That's not reliable in my book. That's why I disagree with encouraging editors to reuse content from such encyclopedias. — mark ✎ 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens if these encyclopedias have information that is not in Wikipedia? To discourage adding would condemn Wikipedia as a go-to source for Pokemon information. JASpencer 14:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult my original comment, where you can find my opinion on what should be encouraged and what shouldn't. — mark ✎ 16:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the placing and wording of the template are now less objectionable, the intention still appears to be to apply it indiscriminately to all articles with a title the same as a CE article, and which are not already using CE content. Johnbod 13:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were the intention, which it is not, the debate should be on usefulness and not intention. In many comments you have shown a personal dislike to me - and that's fair enough - but is that really an argument for deletion? JASpencer 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did it cease to be the intention then? I quoted your explanation from the the template talk page in the first deletion phase [1]] and you have never subsequently denied or even commented on this. Since I had never heard of you before you placed a template on a page I watch, any personal feelings I may have about you must arise from your conduct in the various phases of this debate. Johnbod 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all the arguments I've previously given, notably WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. This template is based on the false premise that more necessarily means better. I'd rather have a short, accurate article than a long, erroneous one. A source from 1913 needs to be handled with extreme care because much of the scholarship will inevitably be out of date. Using the 1913 CE and the 1911 Britannica give Wikipedia articles a "musty" feeling which is off-putting to potential readers and doesn't encourage trust in WP's accuracy. We should be moving beyond such sources. External links to these online, out-of-copyright encyclopedias is enough for those who are interested in what they might have to say. It's also pretty offensive to editors who have been working on improving articles to have these templates slapped on their work indiscriminately. --Folantin 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument against the template being put on certain pages, but not against the template itself. Are you seriously arguing that no articles would benefit from expansion from sources before you were born? JASpencer 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic does not follow. What's my age or anyone else's got to do with anything? My argument chiefly concerns accuracy. The online CE is very old and, judging from my experience of it, contains numerous inaccuracies due to outdated scholarship. Some of its material may still be sound but it would take an expert to decide what is still valuable and such an editor will already be aware of the CE, so there is no need for the template. --Folantin 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expertise argument could argue against anyone editing any article. If people are unsure of something the CE says then simply say something along the lines of "The Catholic Encyclopedia says..." It could quite easily become an attempt to enforce a sytemic bias aimed at keeping out all sources that did not originate less than twenty years ago or did not treat religion as a private frivolity. JASpencer 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has "treating religion as matter of private frivolity" got to do with anything? This encyclopaedia is not a soapbox. It's not designed to be pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic. Our primary responsibility is providing accurate information. Using old public domain encyclopaedias means that we are more liable to fail in that responsibility. As I've already noted, I have seen articles where content from the 1913 CE should be removed not added because the scholarship is out of date. Beyond POV issues, this is a basic matter of factual accuracy. --Folantin 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP's not supposed to be pro-Catholic or anti Catholic - but banning an Encyclopedia because it is Catholic is anti-Catholic. Naturally I dislike text dumps from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the template was designed as a middle way. However there is information in many of these Encyclopedias which Wikipedia simply does not have, and is unlikely to get for many years on its own. Discouraging it because there is a bias, or disagreements with present scholarship will also discourage adding facts and looking at viewpoints from the past. JASpencer 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has banned the CE, but we do have WP:NPOV policies, especially "undue weight", which this template definitely violates. The heart of the matter is that the CE should not be recommended because its factual accuracy is too often unreliable. It is better for WP to have no information than false information. In the articles I have in mind this inaccuracy has little to do with the CE authors' Catholicism and everything to do with the limitations of the scholarship of the period in which they were writing. These strictures equally apply to the 1911 Britannica. --Folantin 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just read WP:RS. "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution". Given this, and the fact that there are infinitely better sources available, we should not be encouraging people to use CE by means of a template. Simple as that. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, no information is usually preferred to biased information. That's also from WP:RS. In fact, it's a quote from Jimbo. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original comments. The use of a template gives unnecessary weight to the use a source that is now dated and has a singular POV. The source was useful when Wikipedia started and prob remains so for specific articles about catholic worship. But the mere fact that it covers a topic does not in itself mean that it should be used as a source. The presence of a template lends to it being unthinkingly slapped onto the talk page of any article covered by the CE. Better to restrict it to being mentioned in typed talk page comments so that editorial discretion is used as to whether it is an article that can truly be enhanced in a non POV manner by this source. Discussion can then flow more easily if other editors disagree that the source would be helpful. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the CE has a singular POV and is out of date is dealt with in the template when it says "but with caution, as it may be out of date, or may reflect the point of view of the Catholic Church as of 1913." This is unlikely to be inserted in text links. JASpencer 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is adding POV material to Wikipedia, no matter what the source, they will be challenged using our normal NPOV processes, and people who are intent upon adding POV material in the first place will not be dissuaded by a friendly warning on a template. So the disclaimer, while it may be casually helpful in a text note, is not necessary. Any note added by an unrecognized editor is already scrutinized for likely POV. The processes for handling this are already in place. Nothing is being lost by discarding this template. — coelacan talk — 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template warning needs to be added once - and reworded once, whereas lurking on hundreds of talk pages is not going to happen. So by definition something will be lost. JASpencer 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the reasons I've already stated. Such a warning is not taken seriously by people with a decided intent to add POV, and is not necessary for users who care about NPOV. So it's superfluous. The warning would never stop POV content from being added by users with that intent, so article pages have to be watchlisted regardless. The template is no help. — coelacan talk — 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything I could add has pretty much been stated above. Eusebeus 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict it to articles which actually need more information, but keep. Obviously, slapping this on Talk:Catholic church only implies that it is actually a good source to use, but it can just be "Hey, here's some information, although it would be best if you got it from somewhere else". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what extra benefit the template provides that a text note cannot provide, and why this benefit outweighs the official endorsement of POV that the template implies? Here's an example of implied template authority: this user thought I was an admin because I used a {{npa4}} template. Now imagine the effect upon thousands of new users who may think that Wikipedia officially endorses Catholic POV. It would be have a misleading effect on new users who are Catholic, actually, but I'm more thinking about people from communities who have in the past been persecuted by Catholics. Do we want to turn off segments of the population with the systemic bias that this template conveys? What is it about the template that makes this worthwhile? — coelacan talk — 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we do this already? It is not at all biased to say that you can use a certain encyclopedia as a source. That is an objective fact. No, it doesn't do anything that a text note can't, but nor can any other template. The value comes from not having to type up the text note. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not biased to merely mention the existence of a CE article, of course. What is biased is to use an official-looking template to convey the implication that Wikipedia approves of CE content. All templates are official-looking to new users (who don't realize that they too can use them), but other templates do not have such POV problems, so they're fine. This one, by combining a biased source with the official appearance of a template, does have that problem, so it's not fine like others. And you haven't explained why mere convenience should outweigh this. — coelacan talk — 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template says you can use it as a source. That is not equivalent to an endorsement. -Amark moo! 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is equivalent to perceived endorsement if inexperienced users mistake templates for being something that only admins can apply (I've already demonstrated that they do) and simultaneously mistake admins for being officials/controllers/cabalists/conspirators/etc. (which we all know that they regularly do, need I demonstrate the regularity of this misunderstanding?). — coelacan talk — 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is equivalent to that if the template says something which is actually an endorsement. Mentioning a source is not an endorsement that the source is good, so it doesn't matter how much mispercieved authority it has. -Amark moo! 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how nuanced the text in the template, it still raises the question of "why do these admins have a special exclusive template just for the Catholic Encyclopedia?" There would be good reason for suspicion there, and we can entirely avoid this by deleting the template. — coelacan talk — 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete At present, it could also be viewed as a way to bias against the inclusion of material in cases where the sources was appropriate. The use of any such template regardless of intent implies a uniform POV in editing that is totally against the way WP should be edited, one article at a time.DGG 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But part of the intention of the template was to give an alternative to the text dumping that goes on with so many articles, particularly new articles which aren't on watchlists. Text dumping is very easy and this template gives people a pointer to a source without encouraging text dumping. JASpencer 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why text dumping can't be handled by all our other processes in place. I have seen no evidence that this template makes any effect whatsoever to reduce text dumping. And indeed, an equivalent discouragement would be a template that simply says "do not dump text from any source into this article." But that smells like WP:BEANS. I wonder if this template might already be prone to have the same BEANS effect. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coelacan has covered the arguments at length, in particular the appeal to (false) authority. Folantin's point that more is not necessarily better is also a good one. If a template solution is wanted to the non-problem of finding sources, the WikiProjects who are so quick to plaster article talk pages with obtrusive templates could create resource lists, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources, and their talk page templates could be modified to have an option to show that resource link. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However having a link on the talk page has a degree of granularity that this solution would simply lose. You may find an article that corresponds to this article in one of twenty sources. JASpencer 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granularity was already addressed before you came in. Whatever the template's benefits of granularity, they are nothing that an unadorned text note and url, with a section header and signature, cannot also supply. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have failed to do is argue why this granularity, even if it were only obtainable by this template, would ever be worth the damage that the template's pseudo-official POV implication creates. Such an argument might not be worth your time, however, because the template is not necessary for granularity anyway. — coelacan talk — 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) template gives an undue amount of authority and recognition to a single source 2) Duplicates the function of the "Resources" and "Further reading" and "External links" sections 3) Source recommendations are already handled on a Project Page level - currently the Catholic Encyclopedia is listed at WikiProject Middle Ages (per Angusmclellan above), where much more detail and explanation about the source is given. This can be done at other Projects as well, and Projects have talk page banners, which can be modified to point to the Projects resource page. -- Stbalbach 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Is either an argument for other templates or an argument against any sources older than you and (2) ignores the loss of granularity that deletion would involve. JASpencer 13:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach's first point need not be seen as an argument supporting any other templates and I'm actually having a hard time seeing what you mean by that. Stbalbach also said nothing to do with age of sources. Your concern about granularity is addressed above, multiple times in fact, with the recommendation of plain links. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Coelacan and Folantin. We should not be encouraging people to use patently unreliable sources like this: per WP:RS they should be avoided at all costs. More modern, better quality, and less partisan scholarship is surely available. These sources must be used instead. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<aol>me, too!</aol> (delete per Xiner) Argyriou (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it's spitting against the wind. The reason why I thought that this would be a good idea is that it seems like a natural extension of the Missing Encyclopedia articles project. I've seen few arguments against this which do not in the end argue against the Missing Encyclopedia project. JASpencer 11:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is something else entirely. Last time I checked, WP Missing Encyclopedia Articles (WP:MISSING) focused on checking our coverage against that of other encyclopedias. For example, if several other encyclopedias have an article on Qala'un Mosque, we probably should have one too. That is very different from using the text of old, public domain encyclopedias to enlarge articles we already have. — mark ✎ 14:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So surely if viewpoints and facts are in these encyclopedia articles they should also be included? The distinction is artificial. This should be more than a snapshot of what the MTV generation half-remember from history lessons. JASpencer 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RS: Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones. For good reason; we don't want Wikipedia to become a quaternary source. No, I don't want to forbid the perusal of tertiary sources; but neither do I think it is a good idea to encourage editors to do so by means of a template, especially not when that template recommends an encyclopedia with outdated and POV coverage. The MTV generation thing is a straw man I won't go into. — mark ✎ 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above... Addhoc 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates with boxes that suggest a particular source should be avoided, IMO. We have too much tag-and-run use of templates, leaving regular editors scratching their collective heads. When should this template be removed? Will it just be put back? If the Catholic Encyclopedia would add value to an article , identify that something and add it. Be bold. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are at least partially to facilitate the division of online labour. This argument would call for the deletion of {{notable}} and {{cleanup}}. Why pick on catholic link? JASpencer 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why pick on Catholic-link? Why ask that question when "POV problem" has been stated over and over again in multiple editors' concerns above? It's already been enumerated countless times. You just don't seem to like the answers. — coelacan talk — 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, and that of several of the first editors to protest, Catholic link picked on us, in the form of articles we watch. If notable and cleanup tags started appearing on articles without justification, there would be protests about that too. Johnbod 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone created an EB1911-link template, I'd nominate it for deletion in a heartbeat. Same thing for CIA-factbook-link or JAMA-link. If someone has a good idea what information from the Catholic Encyclopedia should be included, they should either make the change, or at least write up a concrete suggestion on the talkpage. In either case, the tag is not needed. If someone places this tag on mere suspicion, then how do we know that the CE has not already been considered as a source and discounted? The more general cleanup and dispute tags are useful where lengthy effort is needed, and to draw the attention of other editors who may help improve an article, but I don't see the need when suggesting a specific source. If a particular Wiki Project wants to check articles for presenting the Catholic Church's opinion, that is fine, but the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia may not be the best resource. A lot has changed since then. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Catholic Encyclopedia was frequently, and polemically, ultramontane for 1913. To include its view on the sole grounds that it is a view begs the question of whether anyone now holds that view; and if so, whether that one is some lone crank. To include its claims as facts ignores the question of whether, as often, we know better about the subject now than we did a century ago. Making a habit of consulting the New Catholic Encyclopedia on subjects within its scope would be useful, but is not up for discussion here; there is a case that we already have a template for articles which need that, and it's called {{Catholic}}. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"whether that one is some lone crank". Are people seriously arguing that there is not an anti-catholic tone in the delete arguments? That being said this is not the main issue. The fact was that these views were widely held, for a period of more than four hundred years. However they are not held by the Wikipedia demographic who view whatever view is held currently to be de facto correct and neutral. JASpencer 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What views? You added the template to 100s of articles so take one for example - Chivalry - why did you specifically add it, what views from the CE article "Chivalry" did you find missing in the WP article "Chivalry"? I assume you added it for a specific reason and were not blindly encouraging users based on an assumption? -- Stbalbach 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were added automatically to all articles that met certain criteria - set out by JASpencer on the template talk page. Since there has been no movement from him on this point, for me this is the crux of the matter. He is actually expressing no view whatsoever as to whether a particular WP article would actually benefit from the addition of CE content. It's clear from the sheer numbers involved that in a great number of cases he has not read either the WP or the CE article. Johnbod 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach has really hit the nail on the head. Precious little of the problem here relates to disputes about Vatican II. As far as I can see, the 1913 CE includes articles covering the whole of the European Middle Ages as well as every composer who happened to write a mass. These articles contain some seriously obsolete scholarship as well as outright factual inaccuracies. Nevertheless, this template has been slapped all over Wikipedia's equivalent pages indiscriminately. It's a basic matter of WP:RS, not doctrinal issues. --Folantin 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a wikiproject template, but I think the controversy surrounding this template is so great that it should be deleted and re-cast under a different name. Gimmetrow 04:44, 24 January 2007 (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 page.