Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 27

October 27

Template:Criticism of Christianity sidebar

Template:Criticism of Christianity sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This doesn't seem like a significant enough topic for a sidebar template. Sidebars are so prominent, they should be reserved for very major topics (see Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates which specifies guidelines for sidebar templates). The list of articles in the sidebar is rather skimpy, and half of them are "critics" yet those critics are all critics of religion in general, not Christianity specifically. WP does have two similar templates, albeit on broader topics: footer template Template:Criticism of religion and sidebar template Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar. There is one other "single religion" sidebar: Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, but there is no such sidebar for Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism. If a sidebar is considered really necessary in this context, how about this for a compromise: generalize this sidebar template to be "Criticism of religion" (probably containing most of the same articles listed the existing Template:Criticism of religion footer template) that way, critics like Hitchens et al could be listed in a meaningful way, and also it would be more weighty and useful to readers. In summary, the choices are:

1. Keep this Critism of Chistianity sidebar: it will be smallish, not too significant; critics are a problem
2. Keep it, but generalize it to "Criticism of religion" (modeled on Template:Criticism of religion )
3. Delete it
4. Convert it to a footer template (less prominent than a sidebar template)
5. Use the Christianity sidebar e.g. Template:Christianity (this makes most sense for the Criticism of Christianity article, perhaps not others?)

-- Noleander (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Expand to "Criticism of religion" - I !vote for #2. That seems like it is most useful to readers, and has the most long-term utility in multiple articles. -- Noleander (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Sidebar templates are becoming less popular in any event. I think a collapsible footer template would work better. Wholehearted agreement that the articles linked to in the template are very poorly chosen, Creation of a new "Criticism of Religion" might work, but I'm not sure how it would specifically be needed, as much of the material could be included in one of the existing "Irreligion" templates, as we have both a sidebar one and a footer one of those, possibly in collapsible sections to make it less intrusive. At the very least, however, deletion of this template and then discussion of what would better fit in a new, revised template, would seem called for. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no current template for articles about the Relationship between religion and science. I have a feeling that a lot of the articles to be included in a proposed template for Criticism of Religion might better fit in a template on the Relationship, considering there is, I think, some criticism of science by religious parties which might merit inclusion in the template as well. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a broader sidebar (such as "religion and science"; or "criticism of religion") is preferable to the narrow "Criticism of Christianity" sidebar. Im not too sure there is much overlap though: I think most of the "Criticism of.." topics listed in the sidebar under discussion are topics like "church is anti-woman" or "church is anti-homosexual" or "religion causes war", and so on. The one area of overlap I see is "Religion stifles scientific inquiry" (evolution, galileo, young-earth, etc). --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or (2nd choice) Expand as Criticism of religion. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Generalize to Criticism of religion. Do not replace with Irreligion template since there are plenty of devout practitioners who are critical of certain tenets and institutions associated with their religions. Jojalozzo 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - There are several "criticism of SomeReligion" articles. In general, they use the sidebar that is the main religion sidebar (e.g. Criticism of Judaism uses the Judaism sidebar, etc.) The Criticism of Christianity used the Christianity sidebar Template:Christianity for a long time, and someone recently changed that article to use the new, skimpy template Template:Criticism of Christianity sidebar instead. So, I guess there is a related question: Should "Criticism of someReligion" articles use the main religion sidebar? For an interesting example, see Criticism of Islam article which has two sidebars: both the Islam sidebar and the (skimpy) Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar. I'll add "choice #5" to the above list to reflect that option. --Noleander (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - As far as I can see this is exactly the same as Template:Criticism_of_Islam_sidebar except for Christianity. What is the difference? Why not just have both "Religion X" and "Criticism of religion X" sidebars if that is the issue? If there is a problem with the critics section can't it be fixed, rather than deleting the whole sidebar? Surely there are some notable critics of Christianity? Hitchens has specifically criticised Christianity ("Is Christianity Good for the World?") and he has been accused of being anti-Christian and specifically anti-Catholic. Harris wrote "Letter to a Christian nation" which specifically criticises Christianity. Maher has specifically criticised Christianity and called the virgin birth etc. a lie. Russell wrote "I am not a Christian", a seminal work that specifically criticised Christianity. In two thousand years of Christianity there must have been some other notable critics that could also be mentioned? Similarly, if the list of topics is too skimpy, can't it be expanded in the same way as Template:Criticism_of_Islam_sidebar? Josh Keen (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

re. option 5 ("Use the Christianity sidebar") - The "Christianity" sidebar appears to be inappropriate for these articles, as none of them actually appear in it. Noleander, did you mean expand it to include a criticism section linking to all the same articles that the "Criticism of Christianity" template does? If so, then that may be an interesting idea. Josh Keen (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was what option #5 is: all the major faiths have sidebars already. Every one of those sidebars already includes the "Criticism of someReligion" article in it. If the group of criticism articles is significant enough, that could be expanded into a small (collapsable?) section, although consensus would be needed on the Talk page of those templates. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Criticism of Islam" sidebar suffers from the same shortcomings as the "Criticism of Chr" sidebar, so whatever consensus we reach here will, probably, be applied to both. The underlying problem is that sidebars are very, very prominent: they are right in the reader's face. For that reason, they must be used judiciously, and should only be used when there genuinely is a WP project (or some other cohesive group) maintaining the purported "part of a series on ..." set of articles. But there is no coordinated effort in WP to maintain a list of "Criticism of Chr" articles. WP does already have an "Irreligion" sidebar, and a "Criticism of religion" footer, which more or less meet the need this template is striving for. Bear in mind that WP provides several mechanisms for presenting a group of related articles to readers (listed in order of most prominent, to least):

• Sidebar template
• Footer template
• Category
• List

The question we must ask here is: How significant is the list of articles related to "Criticism of Christianity"? If it is not especially significant, that would suggest the list should be captured as a WP list or WP Category. Alternatively, we could consider using the existing Irreligion sidebar. Finally, the vast majority of articles belong to several "groups". Notice how at the bottom of articles, multiple categories are listed very compactly. The same with footer templates. But that cannot be done with sidebars: only one sidebar can be used. That is why the criteria for creating sidebars are so much more restrictive. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - If there is a Template:Criticism_of_Islam_sidebar then why an exception for Christianity? Scythian1 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Scyythian1: could you read the above comments and reply to some of the points made above? For example: it has been proposed that both sidebars get deleted. That would be helpful, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This strikes me as one of those discussions that Wikipedians love, but which really don't matter. I think it would make the best sense if there were comparable templates for each of the major religions, but I really don't see any harm in keeping this one. I guess I just don't buy the opening argument: that "Sidebars are so prominent, they should be reserved for very major topics". It's not that prominent, just a box that helps readers find some related pages. And I think a case can be made that this is a very major topic, but of course that's entirely subjective. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Trypto: two questions: (1) Looking at Criticism of Islam, there are two sidebars there: the main "Islam" sidebar, and the "Criticism of Islam". Do you think that looks ugly? Which sidebar should be top-most? (2) If we end up keeping this sidebar, what do you think about generalizing it to "Criticism of religion" so at least (a) it has more gravitias; (b) it is less pointed (i.e. would not single-out one religion); (c) it be more sensible to include a list of "critics"; and (d) it would have more editors scrutinizing it and ensuring its quality? --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm replying, since you asked me. Honestly, I don't much care. I looked at the Islam page, and the templates look fine to me the way they are now; my only reaction there is that the orange color at the top of the criticism template is a bit unattractive. To your second question, I don't think that it must be generalized to the other sidebar, but I have no objection either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

delete, and go with option #4 or 5. After reviewing the comments above, it seems the most appropriate to me. The sidebar adds very little value to the article in my opinion.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Ironically, "Religion" (as a template) is or can be related and therefore can be in a sidebar. But "criticism of each" is barely rrelated except by the word "criticism" only. Also, because of it's size, and hyped publicity on the sex cases in the media (and therefore Wikipedia), tends to be biased against the Catholic church. Student7 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you really arguing for deletion of the topic, as opposed to of the template? Bias within the template could be addressed by editing the template, rather than by deleting it. Articles on criticism of various religions are perennial AfD nominees, and arguments like the one you made here are perennial WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Since the {{Criticism of Islam}} template has been mentioned above as a comparison, I wanted to point out that it was nominated for deletion in the past, when it had a different name. See here for the discussion, which I closed as "keep" after a very lopsided discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. A more recent (and thorough) discussion of that a similar template resulted in Deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:Muslims_and_controversies_and_Template:Muslims_and_controversies_footer. The important conclusion reached in those TFD discussions is: if the sidebar appears to be hostile, or POV, or making-a-point, it should be deleted. But if it is a neutral, broad, and balanced, then it tends to be kept. That is why I think that this "Criticism of Christianity" template may be acceptable if it is broadened, perhaps to "Criticism of religion". --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the history. The template that is currently at the name {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}} has never been deleted. It was at a different name when it was discussed, and later moved to its current name. Then a different template was created at the old name, and that template was deleted per the discussion you linked. But your general conclusion about the various discussions (which also includes one about a "controversies" template related to Judaism, which was also deleted) is basically correct: templates that seem to be neutrally linking articles that discuss notable critics and criticisms have been kept, while templates that seem to be POV aggregations of links to "controversial" issues and people have been deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Pfbref

Template:Pfbref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant; see Template:Pro-football-reference Jweiss11 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Not redundant—this is a citation template, not an exernal link template, and it could be better coded—but it does appear to be unused. PC78 (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:SC Cham squad

Template:SC Cham squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely outdated (see here) and unnecessary squad template. Club does now play in the 3^rd league (non-professional). Almost no player has an article. Leyo 08:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - being outdated is not a valid reason for deletion, and notability is not temporary. GiantSnowman 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• notability is not temporary would be a valid argument for the club article, but certainly not for a squad template. --Leyo 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Why not? You'd be fine if the team was still in the top league, but because they've been relegated suddenly there is no need for the template? GiantSnowman 14:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly! For Switzerland I would say: Squad templates are compulsory in the 1^st league, optional in the 2^nd and dispensable in the 3^rd and below. --Leyo 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• But you've just violated the "notability is not temporary" guideline! It doesn't matter if's an article or a template, such guidelines should apply to all mainspace pages! GiantSnowman 15:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Squad templates do only represent the presence, while articles are also about the past. --Leyo 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• What happens if/when this team gets promoted and, using your idea, is therefore allowed a template? And what if they then get relegated again? If they yo-yo in and out of 'notability' are we going to keep deleting and recreating? GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• In principle yes IMHO. The recreation would be optional. Currently, it does not seem that the team will be promoted soon. BTW: The team played one single season in the 2^nd league. --Leyo 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Saying we should delete a template because there is no chance a team will get promoted violates WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL...GiantSnowman 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I did not say that. This was just a comment to show that recreation because of a promotion is unlikely. There is just no use keeping a squad template, when the vast majority of players are not notable and do not have an article. --Leyo 08:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• What about Scottish squad templates? I.e. {{Albion Rovers F.C. squad}}? GiantSnowman 08:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am not well versed in Scottish football, sorry. --Leyo 09:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. There's a squad list in the article. A navbox is meant for navigation, and this one doesn't really navigate anywhere. PC78 (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - note, the nominator has removed players who have left the club without adding any new players, giving the (false) impression that only 4 players are signed to the team! GiantSnowman 11:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• That does not change the situation.
  What about this: Thank you for having created this squad template back in 2008 (when the team played in the 2^nd league). But now it's simply not needed anymore. Why can't you just let it get deleted? --Leyo 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for patrionising me. All I'm saying is that if the team yo-yos in & out of the cut-off points for template notability, the constant deletion & recreation is not efficient! GiantSnowman 12:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• It could also be restored (undeleted) in such a (IHMO unlikely) event. --Leyo 12:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)