Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 18

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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible--SomeStranger^(t) 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bibleref

• Template:Bibleref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• Template:Bibleverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Both of these are being used to create external links to bible verses instead of to Wikisource Trödel 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• and? Not everyone, aka most people do not, approve of the wikisource bible version(s).SF2K1
  • and such widespread use of external links, specifically replacing links to pages within wikipedia is contrary to wikipedia's efforts to provide information that is in compliance with the
    GFDL Trödel

Given the concern re this change effecting so many pages, I will make the changes to the template to point to wikisource, including conditional logic etc. The version to use on wikisource, as reached through concensus below, and have a test version working to the satisfaction of the administrator closing this TfD prior to any action taking place. Regardless of those concerns and any anti-King James movement sentiment, where a GFDL compliant source exists it should be used in preference to sources subject to other licenses. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to voters for not making my GFDL concerns more explicit - I thought it was obvious Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the pro to wikisource is GFDL. The pro to BibleGateway is the number of (and flexibility of switching between) translations... including foreign languages. For anyone who wants to study a passage (and I do a lot, I have a degree in Religion), the choice would obviously be to use BibleGateway... at this point in time. BibleGateway isn't hurting anyone, and they are very upfront about the copyright status on the translations they provide. I think it makes the most sense to keep this as it is until either (A) wikisource has a solution that is just as good as BibleGateway or (B) BibleGateway shuts itself down and we have a bunch of dead links. Like I said, there is a pro to both side, but I think it is clear that for an encyclopedic website, it should be more important to give access to the best tools for learning. David Bergan 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The amount of pages that would be affected by this delete is enourmous. What do we intend to replace it with?--SomeStranger^(t|c) 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree, there seems to be a lot of pages that now have links to this discussion and would have to be edited. Wouldn't it be easier to edit the template to point at wikisource instead? Superbeatles 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from nom This is very simple - do not edit the pages at all but after deleting the current version which links to an external website, create a template of the same name to direct to wikisource. To use links such as these is not GFDL compliant especially since links within wikipedia are being replaced with links to an external website (see example) It was my first inclination to

be bold and just do so edit the template - but looking at the number of links, I thought a proper community decision was needed first before a change that would effect so many articles. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep and do not edit to point to wikisource Wikisource currently only has the
  King James Only Movement for example). Clinkophonist 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Reply from nom It is contrary to wikipedia policy to include such links to copyrighted material - I did not advocate linking to King James Version. If there is a version that is "religously neutral" I would be happy to assist on wikisource getting the text in. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • (Cutting in): Its not really an issue of "religiously neutral", but one of broad access to the most number of texts --which are typically copyright translations. Access to them is often limited to commercial portals who have license to use them, or else link to them. Given that we all can agree there should be a BibleRef template, the ideal place we link to should also have access to the most number of translations, and not attempt to ourselves make a determination of which is best, most faithful, or most neutral. The only non-commercial source with such access would no doubt be an academic one, which, ideally, would be a permanent interface. Bible.cc is interesting, but Im unaware of how it handles copyright, or if its part of some non-profit, or academic institution. -Ste|vertigo 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I've just noticed that the nominator edits a lot in articles related to
    King James Only Movement, and I would hazard a guess that this nomination is a bad faith attempt to assert the King James Only POV. Clinkophonist 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reply from nom It is true that this template came to my attention because someone replaced links to Matthew 14 to an external reference. However, a) I dont really care about the
      King James Only Movement (thanks for letting me know about that article though - interesting reading) and b) that does not change the fact that using templates to create in-line links to an external website is against general policy. {{google}} was deleted for just that reason. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment I don't usually participate in these sorts of discussion, but I do think that the Bible references should be directed within Wikisource. First, the copyright regulations of various translations must be considered. The King James Version is public domain; the New International Version is not (nor is it a "religiously neutral" translation; there is no such thing). Second, it is not practical. Having a few article verses linked to, say, biblegateway.com is far from convenient. This is because, at the very least, it removes the user from the Wiki site's navigation, and thus the context and feel of the site. That's to say nothing of problems inherent in outside sources, such as load time, advertising, etc. Third, the further use of Wikisource for references to the Bible may help in increasing its translation options. The real issue here is not the Wikipedia article, but the translations used by Wikisource, and thus it should be dealt with there, not here. Jonberglund 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge both in {{bibleverse}} as voted in May Although the template was mistakenly removed from the Holding cell, instances of its use were never actually converted. Circeus 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{
    Bibleref}} but a shorthand form of {{Bibleverse}} like {{Bibleverse-nb}}. Clinkophonist 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Then delete {{
      bibleref}}. Unneeded fork. Circeus 18:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment - a solution as for ISBNs would be nice, readers could pick their favourite source for details. IMO the template can't stay as is, most of us are unable to check the translation against the offered Hebrew source. And there's a good chance that source or translation are controversial depending on the personal preferences of the readers. -- Omniplex 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Keep and edit to point to Wikisource: I think Biblegateway is a fantastic site, I use it and recommend it to friends. That said, there is no getting around that it is not GFDL. This is a non-debate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting that GFDL is a pro to using wikisource, isn't it better for an encyclopedia to link to the best tool available? I mean if you and I are going to manually look up the verse with BibleGateway (because we prefer it to the KJV at wikisource), why not have wikipedia automatically link us there? GFDL is great, but learning is better. David Bergan 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. There is no policy that wikipedia is a solely inside job. The ISBN links and the
  WP:Use common sense.--Esprit15d 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. per Esprit15d. In addition to there being no rule that says sources or External Links need to be open source (if that were the case, how could we cite any other work of literature, LotR, Harry Potter, etc), I think redirecting to a site that allows the user to choose from over 90 bible versions which one is their default, solves POV issues inherent in redirecting to one of the 2 bibles on wikisource. When we cite a bible verse, we are not attempting to transmit text via the GFDL, but simply citing a source. This nomination would seems to me like an attack on any EL or source that isn't open source. Go to Saturday's FA. Scan through the references. Note all the EL to sites that do not follow the GFDL. Now consider how we could write an article if we excluded all these sources to only the GFDL sources of wikisource, wikibook, and wikinews. Does it makes sense where I am coming from, and how ridiculous this proposal seems to me?--Andrew c 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please see
  WP:COPY to use free sources as opposed to non-free sources where free sources are available. --Vengeful Cynic 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: There is not a single item in
    WP:COPY since it says (and I quote): "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright." According to BibleGateway.com, all the Bibles they use have been contributed by various Bible societies. So this policy, also, does not relate. --Esprit15d 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • My argument was in no way intended to say that the policy exists that explicitly precludes the BibleRef template, but rather that the spirit of the policy is essentially that free, internal sources are preferable to non-free, external sources. This isn't to say that one couldn't list links to secondary translations from WikiSource, but that linking to WikiSource copy is preferable to linking to an external, non-free source. --Vengeful Cynic 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "free, internal sources are preferable to non-free, external sources" - right, but you're forgetting the important part of the equations: "free, internal, limited/crappy source" VS "non-free, external, flexible/excellent source" At this point in time, BibleGateway is a better tool for learning and that makes all the difference. David Bergan 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but take vote for which source. Wikisource is not ideal, and no efforts have been made to make its Bible texts altogether well integrated. (Mediawiki doesnt handle large document splitting and linking anyway). Its appropriate to choose a source, and using an academic one is preferable to using a commercial source (such as bible.cc). Given that the most desirable link would be a permanent academic compendium in Parallel Bible form, with the most complete and cross-referentiable texts, at any particular time it should be determined which link is best to use. -Ste|vertigo 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: the ISBN idea is atrocious - a link to an enourmous and overlong page to dig up a link to amazon, bn, etc, is not useful. Ideally ISBN choices could be logged in your preferences, but this too doesnt address the problem that in the quest to be completely neutral, the ISBN page is excessive. -SV
• Strong Keep and edit the template code if necessary. I really don't understand why this was nominated. Deletion is only a good idea when

1) a page should never have existed in the first place,

2) there is a pressing need to obliterate the page history (e.g. slander, copyright infringement).

There is certainly no obvious reason why either applies here. Whether we link to wikisource or not, whether we link to anything or not, there is still very useful semantic content in these links. --Saforrest 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - My favorite translation isn't featured there (New Revised Standard Version), but it is an excellent resource, upfront about its copyright relationships, where you can easily switch to a different translation or language to get a better understanding of the verse. Until wikisource has a resource equal to or greater than biblegateway's we stay with biblegateway. It just makes the most sense that we use the best resource available through the Internet. I have no qualms linking to wikisource if the time comes that it does an equal job, but until then, stay as is and tell your wikisource friends to get on this project. David Bergan 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per David Bergan. --M@rēino 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep as above - Bible versions are highly controversial and linking to a site that has everything is the only way to stop the KJV-onlyism vs modernism debates ... but am I missing something? At Baptism, the link to "Matthew 28:19" takes you to http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Matthew&verse=28:19&src=31 ... why does it go there rather than straight to crosswalk.com? BigDT 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that that page linked directly to the site was because it was not using the templates correctly. I went and and changed it.--SomeStranger^(t) 12:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we remove the TFD message from the part of this template that gets transcluded? Honestly, it's a huge distraction on all of the pages that use it right now. I tried to make it less of one by removing the linebreak, but the template is obviously going to be kept - does the TFD message really have to be transcluded? BigDT 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Given that there are considerable concerns about the ability to have good references to the bible including references to different versions etc. and wikisource seems insufficient to the task at present. However, I think sufficient concerns are expressed above concerning which version to use etc.

There seems to be two sources that I can find so far that could provide multiple versions as well as meet our concerns, as wikipedia under the GFDL.

1. BibleGateway.com
2. BibleBrowser.com
3. The current lookup - which is just a redirect to BibleGateway in most cases - though depding on the source it will redirect to other locations, including to nccbuscc.org, BibleBrowser (but through a wrapper that places google and other advertisements around the BibleBrowser information).

Thus, I think that the template needs to be at the very least edited to use a different source and use that source directly (not through a redirect from an .edu cite - which could give the reference undeserved credibility).

Therefore I withdraw my TfD listing and propose that there be a discussion of the proper way to cite Bible references - and if the community decides to go with an external site, which external site should it be, etc (I am sure there are many others). I propose such discussion begin at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. Starting with those monitoring these discussions, to try to narrow the issues; however, no later than a week from now widely asking for comment.

Please close this TfD as keep and direct further discussion to: Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible Trödel 22:46, 21 June 2006 (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.

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 moved to

Template:Monopoly

Template:Monopoly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Monopoly template was just a copy of the London game board layout of the board game Monopoly, copied from the Monopoly (game) page. I considered the template name to be too generic, moved the content to Template:LondonMonopolyBoard, and made the necessary change in the article. Nothing now links to Template:Monopoly; it could be deleted. JohnDBuell 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this belongs in redirects for deletion. Not sure though...(Delete just in case)--SomeStranger^(t|c) 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh valid point, I didn't see that we HAD a Redirects for Deletion section now. If someone would like to move it, feel free. --JohnDBuell 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had one for over 2 years... :) — sjorford++ 14:16, 21 June 2006 (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.