Template talk:biblical character
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Not a context. Surely words like Noah or Adam and Eve are used outside of biblical usage. -- Liliana • 04:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- So what if they are? That doesn't mean they aren't biblical characters. —Angr 21:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- [[Template:biblical]] displays "(biblical)", which conveys the false information that the terms are only used in biblical texts. If you change it to display "(biblical character)", it'll be even more clearly the sort of thing, like {{mammal}} in [[bear]], which we don't use. The information that Noah is a Biblical character is correctly conveyed by the portion of the definition which says "Old Testament character", and the category Category:en:Biblical characters. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It displays "(biblical)"; it doesn't display "(only biblical)". Just because all humans are mortal, that doesn't mean all mortals are human. —Angr 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- None or almost none of our context templates display "only...", because the context templates aren't present when the context isn't restricted. Why do you think {{biblical}} isn't in [[the]]? "The" is certainly the definite article used in the Bible, in {{anatomy}}, in {{linguistics}}, in {{philosophy}}, in {{historical}} contexts, in the {{UK}}, in {{Canada}}... but none of those templates are used in that entry, because that word isn't restricted to those contexts. "Noah" isn't restricted to usage in Biblical works. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It displays "(biblical)"; it doesn't display "(only biblical)". Just because all humans are mortal, that doesn't mean all mortals are human. —Angr 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- [[Template:biblical]] displays "(biblical)", which conveys the false information that the terms are only used in biblical texts. If you change it to display "(biblical character)", it'll be even more clearly the sort of thing, like {{mammal}} in [[bear]], which we don't use. The information that Noah is a Biblical character is correctly conveyed by the portion of the definition which says "Old Testament character", and the category Category:en:Biblical characters. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand the problem. Surely finger is also used outside anatomy. Should a simple and easy template be deleted for some philosophical reason? Who will do all the clean-up work? Typing the category for each entry, adding "Old Testament/ New Testament character" to definitions in all languages? --Makaokalani (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, notice that finger's misuse of {{anatomy}} is now the subject of a BP discussion. As for cleanup, it won't be hard; I'll do it. What you describe as "some philosophical reason" is "to have an intelligible dictionary": we use context labels to indicate that the usage of a term is restricted; at the moment, we're wrongly telling people that "Noah" is a term used only by biblical characters, when in fact, you or I could utter the phrase "Noah is said to have built an ark" despite neither of us being a biblical character. In contrast to finger, words like [[adnexa]] actually are mostly only used in the context of anatomy. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Debatably we don't even need to discuss this as Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2 is still active, unless editors really doubt that this label fails this test. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neither {{anatomy}} nor {{biblical}} suggests any exclusivity. They say that the words are used in those contexts, not that the words are restricted to those contexts. —Angr 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, restriction is precisely what the templates convey; it's how context templates are used (misuses like this one being relatively uncommon). Otherwise, what's the point of them? Someone could tag [[book]] with {{temp|anatomy}}, since "book" is the word used for "book" in the context of anatomy — but such an edit would be reverted on sight. Someone could tag [[lion]] and [[man]] with {{temp|biblical character}}<nowiki>, since lions and men are biblical... [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC) ::: -Sche, that’s a pretty far-fetched interpretation! We might as well remove (''UK'') from [[aeroplane]] because it is possible for Americans to pronounce that word. <nowiki>{{biblical character}} displays (biblical), and the phrase “Noah is said to have built an ark” is either directly or indirectly referring to the biblical character Noah. Keep as a handy way of displaying (biblical) (a valid and useful context tag) while categorising as Category:Biblical characters (a valid and useful topical category).
- Neither {{anatomy}} nor {{biblical}} suggests any exclusivity. They say that the words are used in those contexts, not that the words are restricted to those contexts. —Angr 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- That said, the issue of this template being used alone for characters who also exist in Jewish/Muslim tradition should be addressed. I don’t know how this should be addressed. I’m not familiar with Jewish or Muslim literature. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it unlikely because our policy is to use context templates when context is restricted. But you don't share that view, so why do you consider it unlikely? More to the point, do you consider it wrong, and if so, why? I've reverted IPs' misguided additions of non-context templates as contexts to general words before, but my rationale for reverting has been that the template in question was "not a context" of the word. Since that rationale isn't applicable in your view, what rationale would you use to oppose the addition of {{temp|anatomy}} to [[book]], if indeed you would oppose that addition? - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are books for all sorts of things (including anatomy), but John the Baptist is only a biblical character. But suppose “book” was indeed a term used mostly in anatomy; that wouldn’t prevent non-anatomists from being able to use the term in reference to anatomy in a non-anatomy text. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it unlikely because our policy is to use context templates when context is restricted. But you don't share that view, so why do you consider it unlikely? More to the point, do you consider it wrong, and if so, why? I've reverted IPs' misguided additions of non-context templates as contexts to general words before, but my rationale for reverting has been that the template in question was "not a context" of the word. Since that rationale isn't applicable in your view, what rationale would you use to oppose the addition of {{temp|anatomy}} to [[book]], if indeed you would oppose that addition? - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Debatably we don't even need to discuss this as Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2 is still active, unless editors really doubt that this label fails this test. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, notice that finger's misuse of {{anatomy}} is now the subject of a BP discussion. As for cleanup, it won't be hard; I'll do it. What you describe as "some philosophical reason" is "to have an intelligible dictionary": we use context labels to indicate that the usage of a term is restricted; at the moment, we're wrongly telling people that "Noah" is a term used only by biblical characters, when in fact, you or I could utter the phrase "Noah is said to have built an ark" despite neither of us being a biblical character. In contrast to finger, words like [[adnexa]] actually are mostly only used in the context of anatomy. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but the obvious solution, according to both policy and standard practice, is simply to move this template to be after the definitions of [[Noah]](and [[lion]]?) rather than before them. Contexts go before definitions (as in [[adnexa]]), glosses and other extra bits of information go after them (as in [[jicho]]). Glosses usually don't link or categorise, but since some editors find using the templates easier than spelling out categories manually, this gloss and other ones certainly could link/categorise. Of course, the problem of "ballooning" remains: other editors may have their own "sacred (cow)" glosses which they want to apply to entries, resulting in entries having indefinitely large numbers of pseudo-glosses... but at least the information will be in the right place. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- If this is kept, I think it should display its full title — (biblical character) — to distinguish it from {{biblical}}. - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Mglovesfun.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted per policy. (I have begun to orphan it.)
- I count 4 users voting for deletion: Liliana, myself, msh210 and Mglovesfun. I count 3 users preferring to keep the template: Makaokalani and Ungoliant, who voted explicitly, and Angr.
- 2 users (Angr, Ungoliant) explicitly argued for ignoring the policy which this template violates; 3 users (Mglovesfun, me, msh210) explicitly argued for following policy. That represents a 40% minority for changing policy, about 20% short of the 60%-66% majority that is required to overturn previously voted-upon policies. - -sche (discuss) 09:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nine months later: I would have opposed -sche's decision much more if I had known that his promise to "clean up" only meant removing the template, without restoring the information through {{gloss|biblical figure}} and [[Category:xx:Biblical characters]]. Definition of a foreign name as e.g. "James" is meaningless without a gloss. So every English James is translated: James Bond? King James? Henry James? And there was no discussion of emptying the categories. Destroying valid information for the sake of format is really short-sighted. Why not just move the template from left to right, if it's so important? Luckily -sche got tired after a few hundred edits. Anyone wishing to clean up the remaining templates should make sure to preserve the information they contain. Retrospective legislation is always a problem. An old template suddenly "violates" the newly voted policy. And any policy or RFDO discussion is meaningless if nobody bothers to clean up the old format. Regular contributors are still adding the biblical character template. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)