Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 21

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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Orphan, exactly same as {{Europe in topic}}. Renata 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Isn't it actually a part of Europe in topic? Is it possible to choose and show one of the templates from Europe in topic? (if anyone has replied, then tell me at my talk page). -Mardus 03:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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 non consensus'/keep // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:IT giants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

major company pov template. Ann: Annne 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, these are major companies. If you don't like the info on the template, try to get it changed. - AMP'd 19:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This template is useful. It allows anyone to see, at a glance, the really important companies within computing. It was probably my fault it got so big because I added loads of new stuff and new categories. I think that only 5 or 6 companies should be in each field. An "IT Giant" should be based on revenue. That stops it being an POV battleground. We need to kept it sweet and simple.
• Delete I like the concept of the table, but the execution is wrong, and I'm not entirely sure that this is a proper use of the template. Ultimately, this is just going to become a giant POV battleground; considering the fact that it doesn't particularly add to the articles it is placed on, it isn't worth it. Kill it. EVula 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV, and also meaningless grouping of peripherally related items. Andre (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep While it's a nice list, it should be based either on revenue or importance (how to measure that?) — so therefore it's somewhat vague as to what is major and what not. Some company might have as well been a major in its field years ago, but currently just works as a consulting business. Whether a company is major or not will be known in the future, as then it will be possible to look back to current times and assess with some perspective, whether any contemporary company would be worth being called major at one or another point of time. I guess that will be based on what legacy a company and its products have left to humanity. Famous brand names like IBM, Nokia, HP and Apple have proved their longevity, but is it perhaps just too early to tell? Another bad is that the word companies repeats numerous times. And majority of a company usually changes, as just recently HP passed Dell in worldwide PC shipments. Another point that came to mind is that pointing out these companies is unfair to smaller companies that compete with larger ones in different fields of business and practice. -Mardus 03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Prone to endless wars and cancerous growth. Undefined, misleading ("Computer networking" contains mostly telecomunication firms), pretending to be article in visual form. This template is example how badly someone's intention could end up. Pavel Vozenilek 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Split. This might be better if it were split into the different sections listed, eg: if "computer consulting companies" were in one template, and "computing software companies" were in another. The current template is just confusing. --h2g2bob 17:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The consultancies were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AIT_giants&diff=63044794&oldid=62963307 never intended for inclusion] and have now been removed. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. But please update to include major world-wide companies, instead of major American companies. Acer and Gateway, major computer companies worldwide, are missing from the list. Even the lesser known, but very important ASUS is missing. What gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.136.110 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This template has not been problematic at all. Things get discussed and usually included once a sufficient case for notability has been made. No problems. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see neither edit wars or cancerous growth in the history. As for "pointing out these companies is unfair to smaller companies that compete with larger ones in different fields of business and practice" we aren't an advertising service so how is this unfair? There are always going to be companies that are more notable than others. I have no issues with template that points out large, important companies. Make one for small companies too if you think they need to be highlighted. "Because it can improved" is not a valid delete reason. pschemp | talk 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per EVula et al; pointless template -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 08:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Giant" is both subjective and unencyclopedic. This isn't a very useful template either. Prolog 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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 delete like there is no tomorrow. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Video_game_companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Japanese pov templates, and what "major company"? Ann: Annne 14:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Un-needed clustering of borderline related companies. A better resource is Category:Computer and video game companies. EVula 19:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete EVula is right. Delete it.--Krtek2125 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty useless, besides edging out smaller companies --Wulf 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just absurdity to have this. Andre (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per EVula et al; pointless template -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Speedy delete, blatant spam. Yamla 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tvguideshow

Template:Tvguideshow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Tvguide show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Tvguide movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Tvguide person (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates seem to exists purely to advertise the TV Guide. They all contain two external links - one to the appropriate page at TVGuide.com, one to the home page. Created by Peuclid (talk • contribs); this account has only been used to create these templates and apply them to some pages. If we keep them, then I would suggest that they are merged to a single template, and that they link to the TV Guide page rather than the website homepage. Mike Peel 08:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, 69.118.12.253 (talk • contribs) has been proliferating the use of Template:Tvguide show. The only edits they have made are adding the links. Telefan (talk • contribs) has been doing the same, with no other edits but to apply the templates. Mike Peel 08:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - blatant spam. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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 delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Fairlyoddparents-spam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nonsense. Shannernanner 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete – the template serves no purpose. Mike Peel 12:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. EVula 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Wulf 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, above & above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Bread (talk • contribs).

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 no consensus // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:QuoteHadith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is inherently POV. It distinguishes a quote from a certain set of texts which many Muslims regard as particularly important. There is no agreement among Muslims as to which collections of hadith are to be considered "sacred," so figuring out which texts would get the template could be very contentious in borderline cases. The template gives undue prominence to this class of quotes, surrounding them with a line and coloring them. It says, "Pay attention!" If we let Muslim sacred texts get this sort of attention, then we're going to have QuoteQuran, QuoteTorah, QuoteMishnah, QuoteSutra, QuoteBookofMormon, etc. templates, ad nauseam. At which point secularists and atheists are going to object strenuously, claiming colored boxes for quotes from Ingersoll and Dawkins. A quote is a quote is a quote. We don't give special treatment to one class of quotes. Delete the template! Template delenda est! Zora 02:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I created the template. The reason i created it was not to make them more "sacred" or anything, we already have Template:cquote, and that does not imply any kind of sacredness, even though it is more fancy than just writing it plain. The reason i created "QuoteHadith" was for the same assumed reason that "cquote" was created: (1) To make things easier. When a article relies heavily on hadith, it does an enormous favor to the reader to be able to quickly distinguish what parts are hadith. Of course, you need to have seen one such article to understand the point. The second benefit is also totally in line with the very idea of having templates: (2) Professionally and standardization . It is more professionally to standardize a often reoccurring theme. In this way, we know were to look at to find the Isnad, we know were to put the Isnad, we know if the text needs to be bolded, italized, indented or just be presented plain. Having infinite variations of those, specially considering Isnad, how it should be presented and such is far from professional. Those are the benefits that come to mind. As for the reasons to delete:

"This template is inherently POV. It distinguishes a quote from a certain set of texts which many Muslims regard as particularly important."

It is true that it distinguishes some kind of text from some other, the reason is not POV, the reason is clarity, professionally and standardization. The motivation is not the supposed sacredness of the text, and that is most easily demonstrated by the fact all kind of hadith are to be used by the template, even those that are considered pejorative unholy forgeries by Muslims. The merit of inclusion is wether it is a Hadith, not wether it is a Hadith Qudsi (sacred hadith) or a Mawdo hadith (forgery). An by the way, hadith quotations are often heavily Muslim-poved. This lets the reader to be aware of the fact that he is going to encounter a lot of PBUH, SAW and Apostel of Allah's. In my very personal view, it is actualy more neutral to have a specific layout for that kind of POV-heavy citations.

here is no agreement among Muslims as to which collections of hadith are to be considered "sacred," so figuring out which texts would get the template could be very contentious in borderline cases.

That is right, and that is why it is not done. All kind of hadith are used in this template, there is no POV involved, only the veritable fact of the text being a hadith or not: Does it quote Muhammad or not? Note that the template could be putting lies in Muhammads mouth, so there is no POV evaluation in play.

The template gives undue prominence to this class of quotes, surrounding them with a line and coloring them. It says, "Pay attention!"

If that is a problem, the lets create a consensus to have a non-problematic layout. But that is an editorial issue, not a valid argument for deletion. The exact same thing is true for Template:Cquote: it gives the quote prominence. Cquote is not accused of POV due to that. The point of this template is to standardize the use and place of Isnad and clarify to the reader in a visual way that they are reading a hadith. If that is done in a improper way, lets fix it.

If we let Muslim sacred texts get this sort of attention, then we're going to have QuoteQuran, QuoteTorah, QuoteMishnah, QuoteSutra, QuoteBookofMormon, etc. templates, ad nauseam. At which point secularists and atheists are going to object strenuously, claiming colored boxes for quotes from Ingersoll and Dawkins. A quote is a quote is a quote. We don't give special treatment to one class of quotes.

Why is that a problem? If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), under the section of "Quran_translations", you will find a consensus based proposal for a standardized way for quoting the Quran. The standar presented is having "*Sura 4.35 ^{translated by Shakir}" on the top of each Quran quote. Based on that, i created Template:QuoteQuran. Note that the initial proposal that is now on the main page of the Islam-related MOS was also developed by me. This gives a professional and standardized way of quoting the Quran. I welcome QuoteBible, i might create it myself. And if need be, if there is a serious need for standardizing and placing reference for Harry Potter quotes, which i doupt there is, lets create QuoteHarryPotter.

Final comment

As stated, this is not about trying to give some "sacredness" to Islamic texts, its about clarity, professionally and standardization. The need for those is evident if one ponders why Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) was created to start with. Is the template to blue? Lets talk about it. Is the border to fancy? Lets talk about it. But the template fills a necessary function.--Striver 06:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, btw: It just occured to me that i should implement in the template the suggestion in the Islam-related MOS: A function for detailing the strenght of the hadith according to Shi'a and Sunnis. That makes yet another practical and important function the template perfoms. --Striver 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Different scholars would rate various hadith differently. Some accept hadith that others reject. This would be completely unworkable. Zora 12:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In those cases, the template keeps silence. When there is a Sunni or Shi'a consencus, then that is added. Do you enjoy being negative? Was "This would be completely unworkable." really necesary? --Striver 12:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Having a standardized method of delivering content (especially religious content) is a proper use of the template namespace, and I don't share the nominating editor's fear of additional templates in this vein. I would like, however, for the background color to disappear; the template isn't hindered by the loss of the color, but the articles are (arguably) hindered by the mish-mash of colors. EVula 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of vote i hoped to see. Thanks! --Striver 07:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: My only personal impression of the template was that 'it looks cool and makes the article beautiful'. Others may look at it differently but that was the way I saw it. --Aminz 12:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It really makes me happy to hear that :) --Striver 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - on reading the above i would probably be open to this idea on the condition that the template is made plain (i.e. the color is removed, making it seem much more a part of the article imo) and a few other aesthetic changes are made. i don't know what's currently the deal with the template because i am currently seeing a space for matn and another space for some kind of pre-matn summary (or so it seems, maybe it's not permanent). this, i disagree with. i have just noticed that a space for sunni/shi'a acceptance/rejection is added. i don't agree that this should be in the template, if it is relevant and of importance it can be discussed extraneous to the template. it may not be wise to include so many paramaters, esp. ones like this. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, the parameters are programed to be optional. The only parameter that is not optional is the Matn parameter. If some of the parameters should be totaly removed, that we can disscuss on its talk page since that is a editoral issue and is not relevant to this tfd. Peace :) --Striver 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I agree with the first post --Wulf 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Genuinely useful where an article needs to be absolutely clear on how Muslims view a particular issue internal to Islam. However, I think that there should be some sort of notice indicating that the template should only be used in articles dealing with Islamic theology, philosophy, etc., where prominently including hadith makes sense. Lockesdonkey 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree with Zora that the stylistic attributes of this give it too much prominence--it is not more prominent than some of the other templates in Category:Quotation templates. My problem is that we don't need to have specific quote boxes. Qur'anic quotes need not be handled in a different manner than hadith ones. We can have generic templates for all of them and making specific templates just muddles a rather simple process. My second problem is "Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sahih Muslim" and that type of thing. 1) That shouldn't be in the quote box. 2) There is not always agreement within schools. 3) Who are Sunnis, it's an amorphous category and it can vary from a more specific category to anyone who isn't Shia. This is needless specialization and we should keep it freeform by using a generic quote box and then explaining it in good prose, not one liners at the bottom of the box. gren グレン 06:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason is as i specified above, the Isnad needs to be standardized so it becomes more clear were the matn starts. Remeber that in most cases, only the last part of the Isnad is added, if done properly, it will be 3-6 steps long. Further, the "Shi'a and Sunni view" parameters are optional, so those are not grounds for deleting, you just omitt those parameters when not applicable or wanted. Options are always good, are'nt they? Anyway, that part can be droped, but the need for standardizing the Isand and having a standard for referencing are reasons enough to have a template, IMHO. I would like to stress the need of standardizing, and not focusing on editorial weaknesses of the young template.--Striver 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

is there any real point to including the whole isnad? for 99% of readers, it will be of no use, and even then only real specialists will deem it useful, in which case they would not even be referring to wikipedia in the first place. what about where you have ten different asaneed (plural of isnad)? do you list them all? just one? which one? why that one? i don't currently believe that including the isnad is of any encyclopaedic value, and i don't believe it helps clarify where the matn starts. ITAQALLAH 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

if the instance occurs where the isnad is relevant to the discussion (and i can only envisage it in the instance of ad hominem against a narrator by group A in order to bring the matn into disrepute, which again would be faulty per not including other chains), on the premise that it is actually agreed on which isnad is to be used, then i still think that it is certainly not appropriate that the isnad for every hadeeth included in the template is given: it can simply be discussed in the prose following it when it does become relevant. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Me personaly, i would find it hugely informative to see the entire isnad of all hadith, together with a link to the biography of each narrator. The information is there, it only needs to be included. Lets remeber that this is not paper. Think about it, would that not be interesting? Think of what this could be in 5 or 10 years, not only now today. Rome was not built in one day... --Striver 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

is the information realistically and readily available from scholarly sources? i don't think certain unreliable library projects (you probably know what i am referring to here) really are anywhere near what i imagine as a decent resource. again, i only see the relevance of this where it becomes convenient for group A or B to commit ad hominem against a narrator (even then, you don't need to list the whole isnad for it especially when it doesn't take into account other routes). the problem with this also is that most narrators will be rather non-notable (and i can envisage the hundreds of stubs related to this). you don't see other encyclopaedias like britannica, or islam-related encylopaedias like EoI giving the whole chains of narrators, simply because it's not practical and in the majority of cases not relevant. it is not simply about WP not being a paper encyclopaedia, as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. the issue is whether or not the information is useful to the vast majority of readers now or will be in the very near future (we don't make templates in preperation for developments ten years from now). i am not convinced that it will be. the concern re: asaneed has not been addressed. ITAQALLAH 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, all the information is readily available in any Arabic edition of the complete Sahih Bukhari. Are you suggesting that Sahih Bukhari and its likes are filled with indiscrimita information? --Striver 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, the chain is available. in a number of instances, multiple chains are mentioned. how to deal with asaneed has still not been addressed. the analogy with sahih bukhaari is not accurate, as he would need to list the chains of narration (and even then he lists only one of many in most instances) for documentation purposes because as one who is establishing what is a primary source, to document where the reports are from is necessary, as well as the fact that readers of his book would be specialists in hadeeth analysis (so including the whole isnad there is necessary, relevant and important). this is the same reason why in abriged english translations i believe you will not find the whole chain, because it is simply of no real value to its readers. biographical information of the narrators is not present in bukhaari et al. access to books such as tahdeeb al-kamal would be needed, and even these books use very specialist terminology not totally understandable by general arabic speakers (which is another verification problem). to list narrators just for the sake of listing them without it providing any more informational value to the topic makes it seem a little pointless to me, and i can envisage 300+ new almost identical stubs popping up for individual narrators on which currently the max that can be written of them is a sentence or two. ITAQALLAH 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From an academic perspective, including the isnad gives a false view of the worth of an isnad. It is accepted by all non-Muslim scholars of hadith that the more "correct" the isnad, the later the composition of the hadith. The earliest texts, written when the concept of the isnad was still evolving, have sketchy isnads. Later isnads, composed to look "good" at a time when looking good was well-defined, fit the mold. These are also the hadith that "just happen" to rule on controversies that didn't exist in the earliest Muslim community but arose later. What better way to bolster your argument than to find a hadith that has Muhammad saying that you are right? I'm not saying that the eminent Muslim scholars were all forgers; it's probable that they accepted wishful thinking as truth because the isnad and the matn were so exactly what was wanted and needed. That's only human nature, to look for instances that confirm your theory. Well-known in all the sciences.

I'd also like to point out that Striver's whole "hadith" project is his own little domain, created on the WP server because it's free and has a easy-to-use interface. Various people tried to stop him at the start, but the AfDs all come up "no consensus." It's not a community project and it's really not appropriate for WP. There are many many thousands of hadith -- how many is impossible to say, since scholars and sects differ so much on which collections are to be trusted. Are we going to have them all in WP? If them, why not the whole dang Talmud? Why not all the Zen koan collections? and commentary? But leaving aside the question of the wisdom of this project, the implementation is what we have come to expect from Striver -- vast plans conceived with no communication with others, and implemented unilaterally. Such things break in contact with reality.

We don't need a hadith quote box. A quote is a quote. Zora 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You just explained that Isnad are relevat. Muslims belive it makes it more credible, non-Muslims less credible. If your aim was to make them look irrelevant, you did not succeed. And by the way, Harald Motzki does not agree with you, look at his quote at Ibn Jurayj, he fully supports the work of him, his master and his students... but this is not about non-Muslim view or non-view of Isnad. If they were truly irrelevant, entire collections would not be writen about the people in the Isnad, it would not have its own filed of science. But maybe the Muslim view does not count? "I'd also like to point out that Striver's whole", getting personal now? As for "Such things break in contact with reality.", i can't remeber asking anybody (specialy not you) about creating or designing the HUGE Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, and it is not broken yet, neither did i ask you for permission before creating template:Muslim Beliefs, and you also tried to afd it. But guess what, it's now included in on the main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild. Oh did i creat that as well before asking you? oh, yeah, i did. And now, i created Template:QuranRelated, again witout asking you, maybe that also needs an afd? Maybe you forgot that this is not a buracracy when you started the afd? Maybe you should have tried to actualy improve the template a bit? Did User:Grenavitar ask you for permision when he created mostly empty articles for most suras? Regarding "A quote is a quote.", look at Category:Quotation templates. Did they all ask your permission? Why do we have more than one quotebox? I belive it is because diferent types of quote have different needs, just look at Template:TV quote, see the higly specialized quoting and sourcing that is almost identical to this template? Do you see its colors and its borders? Or maybe the yellow color and borders of Template:Quotebox? Oh, you did'nt bother do make any research before starting to through accussasions at me? That gives me an unwelcomed feeling of Déjà vu. Regarding "Why not all the Zen koan collections? and commentary?" Yeah, why not? If we can have Category:Pokémon species by type, then ... i better shut up before loosing control... --Striver 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the the color is better to be removed. Maybe we can apply changes to the template so that it doesn't imply anything. --Aminz 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already toned down the color, and it can be done further, or even completly. That is not the issue here.--Striver 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete: i am not convinced at the moment that there is a need for such a template distinct from general templates such as {{cquote}}, when the latter is perfectly able to do the job. in many instances the isnad is simply not relevant and in my view unworkable. if and when the isnad is key to the discussion, include analysis of the precise areas of contention in the form of good prose, and in the same way including who accepts/rejects what and where as gren suggested. i don't believe that listing the whole chain of narration is of any particular informational value to 99% readers. it also severely limits the number of editors who can actually work on it, edit it, decide on what is irrelevant/inaccurate, as such chains and their variants are not easily accessible to any barring qualified experts. with all these points in consideration, i think it's just better to stick with established quoting templates which quite reasonably serve the purpose of presenting the relevant text. i think other such templates, such as {{QuoteScholar}} may also need looking at. ITAQALLAH 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

comment are not all hadith in wikipedia preceded with a Isnad? Just look at Aisha's age at marriage, they all start with "According to X". In fact, a hadith would be flawed without that. --Striver 06:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

they are preceeded with a narrator, not in the interests of isnad, but in the interests of quoting the source (e.g. USC MSA) fully. besides, not mentioning the isnad, does not mean it has no isnad. it is scholarly practice to not mention the whole isnad (or not mention it at all) when writing edicts and such, because it adds no informational value to the target audience. ITAQALLAH 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, but i do not agree with your conclusion that the entire Isnad does not give any informational value to the target audience. We are not supposed to assume that the audience are totaly un-educated. See Category:Tensors in general relativity. --Striver 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: what locksdoneky said. --Street Scholar 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Most people Ive seen here that say no have said so because they have a problem with hadith itself, or with the selection of hadith (which one is right and which one is not acceptable). This is only a stylized way of making the article more enjoyable to the reader. It looks pretty and it helps enhance the quality of WP. That said, Hadithology is one of the fundamental avenues of understading Islam properly. If one wants to understand Islam better, one has to take this into consideration. Hadith does have a special place in Islam. There is no doubt about this.--Zereshk 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep templates exist to simplify repetitive tasks and standardize details between articles, and this template does just that. This is a far better use of templates than Yet Another Crufty Infobox/Navbox. Kudos! Xtifr _tälk 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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.