Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:25, 9 August 2007

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8

Template:Indigenous Australians/deceased

notea discussion about this is also taking place at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Template:Indigenous Australians/deceased Gnan garra 06:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is the culturally sensitive thing to do in Australia and it should be respected. A case for "ignore all rules". --Bduke 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bduke - this is absolutely standard disclaimer and has very high cultural sensitivity.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This is a strong cultural issue in Australia, and thus doesn't fully fall under the scope of WP:NDA per WP:IAR. Examples of the template in use would be helpful - I doubt it being used on a talk page is helpful, we should actually use it appropriately in articles. Giggy ^Talk 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for example of use see King Plates and Umbarra. As the template has only recently been created and there was no widespread knowledge of it, it hasn't been used. While I have tweaked the width I am reluctant to change the wording or the format further until this debate is resolved. I have started a discussion on the wording on the template's talk page, in case it survives TfD. I suggest for examplem the template refers to this page, rather than the web site.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Strong Keep as per Bduke - however if this is continued - then [1] needs to modified as I would suggest it is inadequate and not sufficiently elaborated considering the issue at hand. Satu Suro 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Rebecca 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "no disclaimers" policy is for "templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages". This definitely, definitely, isn't in one of the five disclaimers. --Haemo 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is kinda #5 Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable Gnan garra 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think keeping the right thing to do though it should be in the style of {{main}}, Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer should include a warning about cultural aspects. We dont hide religious Icon images, so while I think(culturally know) we should have this I cant support keeping it while at the same time arguing for the retention of Mohammad images. Its a can worms that shouldn't be opened even just to peek inside. Gnan garra 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where your argument is going. We are saying keep images that are culturally sensitive, but we do suggest warning people with a disclaimer. I would support also a disclaimer on other culturally sensitive images, I wouldn't support deleting them either. I don't understand how this template conflicts with arguments for retention of Mohammed images - but then I haven't been party to that debate.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Not withstanding the overarching need to adhere to the principals of WP:BLP, there is a significant case for this template remaining under WP:IAR. The issue of reporting or coverage of deceased indigenous persons is a significantly sensitive issue for that community and needs to be reasonably respected. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has a significant resource on the issues relevant to these peoples. Based on all the information from the various agencies and media representative groups, the ABC's Editorial & Program Policies state;

It is critical that the significant cultural practices of Indigenous Australians are observed in programming and reporting. Bereavement practices of Indigenous people vary in different regions and often include sensitivity to seeing or hearing the image, voice or name of the deceased. Program makers should verify and observe local practices. Where footage, images or sound recordings of deceased Indigenous Australians are used, suitable warnings should be given at the beginning of the program. If the name of the deceased is not being used in order to meet local cultural practices, the audience should be informed of this.

It is also standard practice in Australia (And not just by the ABC) to warn viewers if footage, images or sound recordings are going to be used. It is more than appropriate to extend such a courtesy here, particularly since such information is not included within any of the official disclaimers and therefore falls outside of WP:NDA. The template might need a small re-write to work better at the top of an article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template acknowledges an issue that is culturally sensitive to a significant group in the Australian community, and does not detract in any way from the content of an article. WWGB 03:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is official policy, people. Policy trumps consensus. This discussion is pointless. Hesperian 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My interpretation of WP:IRA is that common sense trumps consensus trumps policy. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you mean to say "common sense trumps policy trumps consensus?" Hesperian 04:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I didn't put those in good terms. Maybe it would be best to say "consensus combined with common sense trumps policy." -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason we have a policy is to embody what many people have found to be common sense over a long period of time. The policy has been informed by, and survived, numerous vehement debates e.g. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The long-time consensus, encapsulated in policy, is that it undesirable to place disclaimers in articles. It frustrates me that we have to go over the same ground again and again. Hesperian 06:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template would only be effective if you could see it *before* you arrived at the article. In the case of the Umbarra article, for example, you see his alternate bolded names and his photograph at the same time as the template, rendering it ineffective for its intended use. IMO it's unworkable, and if the issue is extrapolated to the broader context of worldwide cultural sensitivities, unmanageable at present on Wikipedia –you would end up with a multitude of templates at the head of certain articles. Possibly, a software solution could be developed in the future (e.g. an option to hide certain tagged images/names). Melburnian 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I just don't think there's strong enough of a case for an exception to the rules right now. See, penis, pictures of schlongs are abundantly posted everywhere with no disclaimer or any issues. It's ridiclous to think that there are not cultures out there that find this offensive (some very offensive I'm sure), Wikipedia is not censored. In a very isolated case such as this, I think that it wouldn't be a problem to make an exception, but looking at Umbarra, there's a picture of a dead guy right under the tag - you don't have to scroll down, it's not hiding anything. I would be neutral, but I just don't see helpful uses of this template yet. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I placed it on a couple of obvious talk pages until the expected debate finalises as I intend it to go onto the article pages if the upshot is to keep it. However, if it is to not keep it then I must start AFD some pictures and or articles as soon as the debate finishes. Especially Rob Riley even thou I started the article and put on a photo request et el I would feel wrong to not remove it sans some sort of warning that he is deceased.petedavo 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note Wikipedia:Content disclaimer has been updated to specifically cover the purpose fo this template, while retaining a general across the board use diff Gnan garra 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Theanphibian. The policy is clear and there for good reasons. —Moondyne 06:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not just the ABC that follows this practice. It is common in newspapers, such as the Northern Territory News (covers a region with 25% aboriginal population) and other media outlets. --Bduke 06:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Weak Delete Since Wikipedia:Content disclaimer has been updated to specifically cover the purpose fo this template, I think that fixes it then. I propose that all argument would now be redundant, and we can forget having to use a warning or nominating articles for AFD. However since someone else has edited the template since I created it, please just consider this a vote.petedavo 07:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mapquest

Delete. Redundant to more generic coordinate templates. Only used on about ten articles. Note similarly named {{MapQuest}}, nominated below. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst (obviously) and delete because it's not particularly useful. (Weak argument, I know...) Shalom ^Hello 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MapQuest

Delete Unused (single instance just removed) and non-standard. Note similarly named {{Mapquest}}, nominated above. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map link

Delete. Unused (last two instances just converted) and redundant to {{coord}} Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) }}[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mighty Max episode

Individual series version of {{Infobox Television episode}}, unused, time to delete. Jay32183 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standardization is good! Redundant. --Haemo 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JAPru7

Superceded by {{JPNru7}} — Bob 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't redirect since JAP is not a proper code; see Wikipedia:Inline templates linking countries. –Pomte 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreignchar

Unencyclopaedic because an encyclopaedia should promote knowledge, not ignorance. Now that computers can handle practically any "extended" Roman letter, there's really no excuse for not getting these spellings right, and even less for purposely garbling them. Kelisi 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Mentioning the fact that Voßstraße contains ß and if that character is not available or not desired then the name is sometimes represented as Vossstrasse does not promote ignorance. It does promote knowledge since if anybody came to the article without knowing the character ß they can click on the link and learn about it. Stefán 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there is an alternative spelling, mention it in the lead, after the main spelling. People (presumably) come to an encyclopedia article looking for information on a subject, not about which weird letters appear in the name of the subject. Wikipedia's hypertext is one of its greatest idiosyncrasies, but this is a tad too much, imho. Gracenotes^T § 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the TfD template my vote - Actually, the ß isn't used in Switzerland; so replacing it with ss is always possible. Bad example, I'm afraid. Anyway, what is so hard about writing "Voßstraße (or Vossstrasse)"? Kelisi 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, your suggested wording appears to give a legitimacy to the -ss- spelling which many people deny. It is still a matter of debate whether the street name you mention can be considered an English word, but if it isn't, then it would make sense to spell it by the German rules, which explicitly require ß in particular circumstances. The wording included in {{foreignchar}} is the best compromise that could be found after lengthy discussion which gives a degree of detail about what circumstances require the transcription of characters, and why the alternative spelling might be used, whilst remaining relatively brief. These nuances are lost if the text is reduced to a brief "or". I fear the proponent has misunderstood the purpose of the template, and has certainly underestimated the animosity among many editors to non-standard characters. Swiss variations in spelling rules apply to Swiss words, and so are not especially relevant here. The basic concept remains that Längenbühl should be circumscribed as "Laengenbuehl" only when necessary, and when it is necessary, it should only be transcribed as "Laengenbuehl" (and not, for instance, as "Langenbuhl"). Thus, the template also informs people without access to accented characters on their keyboards (I remember the ASCII codes, but it's a bit much to expect of everyone) what they need to type to get to the article in question again. The more I think about it, the more subtle and powerful the template seems to be. In contrast, the reasons for deleting it seem awfully weak. The last thing it does is "garbling" text; on the contrary, it gives the single most appropriate transliteration where it would not otherwise be obvious to a person who didn't speak the language from which the name derives. I think that probably counts as a keep vote. --Stemonitis 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Those words, called “with foreign characters”, are not english words, they are words in other languages. Therefore, they should respect the orthography of the respective language and not follow the english spelling rules. Changing the characters leads to misinformation and wrong pronunciations. Besides, it’s insulting to the other languages, and an encyclopaedia should not only promote knowledge (as Kelisi said), but should promote reciprocal respect too. Ten Islands 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession/Temp

Template is unused and appeared at WP:CSD. The author did not request deletion, which would have allowed WP:CSD#G7, but simply not being in use is not a sufficient reason to delete via the speedy path. — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The "/Temp" in the title suggests this might be a test page (CSD G2). Shalom ^Hello 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Jonathan Ladra

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 userfied. Closed early. non-admin closure GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template--probably belongs in the User namespace if at all. — Seattlenow 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - it's an infobox for people named "Jonathan Ladra". I guess that could be more than a single use, but... --Haemo 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly userfied this template at User:Jonathan329/User Jonathan Ladra. An admin may speedy delete (CSD G6) the original template-space page. Shalom ^Hello 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a user box for names, {{User Name|your name}}. ~~If you want to userfy it then whoever wants to do that can.~~ ~ Wikihermit 00:28, 9 August 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 section.

Template:Infobox Buffy episode

Single series fork of {{Infobox Television episode}}, unused, time to delete. Jay32183 03:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks redundant to me; standardization is good! --Haemo 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to Template:Infobox Television episode. Giggy ^Talk 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *'''Delete''' per Theanphibian.  The [[WP:NDA|policy]] is clear and there for good reasons.  &mdash;[[User talk:Moondyne|''Moondyne'']] 06:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. It is not just the ABC that follows this practice. It is common in newspapers, such as the Northern Territory News (covers a region with 25% aboriginal population) and other media outlets. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 06:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Conditional Weak Delete''' Since [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] has been updated to specifically cover the purpose fo this template, I think that fixes it then. I propose that all argument would now be redundant, and we can forget having to use a warning or nominating articles for AFD. However since someone else has edited the template since I created it, please just consider this a '''vote'''.[[User:Petedavo|petedavo]] 07:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Mapquest]] ====