Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:09, 14 September 2006

< September 2	September 4 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

3 September 2006

Template:User ipa-0

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was undelete. Please modify or relist template as necessary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babel box which was deleted following a TfD, restored following user request because the template was never tagged to indicate it was being considered for deletion in the first place, and then deleted again by the admin who originally nominated it for deletion. This template is still in use on many user pages because it was not 'orphaned' following deletion. The general argument for keeping it seems to be that 'IPA' notation gets used often enough on enWp (as opposed to say, Cyrillic) that there is value in stating that the user is unfamiliar with it. I don't think there is any question that the template not being tagged constitutes a lapse in process (though unintentional) and think this should be restored or at least replaced for the users who are still linking to it... though WP:GUS doesn't usually apply to Babel boxes. --CBD 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment- I don't have a problem with restoration as long as the template is modified to get rid of the category it produces. A giant category of people who don't know how do do something is useless to the encyclopedia and pointless for serach purposes. pschemp | talk 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - "I don't understand" or "I don't know" userboxes are rather useless. If we had 'em for each language each user could put another 200 userboxes on their page. The vast majority of people already don't understand IPA; there's no reason someone needs to be able to proclaim their ignorance in this subject area. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know" userboxes aren't daft for languages. I use ang0, becasue I want to display my ignorance, but desire to learn. Maybe the same applies to ipa0. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45 4 September 2006 (GMT).
Then can't it at least be subst:'ed as CBD suggests as is common with deleted userboxes of any kind? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete IPA is widely used on wikipedia to describe pronunciations, and the fact that people don't know how to read IPA, especially if they are in the field of language, is quite relevant. If you have a template such as "This user enjoys/has a degree in linguistics," it may be assumed that they know the IPA. But if you put this template below the first one, it helps clarify things and less editors will flock to your talkpage asking for help with transcriptions. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete It took me quite awhile to learn IPA, and I have sympathy for those who find it similarly difficult and wish to express as much on their pages. As a Babel box, this belongs in template space, so I favor restoring; but, I'll userfy if nothing else. Xoloz 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Babel boxes do belong in template space -they indicate the relevant skills that wikipedia might call upon. However, '0' babel-boxes as they are not helpful and tend to be humerous or polemical - so should be userfied per GUS. Telling me you don't speak polish isn't helpful - most wikipedians don't speak quite a few thousand languages. However, I suppose an argument can be made why this particular case is different, so I'll abstain but without setting any precedent for retaining any other '0' boxes in tamplate space.--Doc 22:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn TfD, undelete template As I read the nomination, the order was 1) TfD without notice on the template, 2) recreation and 3) redeletion. Step #1 is a process violation so the TfD result is invalid. With an invalid TfD, the subsequent redeletion that references the TFD is also invalid. As the TfD was a group TfD, we should probably check if the notice was put on all the other templates and restore any that didn't have the notice applied. GRBerry 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV is being run on procedural grounds, if I understand the objection is that there wasn't a notice in the box itself? The original consensus was nevertheless to delete. That particular procedural ground seems weak to me. I won't recapitulate the valid arguments for deletion, as this isn't TfD, and others already have. I'll merely endorse the close. Keep deleted ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist TfD notices on the templates have a purpose, they alert editors who don't patrol WP:TfD that a template they use/worked on might get deleted. No opinion on the boxes themselves, although I would caution not to assume bad faith motives for adding them to one's user page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per trialsanderrors in every dimension. -- nae'blis 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. The template has its uses, just as any other babel-0 box does. A "user bicycle-0" template would most definitely be useless for Wikipedia's purposes (although it might still benefit the "community-building efforts"), but "IPA-0" proclaims that an editor does not have a skill that may actually be expected of him/her based on that editor's edit history. The scope is rather limited, but the template is not useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete I don't believe "0" bable boxes are needed, and there were 14 templates under that deletion. If nobody who had any of the 14 templates on their page gave any comments, I believe the delete is valid. Unless of corse none of them had the TFD template on them, then my vote would be to overturn and relist. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - several of those 14 templates listed in the TfD had not even been created yet, but none of those which did exist were ever marked with a TfD notice. --CBD 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll change my vote to Overturn and Relist for procedural reasons. I'll make sure to vote in it. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. It's not at all unreasonable to announce that one cannot read sources in one's area of interest and that translation requests should be taken elsewhere. Someone interested in early Scandinavian history may wish to announce that he cannot read runes, someone interested in anime may wish to announce that he cannot read Japanese and someone interested in Hinduism may wish to announce that he cannot read Indic scripts. Dr Zak 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Undelete as per GRBerry; aside from the process being invalid, I think this is a genuinely useful template simply because the IPA is so widely used on Wikipedia. As for other "This user doesn't speak X" boxes... well, Wikipedia:Babel has this to say about them: "Don't use [xx-0] for every language that you don't know; only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it." CameoAppearance 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Undelete - There are already perfectly good notes on how to use 'no knowledge' userboxes. This one is useful because IPA is fairly widespread, and so it's handy to be able to signal that it won't assist you. Besides - Wikipedia isn't paper. There's no good reason to delete this. AlexTiefling 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete without category - Like the Babel-0 userboxes, this could be limited to "only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it." As such, it would be useful to people who don't know IPA, but who work on language-related topics. But as previous voters have suggested, there's no reason why this userbox needs to add users to a category. emk 15:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, Undelete, Lose the category -- Ditto CameoAppearance's and Emk's comments (and others' as well, I'm sure...) OscarTheCat 00:05, 14 September 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ====[[Template:User ipa-0]]====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/NAMESPACE:PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''undelete'''.  Please modify or relist template as necessary.  [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me]] 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 Babel box which was deleted following a [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Template:Non-writing_systems_templates|TfD]], restored following user request because the template was never tagged to indicate it was being considered for deletion in the first place, and then deleted again by the admin who originally nominated it for deletion. This template is still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3AUser_ipa-0 in use] on many user pages because it was not 'orphaned' following deletion. The general argument for keeping it seems to be that 'IPA' notation gets used often enough on enWp (as opposed to say, Cyrillic) that there is value in stating that the user is unfamiliar with it. I don't think there is any question that the template not being tagged constitutes a lapse in process (though unintentional) and think this should be restored or at least replaced for the users who are still linking to it... though [[WP:GUS]] doesn't usually apply to Babel boxes. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''comment'''- I don't have a problem with restoration as long as the template is modified to get rid of the category it produces. A giant category of people who don't know how do do something is useless to the encyclopedia and pointless for serach purposes. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 39: / Line 46: @@
 *'''Overturn, Undelete, Lose the category''' -- Ditto [[User:CameoAppearance|CameoAppearance]]'s and [[User:Emk|Emk]]'s comments (and others' as well, I'm sure...) [[User:OscarTheCat3|OscarTheCat]] 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>