< August 7 August 9 >

August 8

Template:Indigenous Australians/deceased

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.

Although substantial arguments are made by both sides, the arguments to delete have a stronger basis in policy and long-standing consensus. Unlike guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, the policy relevant to this case (Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles) is unambiguous: no disclaimers.

A strong enough case was not made to justify an invocation of WP:IAR. For one thing, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer was updated to take into account cultural restrictions. Fundamentally, a reason was not presented that this case should be an exception to the "no disclaimers" policy. Various editors expressed the view that it is "the culturally sensitive thing to do" or is a matter of "high cultural sensitivity", but did not show how it is substantially different from various other culturally or legally sensitive issues (where viewing or reading certain images or text is offensive, immoral, or criminal). Finally, it was pointed out that the disclaimer is not particularly effective. In the two instances it is currently used on articles, the image and disclaimer are both visible even without any scrolling.

All of these factors combined suggest that ignoring an established policy with long-standing support, especially when there is not overwhelming support to do so, is not warranted.

— Black Falcon (Talk) 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Indigenous Australians/deceased (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
note a discussion about this is also taking place at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Template:Indigenous Australians/deceased Gnangarra 06:00, 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]
Comment - I can see where Gnangarra, Hesperian and Moondynes comments come from - and understand their position - however I still think the content disclaimer needs further work if their particular argument is successful SatuSuro 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is kinda #5 Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable Gnangarra 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied belong, but I think "may be objectionable" is more than a little different from "constitutes a sin to view". --Haemo 00:37, 10 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]
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:Mapquest

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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Redundant to more generic coordinate templates. Only used on about ten one article. Note similarly named ((MapQuest)), nominated below. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:55, 8 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:MapQuest

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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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:Map link

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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Unused (last two instances just converted) and redundant to ((coord)) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:36, 8 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 Mighty Max episode

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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mighty Max episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Individual series version of ((Infobox Television episode)), unused, time to delete. Jay32183 21:01, 8 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:JAPru7

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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JAPru7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superceded by ((JPNru7)) — Bob 20:27, 8 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:Foreignchar

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 keep. IronGargoyle 02:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

  • 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]
    • I do get your point. The template seems a little "big" for this minor task; why not do something like "Voßstraße (common English transliteration: Vossstrasse)", then? After all, if the English transliteration is not common, including it would be original research. Original research, even for the sake of accessibility, is to certainly be avoided. GracenotesT § 16:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about how common the transliteration is. It's about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so (i.e. only when you cannot use the original spelling or if there is a good reason for deliberately avoiding it, whatever that might be). This is not the best place to discuss possible re-wordings of the template, and the current wording represents the result of a long period of work from several people striving to pack as much meaning as possible into a small space. Nor is this the place to discuss size; the template used to be displayed in smaller type because some people didn't like it being so big. Then it was made bigger because some people didn't like it so small. There is no obligation to use the template, so the question here is whether editors should be prohibited from explaining the orthographic issues in this way or not. Persistent efforts have failed to find any shorter text which adequately conveyed the relevant information. It's not as simple as "or". --Stemonitis 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. Now there appears to be a bigger problem, in my opinion, with the wording—the fact that it mentions "undesirable". The template simply can't function as either explaining transliteration when foreign characters are unavailable or explaining transliteration when foreign characters are not desired. Some editors voting to keep this template seem to be under the impression that the former is the case, but you point out that one of the strengths of the template is the latter. This is no more useful than using "or", and may be less useful than "common English transliteration" when that really is the case. I realize that this only involves altering the template, but do you understand what I perceive as an issue? The template is far too vague, and in the case of "not desired" usages of foreign characters, merely explaining that it is "not desired" can confuse rather than help. In such cases, mentioning that unavailability of certain characters is also an issue can obscure rather than elucidate. GracenotesT § 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You miss the point that without the template, there is likely to be a greater insistence on the parts of certain editors to remove the accents from article titles. Thus, by insisting on deleting the template, there's a reasonable chance that you'll be shooting yourself in the foot. By making accented characters, ligatures and the like more palatable to those who would normally run screaming from them, we increase accuracy, increase the knowledge and increase the degree of respect. I find it odd that your stated intentions are so completely at odds with your voting. I also can't see any way in which the template could be seen as insulting — the alternative orthographies are taken from the languages' own methods for dealing with limiting situations (for use in URLs etc.). Indeed, in my experience, German accented letters are more likely to be avoided by German speakers in English than by native English speakers. They obviously do not find it insulting. --Stemonitis 10:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I see any problem with listing an alternative spelling, as I said above with "Voßstraße (or Vossstrasse)", but we're talking here about languages that use Roman script, and names for which there are otherwise no English equivalents. The Kalifornien/California example is not valid, as Kalifornien is a German name, not an English one. Likewise, Tokyo has become a naturalized English name, derived from the original Japanese pronunciation of the kanji "East, Capital" (which are pronounced "DōngJīng" in Chinese, whose speakers preserve the Japanese written form, although the first character is usually the simplified form nowadays). The name Cölbe has no English equivalent, for instance, and there is no native English way of rendering the vowel /œ/; so it seems to me that one can jolly well render it "Cölbe" since, as this text demonstrates, we are quite capable of doing so. For those who have no idea how to pronounce it, we can put IPA transcriptions (/'kœlbə/), and there's an article about those, or readers can look up German orthography or German phonology, or better yet, .ogg files could be used. Writing it "Coelbe" doesn't really clear anything up. It just creates a confusion of variant spellings. Kelisi 20:22, 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:Succession/Temp

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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession/Temp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

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: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]

Template:User Jonathan Ladra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template--probably belongs in the User namespace if at all. — Seattlenow 04:13, 8 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

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. Singularity 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Buffy episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single series fork of ((Infobox Television episode)), unused, time to delete. Jay32183 03:06, 8 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.
More