Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 August 8)
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8 edit

Template:Indigenous Australians/deceased edit

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]
  • 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. SatuSuro 00:12, 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]
  • 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 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]
  • 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. Gnangarra 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]
            • And IAR trumps policy. Oh dear... Giggy Talk 07:59, 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]
  • 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]
  • Strong Keep - it's PC, but it's important. JRG 07:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NDA. Wikipedia is not censored.--cj | talk 08:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JRG. Dfrg.msc 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, above points are very true. This is a big issue in Australia, and I believe this is one case where we can make an exception to the WP:NDA policy. –sebi 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NDA. Not that I object to this template's general idea, but I truly believe it might be the start of a slippery slope. Lankiveil 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete because we shouldn't have disclaimer templates, period. If it's possible to read policy as allowing this, that's a problem with the policy. However, as it stands, this information is now redundant to Wikipedia:General disclaimer, and the policy says that's a reason to avoid disclaimer templates. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I understand in, this actually constitutes a sin for someone of this faith to view this material, even by accident. I can't even think of anything comparable in either Christianity, or Islam, or any other religion -- the Muslim-pictures thing is not the same, since it was a sin to produce such images, not simply to view them. For most Muslims, it was just really offensive. This is way beyond offensive, to the point where viewing such an image violates an aspect of their faith. We say "Wikipedia may be objectionable"; that is very different from saying "Viewing certain Wikipedia pages will cause you to violate a tenet of your faith". --Haemo 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify viewing of some images/names etc can actually result in the person being speared that said Wikipedia requires the person to search by names or follow links so with the exception of it being on the main page(dyk,FA,FP etc) the person needs to make a physical choice to actually view the image, so while it is kinda logical to have such a warning we aren't censored and we aren't responsible for decisions a person makes as to what they view. Gnangarra 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it would seem to me that any of those who would be offended would be aware of the possibility--and would know what articles were likely to be involved. If this is an insensitive comment, I apologize.DGG (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still haven't seen a page where this template is used in such a way that the reader could stop viewing the page before a photo of a deceased Aboriginal person appears. In addition, I recommend that the sentence in the template, "If appropriate, the approval of the relevant local community leaders should be sought before this page is viewed" should be deleted. The sentence could be interpreted as applying to everyone rather than just to Aboriginal people who observe this taboo. Furthermore, if a Wikipedia reader is an Aboriginal person and observes this taboo, it should be up to them to determine what kind of approval they need before they can view the page in good conscience. --Metropolitan90 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per CJ and Hesperian. GlassCobra 08:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "informative i" and the contents seeem to clash heavily. No disclaimers, please. --Kjoonlee 08:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete—with all due sensitivity, it is expected that Wikipedia may need to break ethnic group-specific social contracts to achieve the goal of freely redistributable content. Not that it has to, but that it has license to. In this case, the template is not practical. This disclaimer may be common, but web pages are horrible mediums to include such disclaimers. ("Ignore the title of this page.") A more linear medium, such as radio or television, is more appropriate than a web page; the latter is not reasonably doable. Also note most recent addition to the content disclaimer: diff. GracenotesT § 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such a template is not deleting information (like the removal of Mohammed cartoons would). I feel somewhat cheap for suggesting the following as a compromise, but if there are templates for recently deceased people, how about one specific for aboriginal people, which would be a bit like {{current fiction}}? Andjam 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sympathetic to the WP:IAR argument being made, but I don't think a case for ignoring WP:NDA has been made. Moreover, it's impractical, as an image of a deceased Aborigine at the top of the page will still be seen, regardless of the template, and also opens up the possibility that such templates will proliferate in order to cater to each religious/ethnic group's particularities, which would tend to create chaos within the project. Let's keep content free and open to all, not subject to the whims of "relevant local community leaders". Biruitorul 06:26, 13 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 edit

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 edit

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 edit

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 edit

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 edit

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 edit

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]

  • 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. GracenotesT § 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]
    • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Keep I see no problem with listing an alternate spelling. Here is an answer I posted on Timwi's talk. Timwi, by your reasoning it is not allowed to write Tokyo, since this is not the correct way to write the word. Instead you must use the Kanji for East and Capital since this is the official way to write the name. I think this is an extreme position to take on the issue of transcription, especially in an English-based Wiki. In English it is common practice to transcribe symbols for which we have no standard equivalent. You see the same thing here: [2] Kalifornien is an acceptable transcription for the English California in German. And correctly, the article is listed under the heading California. Same thing here with Nußloch. The Gemeinde is listed under the main entry Nußloch with the English transcription under it.
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]
  • Delete In my opinion the alternative spelling should be in the lead of ther article, we do not need to clutter the top of article with too many templates. Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article itself should always use the "correct" spelling, including special characters were applicable. Were alternative spellings exists, this template is quite useful to distinguish correct from incorrect alternative spellings. (Nürburgring -> Nuerburgring, but not Nurburgring) MikeZ 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article should use the spelling customary and natural in English, noting (as one encyclopedic piece of information) what the "correct" local spelling or spellings are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although this template is used in hundreds of articles, one example will help to make to make the point. Note the case of footballer Dušan Đurić. This person is listed at IMDB and Amazon.com only as "Dusan Duric"; a search for "Dušan Đurić" on either of these major sites returns zero hits. Even his official biography on his team's website lists him as "Dusan Duric", but "Dušan Đurić" is unquestionably the more correct spelling. One problem is that the Đ character is not even included in ISO 8859-1, the encoding standard Windows uses natively for English users, making its display impossible in some settings. The information is obviously useful, and it concerns the name and location of the article, not just information about the person; this makes its use in a top template appropriate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the chief arguments some people use in favor of avoiding all letters other than the English 26 in article names is that English speakers won't know what these unfamiliar characters are. By supplying a link to the article about the letter in question, this template allows people to whom the letters are unfamiliar to learn about them. Thus this template helps promote knowledge, whereas avoiding diacritics and letters like ß, ð, þ, and ə promotes ignorance. Using the unfamiliar letters but without providing a way for the reader to learn more doesn't exactly promote ignorance, but it doesn't help combat it, either. —Angr 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not our business to campaign for any purpose, let alone for the eszett. We do not exist to ladle knowledge down our readers' throats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Although computers are capable of displaying - they are not on every keybord. Agathoclea 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is encyclopedically relevant knowledge to tell the reader what the preferred representation of the title is in media that can only handle the 26 unaccented English letters. Some of the alternatives mentioned above (such as "or") do not adequately express that one title is the correct one and the other merely a transliteration into a restricted alphabet. Using "or" would amount to promoting ignorance. –Henning Makholm 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep as per Stemonitis and Henning Makholm — OwenBlacker 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stefán. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful template, though the Voss Strasse discussion seems to be what has sparked this debate, so I'll repeat my opinion on that here, as I've done at Talk:Voßstraße, and where anyone else with an opinion is welcome to participate. In a nutshell: Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources, meaning that we should title articles by the most common name that is used in English-language sources. In my opinion, that article should be at Voss Strasse since that's how most English-language newspapers refer to the street. We're on the English Wikipedia, let's stick with English usage in the article titles here. We can include the foreign spelling in the lead paragraph, and we can of course link via interwiki to any other language articles about the subject. But for the title, Use English wherever possible. --Elonka 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "ß" is a good example: see the article on German spelling reform of 1996, where substitution of -ss- for ß is not uniform. Also in older texts such as those that demonstrate German exonyms of places now outside of German-speaking countries, it is ahistorical to use -ss- for ß, one should use -sz- if at all - Straßburg (Strasbourg), and hundreds of others. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 14 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 edit

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]

  • 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]
    • Comment I considered deleting it as a test page ... but I didn't have much conviction for doing that at the time. In the future, I might speedy something like this as a test page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious test. –sebi 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; whatever purpose this had in December 2004, we have a standard set of templates for this now. Thanks for doing the reasonable thing, Keyockey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 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:User Jonathan Ladra edit

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]

  • 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 edit

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_8&oldid=1146800336"