Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31

[edit]

Template:Infobox Canadian Trails

[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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian Trails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not used. The documentation no longer exists as the associated project is gone. Template:Trails can be used for Canadian trails. It does not have all the fields which this template has however if they are needed they can be added there. -- Patleahy (talk) 22:29, 31 July 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:F1_circuit

[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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1_circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced by {{Motorsport venue}}, a universal infobox template that caters for all types of motorsport venues. No longer used on any articles. — AlexJ 16:57, 31 July 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:NASCAR track

[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. IronGargoyle 01:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NASCAR track (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced by {{Motorsport venue}}, a universal infobox template that caters for all types of motorsport venues. No longer used on any articles. — AlexJ 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still used in several articles. Keep until there is consensus to use the new box as I can find no discussion to that effect having been done yet. KEEP. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What articles? All I can see are pages outside the main articlespace (i.e. Talk pages and this TfD) and consensus was reached by the members of Wikiproject:Motorsport to use the new template here. AlexJ 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Hampshire International Speedway for one. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Hampshire is using {{Infobox_Nascar_Racetrack}} not {{NASCAR track}}. AlexJ 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nevermind. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:24, 31 July 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 Korean name templates

[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 all. IronGargoyle 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Korean name hanja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Korean name image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Koreanname north (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Korean name nohanja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All are unused redirects to {{Koreanname}}. — PC78 16:00, 31 July 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:EngPlacesKey

[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 no consensus. The travel guide arguments are not entirely convincing, and being useful is, perhaps, a better argument for templates than articles. IronGargoyle 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: This template is in use as an icon key for 62 articles (Examples: [1][2][3]). By WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Such a guide and key are more appropriate for Wikitravel, but not here. As used in "places of interest" sections, it is inappropriate; a list is fine, but adding icons turns this into a travel guide quite similar to innumerable tourist guides available from the local tourism boards in England. Further, fully seven times since May, I've removed fair use icons from this template (Example: [4]). As one person who restored the icons in violation of our fair use policy (see WP:NFCC item #9) said, the template is useless without those icons [5]. Indeed. The template is useless and unencyclopedic. —-Durin 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the template is in wide use - whilst it may be true that in some cases it has been edited in a non-compliant manner, most of the template is made of fair use images used in an appropriate manner. The editors of 62 articles thought and still presumably think it an appropriate and useful template to use, and it has been in existence in a similar form to the present since 2004. If the objection to the template is based on the repeated addition of images to which do not comply with policy, one can only point out and applaud the continued vigilance of users such as Durin whose enthusiasm and tenacity have protected us from such abuses for so long. Should that user grow tired of their task then no doubt others who see this issue as important will take their place, but deletion of the entire template is not an appropriate response to this particular issue. Naturenet | Talk 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A template being in wide use does not make it less worthy of deletion. I agree that the template being an abuse magnet is not a sole sufficient reason for deletion of a template (in most cases). But, 50% of the edits to this template have been insertions of fair use imagery and the removal of same. 50%. Think about that. As to the usefulness of the template, see my response to Mercifull below. Thank you. --Durin 13:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Extremely useful template and I have used the feature on lots of county wiki pages and i am sad that people seem intent on crippling this really good thing by deleting the mini icons and proposing to delete the entire key. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 10:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is useful. However, it is not useful within the context of an encyclopedia. If someone were to publish a tourist guide without such a key and set of icons, the guide would be considered rather poorly done. For a tourist guide, yes this is immensely useful. For an encyclopedia, it's pointless. If we were to do the opposite, and place article length information into a tourist guide which is supposed to be a short list like the places of interest where this template is used, we would similarly be making a mistake, and any managing editor would nix the idea; "the list is a tourist guide, not an encyclopedia" they would say. We simply do not do this sort of thing on an encyclopedia. This is the only occurrence I'm aware of across the entire project where such icons and a key are in use. There's a reason for that. If you would like to contribute to Wikitravel, you're certainly welcome to do so. Taking the first three entries from "what links here" on this template, you could begin your work by contributing to http://wikitravel.org/en/Cambridgeshire, http://wikitravel.org/en/Isle_of_Wight, and http://wikitravel.org/en/Bath_%28England%29. Such travel guide information would be most welcome there. But, here we are not a travel guide, as WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook makes quite clear. --Durin 13:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:USEFUL, fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. heqs ·:. 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's useful and informative. Agree with Naturenet. Asdfasdf1231234 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It being useful or not is not the salient point. I agree it's useful. It doesn't matter if it is useful or not; that's not the criteria here. Please see above. It'd be useful to have dictionary definitions on Wikipedia too. Blatantly so. We don't. Why? Because we're not a dictionary. We also don't have travel guides because we are not a travel guide. If you want this template, go to Wikitravel where it will be quite welcome. Here, it is blatantly inappropriate. --Durin 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Usefull, and I'm entirely unconvinced that it's unencyclopaedic. Joe D (t) 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Usefulness and appeal do not counter Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, not something else. Vassyana 17:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst being useful isn't a sole reason for having an item in Wikipedia, it also isn't a reason for deletion. This template provides a simple way of associating small symbolic items with descriptive terms for places. It and other templates like it are likely to be useful in geographical articles when discussing the important features of an area. There's nothing in our policy about not making it relatively easy to locate encyclopedic information on the page. We should keep it and encourage the production of more templates of this type. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should also then develop iconography for services available at each location? Picnic facilities? Camping? Fishing? RV hookups? Where would you like to stop? Why not have it look like this? Afterall, such information is quite useful! --Durin 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I share your concern - Wikipedia certainly shouldn't look like that. However, again I assert that you're using the wrong tool to achieve your aims. The existence of this template is not the cause of the problem you perceive. I'd say that to suggest this template might create a nasty page such as the one you demonstrate is a fallacious Appeal to probability: clearly, since this template was created in 2004 there's been nothing - other than yourself - to stop editors using it in the way you demonstrate. Yet they haven't and don't, not because 'we are not a travel guide' but because it because it would be unnecessary and beyond what most editors would deem reasonable. Naturenet | Talk 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of fact, no where in the policy you've provided does it explicitly state we cannot have a key which associates common attributes of places. By having this key and assigning icons to a list, it does not reduce the encyclopedicity or magically turn the section into a travel guide. What's wrong with stating the attributes of a place? Sure, a places of interest section would be better as prose, but this method is so much simpler and is doing no harm. Agreed that fair use images shouldn't be used, but it's not too hard to add some new PD images. Asdfasdf1231234 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the template's been in use for three years yet hasn't gained traction anywhere else within Wikipedia speaks against it, not in favor of it. It's age speaks to its lack of utility, not it's acceptance. Also, the issue of where we draw the line isn't addressed. My test guide is every bit as valid and useful as the template being discussed here. It provides additional information for the user. Why not include it? --Durin 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between including legitimate information and creating a guidebook is a matter of editorial judgement. My point is that so far that judgement has rarely been found wanting and if it were the presence or absence of this template wouldn't help it. Not everything can be decided by policy: and even if it was I agree with Asdfasdf1231234 that the particular policy in this case provides little comfort for either side of this debate. Naturenet | Talk 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It provides plenty of comfort and clearly delineates the line; we're not a travel guide, pure and simple. If you include this, you make this line inherently grey. My test guide is every bit legitimate in this grey definition. So, if we do keep this template how about we expand it? We can certainly make it even more useful. Hours? Price? Facilities? What icons do you think we should include? --Durin 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't be riduclous. A template as horrendously OTT as your 'test guide' really would deserve deletion. I'm sure most editors are pragmatic, and 'juicing up' a template, from the sensible status it is now, to the monstrosity you jest, isn't going to happen. Besides, your primary argument is illogical; this key does not turn the section it's placed in into a travel guide, it just helps to further inform the status of the site to the user- therefore increasing encyclopedicity. Asdfasdf1231234 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not ridiculous at all. The information I added in my test is perfectly valid. You claim the icons on the current template help to inform the status of the site. So do the additional icons I added in my test. If your icons are valid, so are mine. Where would you like to draw the line? It's a perfectly valid question. According to WP:NOT, the line is not to include your icons. But, since you want to violate that guideline and say these icons are acceptable under that, then educating us on where you think the line should be would be most helpful. I'm in ernest; if we're to include your icons, I honestly do think we should include the icons I suggested (or some form) in the test example and more; information is good, and since information is good it's encyclopedic. --Durin 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but your test is not practical. It makes the test section you've used look overly bloated. Therefore, they're not valid because they actually detract from the focus of the section, and are more likely to confuse the reader than inform. As the template is now, it's fine, and I see nowhere in the policy you've provided it states we cannot use this template as it is. Asdfasdf1231234 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's cool down and try a different tack. Going back to the basics, Durin, perhaps you can set out for us some examples of particular bits of information in the template you would prefer to exclude from this encyclopaedia? Be as specific as you can. Naturenet | Talk 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template. That's why I placed it for deletion. The line is drawn at not including it as it's a travel guide. If we're going to include it, the proponents of this template have not laid out where we should draw the line. If we should keep it, let's do it right; include maximum information as it's all useful (assuming, of course, that's our only criteria for inclusion). --Durin 13:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you're saying. So, if it's the template that's the problem, to follow up my query a little further let's suppose I edit the article for Borsetshire, using no templates, and add the following text: "Grey Gables Hall is the oldest historic house in Borsetshire, owned by the National Trust and open to the public". No image. Assuming all that was true, which bits of that would you change, and how? Naturenet | Talk 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it would be helpful. Here, this is just a list of (subjective) places of interest. If we had inline text discussing some of the major points of interest then "Grey Gables Hall is the oldest historic house in Borsetshire" would be sufficient. That it's owned by National Trust is more appropriate for the article on the subject, not a list such as this or inline text as in the scenario above. The issue here is where do you draw the line? If we permit tourist type info, then it would be just as well to say "Grey Gables Hall is the oldest historic house in Borsetshire. It is owned and operated by the National Trust, open to the public for an admission cost, has picnic areas and hiking trails, accessible entries, and free parking". It's all 'useful' information. But to me, that's not the criteria. The criteria is whether it's encyclopedic or not. That it is owned by national trust is relevant to the article, not the list. That it is open to the public is marginal either way. A link to the site's website would be sufficient to provide that information. Maintaining that information is fairly beyond the scope of our purpose here. That it is open to the public isn't relevant from an historic stand point any more or less than whether there are picnic facilities and free parking. --Durin 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for indulging me. I'm beginning to see some light here I think. So if I'm reading your response correctly - and of course this is all hypothetical anyway - you're not troubled by merely mentioning a place of interest, nor by the ownership of the place in that context; but you would probably draw the line at mentioning that the site is open to the public or any more detail about the facilities in it. Naturenet | Talk 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think mentioning ownership in the context of a list is inappropriate. In the context of an article, no. Mentioning facilities/open to the public/etc just isn't appropriate unless it was something like in inline text where it said "In 1986, the National Trust made a controversial decision to add picnic facilities next to the existing stables on the grounds" That it has picnic facilities isn't very encyclopedic. That the decision to build them and it being controversial would be. The decision is historic. The presence of the facilities might be, but it's weak at best. I apologize if I've been in any way abrasive in my above commentary. Sometimes it takes me too long to clearly lay out my meaning. --Durin 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my initial reaction was "keep", but I'm concerned about this template's accessibility; or rather the overall accessibility of pages or sections where it's in use. Anyone else have a view? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:15, 3 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:Perssonal photo

[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. —freak(talk) 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perssonal photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused template, incompatible with the Foundation's licensing policy. Not to mention that Wikipedia is neither a file storage service nor costless webhost. MER-C 12:46, 31 July 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:Not a ballot

[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 speedy keep. All other users in discussion favor keeping and nom's statement seems primarily focused on merging. Nomination in response to a controversial DRV is rather bad form as well. IronGargoyle 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not a ballot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First, it violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Second, this cannot be resolved by simple editing: the existence of any independent version of this template would be a violation of said policies. Third, it used in controversial XfDs/VfDs to try to demean the discussion, usually by the side that thinks they might lose; this is done to try and gain points in WP:DRV. Fourth, what useful text it has (I think two lines, one that points at policies and state the process is not a vote, and the "note" on SPA) can be merged into the XfD/VfD standard nom templates, and be present on all deletion discussions, as they apply to all, and not those that an editor arbitrarily decides deserves it (usually, as I stated, for less-than-noble reasons): doing this merge would keep the good faith editors informed all the time of the purpose of XfDs without tainting the discussion or singling it out. If the community feels a warning tag is still needed, it should be a new, more direct tag that identifies suspected and known SPA and meatpuppet activity directly, naming names, rather than vague accusations and innuendo that violate WP:AGF. Thanks!— Cerejota 04:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Sockpuppeteers and wannabe wikipoliticians (I hazard no surmise as to nominator's motivations, FYI; the concerns seem honest, just misplaced) are forever attacking RfA, XfD, DRv, etc., policies and procedures, and there is an Everest-sized landslide of long-standing consensus against this nonsense (and more to the point, that consensus includes the necessity of having templates of this sort, because waves of WP-ignorant but not malicious meatpuppets are a very frequent occurence.) I.e., this debate already happened a long time ago and is thoroughly resolved. On the other hand, I would support a merge proposal; there is another less "loud" and longwinded template of this sort that is often used in RfA; some less annoying combination of the two would probably suffice for all of these purposes, perhaps with a parameter to distinguish between RfA, AfD, etc., usage, if any such customization is actually needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of merging the text into all of the XfD templates (ie the ones that are subst for noms?) I agree we need a policy warning and a note on SPAs (As the nom clearly states), but i think it shouldn't be optional, but part of the process itself. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The template is only used (generally) in cases where it's obvious a bunch of SPA's are flooding the discussion with comments that do not help further the discussion. I agree with SMcCandlish that creating a smaller version would be good. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. I have recently involved in three XfDs inw hich there where only regular editors or interested parties (ie mebers of relevant projects) involved and nevertheless the template was put in. The template is used as an attempt to stifle debate.--Cerejota 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, every template gets misused. The solution is to correct this behavior, not to delete the templates. —David Levy 05:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the contrary, this serves to prevent well-intentioned newcomers from being bitten and/or accused of acting in bad faith. It's a practical means of informing them that they're mistaken in their belief that they can change a discussion's outcome by showing up to cast a ballot (often an honest mistake). People aren't going to stop pointing this out (nor should they), and the template ensures that it's done in a polite manner that doesn't embarrass people by making this seem personal. Without a convenient template at their disposal, editors would simply type their own messages, many of which would be far less cordial. ("Attention people from XYZ Forum: We're going to throw out all of your votes because you're just a bunch of meat puppets trying to stir up trouble, so don't bother posting anything here.") The idea of merging this text into the nomination templates might be a good idea, but that is not a valid rationale for this template's deletion (nor is the fact that this template, like all templates, sometimes is misused). —David Levy 05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This informational purpose should be merged into the regular templates used in XfDs, not an optional one - the optionality serves to taint a given XfD as controversial. Please read my nom. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your nomination. Did you read my reply? I explicitly addressed your merger suggestion and noted that while it might be a good idea, it isn't a valid rationale for the template's deletion. FYI, merging and deleting are mutually exclusive. —David Levy 05:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the point on "optionality" flew by you. Merge and delete are not mutually exclusive, a lot of XfDs end in merges/redirects. This is a debate around the existence of an specific page, not an either/or vote (self-reference entirely accidental). I want this template deleted because it makes inclusion of the text optional, instead of mandatory (as would a merge into the various XfDs). Since you don't address this point on optionality, I am left with the impression you didn't read my nom. I am wrong, but you still haven't addressed that point. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Evidently, the part about the merger possibly being a good idea "flew by you." This is something that can be discussed, but in no way does it justify the template's deletion.
2. I've explained why this template is beneficial. Your proposed arrangement might be superior, but it does not yet exist. Until such time as it does, this template remains the best solution currently available. You seem to desire its deletion as a means of forcing people to quickly adopt your preferred setup, and that's inappropriate. First, we can discuss your suggested changes to the nomination templates. If they're made, then we can retire this template.
3. A merger and a deletion are mutually exclusive. Redirection is not a form of deletion. —David Levy 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needs color change, and language change so as to make it not bite. I will give it a go, by the time of TfD. Newcomers come to afd by article page, not by afd list by date, so noinclude will make it invisible in day's log, but education about afd is necessary for newcomers. I will add a sentence to assume good faith in nominator, but i will do improvements in talkpage, template will be improved in 1-2days. Lara_bran 07:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the problems raised by the nominator are not caused by the template itself, but by those who are misusing it. This may be a bad faith nomination, the template was nominated on TFD apparently in direct response to its transclusion on this DRV. --Coredesat 10:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned it was due to various XfDs, not just that one. Your accusation of bad faith is a personal attack, I ask you please apologize. You have no reason to believe that. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, usage there, as per the user who put it there is due to concern about canvassing, not SPAs or meatpuppets. In other word, not used according to the intended purpose as per some of the keeps. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's a good, fairly neutral way of introducing newcomers to our processes without encroaching on the substance of a discussion or repetitious debating of core policies with newcomers. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tony Sidaway has a good point here; it's easier to draw attention to the relevant policies right at the top of the page, rather than having to repeatedly try and explain things during the course of the discussion. The colour change (from red to blue) makes it less intrusive, which might help - though the red was also good for drawing attention to it. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway. Hut 8.5 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like the nominator is taking its usage in preventative situations a bit personally. WP:AGF applies equally. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons mentioned above related to usefulness. Don't hesitate to remove the template if it doesn't apply, or only applies marginally. Just don't get into an edit war over it. GracenotesT § 22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because of its usefulness in making XfDs much more managable. The argument that it violates WP:AGF is a red herring: an early word in the template is "if", hardly an assumption of bad faith. UnitedStatesian 04:02, 1 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:QA

[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. IronGargoyle 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serves no purpose, and pretty much unused. Virtually any discussion on any talk page could qualify for this template; it is overbroad, and everyone seems to recognize that. This is surely why it is only being used on a grand total of 4 talk pages for its intended use (i.e. not counting talk pages of related Category:Image with comment templates tags on which it is mentioned/referred to as being part of that set of templates.) There have been many proposals for {{Resolved}}-like templates (mostly at Template talk:Resolved), and very few of them have garnered any support ({{Stale}} being one of them). This {{QA}} one has been promoted despite observations that it would be pointless, and here many months later the proof is in the pudding. I've waited a long time to see if this would actually grow into active use and it has not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Per a lot of precedent (and see even 1 or 2 TfDs below this one, where someone says about a copyright-related template, "deserves wider publicity and use, not a deletion because it is not used"), if people see a use/need for this, I'll be fine with a "keep". I don't have anything personal against this template (and certainly not its author!); I just don't see that it serves a purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue against it being deleted because, as you point out, it's failed to gain any traction. But I would like to clarify the purpose... "the purpose of the "QA" tag is to give a visual hint that a talk item is in Question-Answer format regarding factual information which is missing or unclear in the article".. that is, I meant it only for discussions that have information that would be useful in the article proper.. However it's a bit confusing, and the name of the template and its text don't really give a good indication of what it's for.. so, I have no real problem with it being either kept or deleted. —Pengo 04:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'm not sure, though, it was understood that my main point is that the vast majority of talk page discussions are of exactly that nature, though many of them are not literally phrased as questions when the thread starts, but as assertions. The end result is the same. As would be expected, per WP:TALK: The purpose of article talk pages is precisely such article improvement discussions (however much some people here and there use them as chat boards :-/ So it goes...) On the other hand, this may well suggest that we need a new template of this sort, more along the lines of {{Resolved}}, and {{Stale}}, perhaps a {{Chatter}}, to simultaneous notify incoming readers that they can ignore a thread, and not-too-subtly hint that the parties to that thread need to take their rambling personality clash to user talk. >;-) I'm only half-joking, too... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't see this being intuitive or helpful in any situation. The documentation describes a process too complicated to be captured in the simple "Q&A" or some other short phrase. –Pomte 01:31, 1 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:Copyright permission

[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 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright permission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not used, not needed. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:17, 31 July 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:Sakorea

[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 Speedy Deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defunct template. — PC78 01:56, 31 July 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.

Koreanruler templates

[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 all. IronGargoyle 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Koreanruler twonames image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Koreanruler twonames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Koreanruler threenames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Koreanruler fournames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused templates; redundant to {{Koreanruler}}. — PC78 01:47, 31 July 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:Koreannames

[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 procedural close. The proper venue for this discussion is WP:RFD. If anyone wishes to move the discussion there, they may. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template; has been merged into {{Koreanname}}. — PC78 01:38, 31 July 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:Korean penname

[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. IronGargoyle 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Korean penname (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused template, redundant to both {{Koreanname}} and {{Koreanruler}}. — PC78 01:31, 31 July 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:Wiki Ribbon

[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 userfy. IronGargoyle 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiki Ribbon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is hideous looking. I saw this when it was put on User:Jimbo Wales' page. If creator wants to use it on his page it should be userfied — -Nard 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know about deleting it, but it is probably one of the worst looking templates I've ever seen. --Haemo 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no valid purpose for using it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy; if the originator of this abomination >;-) wants it for their own userpage, userfy; otherwise delete. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - If kept, it should probably by edited to make the ribbon in a more appropriate position, or userfied. I can't really make a decision now, though. Ryan Got something to say? 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unschool 14:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if only because, whatever it's meant to do, it doesn't do anything sensible in all skins. In Cologneblue, for instance, it puts an untidy dark trapezium near the top left of the page, where it obscures the "Browse" menu. I imagine that it's intended to draw a picture of a ribbon somewhere on the screen, but this is quite easily achieved by including an image of a ribbon on the screen using the wiki's standard "image" command, and this method has the added benefit of controlling where on the screen the ribbon will appear and ensuring that it will not obscure anyting useful, so I don't see what use this template could have even if it actually worked. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - there are a couple of people using it and it's not doing any harm (though it is hideous). — Bob • (talk) • 04:56, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy: there's no accounting for taste. — mholland (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy No need to delete, but still should be userfied. Captain panda 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy horrible, but if someone wants to use it then he may do so (as long as he doesn't use it outside of his own user namespace... heh). This isn't really a template that should be kept in template namespace. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 19:00, 3 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_July_31&oldid=1140255174"