Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Restored and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 2#Template:Foreignchar. Previous TfDs: TFD1, TfD2. Happy‑melon 09:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without the template, there is more likely that some editors will move artices. 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. The alternative orthographies are taken from the languages' own methods for dealing with limiting situations (for use in URLs etc.) (Plaguarised from User:Stemonitis in Tfd1) As Boson said after the previous discussion, adding something like "also known as" is not appropriate, as it is often not true; the use of "transliterations" is often just a keyboard convention not used in print, which is the reason the use of a hatnote was favored. Agathoclea (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that it is now possible to blank the view of the template by using css. Agathoclea (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, either it has a known transliteration, in which case "also known as" is quite apropriate. Or it has no common transliteration, in which case there is no need to add it to the very top position of the article. As someone said in a previous discussion: The use of {{foreignchar}} in a hatnote gives unwarranted prominence to a minor point. --Kildor (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I see it, use of the hatnote was a tacit compromise that avoided move wars and long discussions on the use of certain German characters. The standard template, usually used in a hatnote, has a similar function to other redirect and disambiguation templates in that it provides information about the article name and also provides assistance on using the encyclopaedia. It provides a standardized link to the character concerned and it provides a (not easily achieved) consensus description of the usage of the convention, viz. The title of this article contains the character <character>. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as <name>. This is not the same as saying that the subject is "also known as" or that the representation is validly used in any language except when the character is unavailable (or similar). The actual situation may be slightly different for different examples, but the consensus description seems to fit many different cases that should otherwise be described in the relevant article without the benefit of a single discussion on the different possibilities. Take as an example the German town of "Fürth". It contains the valid Latin-1 character "ü". The only correct name in print (in German and English) is "Fürth". It is never correctly known as "Fuerth" (or, at least, to claim that it were would be eminently POV). However, there is a convention that search engines will find "Fürth", when looking for "Fuerth", it may be used when typing with an English keyboard, etc. There are several smaller towns called "Fürth" which are referred to by a disambiguation hatnote. There are also towns called "Furth" (no diacritic). An American user not knowing how to type "ü" and not aware of the "ue" typing convention, or not noticing the diacritic might type "Furth" when looking for "Fürth". He or she would then arrive at a disambiguation page that links to the different towns called "Furth" and also points out that the user may be looking for "Fürth". Clicking on the appropriate link will lead to the article on Fürth, which until recently had a hatnote explaining how to avoid the labyrinthine process next time (by typing "Fuerth"). This hatnote has now been removed because the template was deleted. It should be replaced, preferably using the template. We could have a similar (but slightly different) discussion about Düsseldorf, Maß, Gerhard Roßbach, etc. This comment is rather long, but it still simplifies the situation. I would rather not have this sort of discussion on every article containing one of the German Latin-1 characters normally used in English texts about Germany, i.e. ÄÖÜäöüß.--Boson (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the issue that this template addresses affects many articles, it is entirely appropriate to address it with a template. I wouldn't go so far as to say that alternate spellings are never appropriate in any language "except when the character is unavailable," especially regarding ß, but that would be a question of how the template should be worded, not whether the template should exist at all. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agathoclea. In addition, if anything, this template educates the reader on the important issue of the character they may not be familiar with. Before they decide to complain about being confused. --DerRichter (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in many cases there is no any standard way to write it without diacritic --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was there when this template was made and I always thought it was a nice little compromise. Haukur (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helps to avoid confusion. --Komischn (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn't this TfD be closed by now? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Routinely abused by editors who wish to enforce unEnglish spellings on this English Wikipedia. Does more harm than good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 10 June 2008 (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:WA U.S. Routes and Template:WA Interstate

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this; we already have Category:U.S. Highways in Washington and Category:Interstate Highways in Washington. — NE2 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are used for navagation purposes between all of those highways. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to navigate between two of them (which I really don't see why you would), you can click on the category link. --NE2 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN. Clearly, having a navbox for a category is fine. No opinion on template. --Izno (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do other states have these templates? (At first glance, the answer appears to be no, but I could be wrong.) I don't much see the use of them, but the same logic that applied to state highway templates (that you could use the browsing in the infobox to navigate) doesn't apply here. -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy‑melon 09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reinstated tfd notices Agathoclea (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN points 2 & 3 Faster to navigate than a category. Give immediate information to equivalent elements. Also additional information like deleted highways is supplied, which is not visible via a category system. Additional Navboxes are fine when there is a finite number of targets not all of which might have their own article yet. Agathoclea (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, have we reached a concensus yet? Contact me when we do. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former highways are in Category:Former state highways in Washington. --NE2 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as a "Keep" because there are 2 keep votes (Me and

Agathoclea). — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 23:38, 11 June 2008 (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.