Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24[edit]

Template:User YTMND[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 per the German Userbox Solution. Note that I'm not an admin, but it has already been userfied, so I'm wrapping things up. Fredil Yupigo 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There being no encyclopaedic benefit to being a YTMNDer this userbox needs to be moved out of Template space. Category:YTMNDers should probably also be moved out of mainspace as self-referential. Just zis Guy you know? 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Amusing but not needed. -ScotchMB 12:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wait, so userboxes are supposed to be encyclopedic? Since when? There's no reason to delete this. It isn't masquerading as a Wikipedia template; it's already userfied. I've got a userbox that proclaims that I'm a fan of Futurama; should that one be deleted, too? The category, however, should be changed to "Wikipedians who are YTMNDers" (or something similar), though. EVula 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and delete to userspace. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved to my userspace. Someone add the German Solution template, I can't find it. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I think you should have waited more than four hours after the template was nominated... WP:GUS. EVula 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Germanize. We're not nominating userboxes for deletion anymore. Also, why was this speedied? And where's the source code? Crazyswordsman 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source code is here: User:Kookykman/YTMND --G0zer 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Germanize; Isn't that the policy anyway? Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Closed Captioned) 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the Germinization directions on the template itself. Crazyswordsman 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The German Solution doesn't deal with drivel, it just pushes things that might vaguely offend someone out of the template space. This box does nothing to help us or inform us in any way, as YTMND is not a wikipedia wikiproject. --tjstrf 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been deleted (about four hours after the nomination, IIRC). I don't know why this is still showing as open. --G0zer 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was userfied, which is totally different. I voted to delete it for a reason. --tjstrf 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually, it was deleted and then re-created — which is different still. you may want to consider voting again just in case. --G0zer 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK then... delete it, again. --tjstrf 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it just be Germanized? WP:GUS deals with ALL userboxes, and our ultimate goal is to move all userboxes to userspace and remake the directory there. Until this happens, we need to make people know where the userboxes are going to be, so they don't just see a link to a nonexistant template there. I restored it, and now it says "Per the German Userbox Solution, (template name) was moved to (where it is now)." What's wrong with that? People know how to go and get it. Once everything, including the directories is moved over, then we can start deleting templates. Until then, we have to work gradually, and that means not deleting userboxes until the migration is complete. Sir Crazyswordsman 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because keeping content until we move it to the correct title, then deleting it, makes as little sense with userboxes as it does with articles? Let's say we found an advertisement article, Billy'sBurgerShack, in which the person had not followed the proper naming conventions. Would you claim we must first move it to the correct name, Billy's Burger Shack then renominate it? No, you'd delete it outright. Besides, why on earth should we move boxes like the wikiproject and babel boxes out of template space in the first place? --tjstrf 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's more manageable than userboxes. See, the casual reader will notice it with articles. And usually with mispelled titles, we usually redirect them. If you're using Billy's Burger Shack as an example of resaturantcruft which should normally be deleted, you're being a bit hypothetical compared to something as miniscule as a user template. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Future[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. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC) This template is a spinoff of {{current}}, and has itself sprawned a lot of other templates, like {{future product}}, {{future automobile}}, etc.[reply]

I belive the grandaddy of them all, {{current}} should be used very sparingly, it should stay only for a short time on articles which may change significantly during that short time due to current events.

I believe {{future}} and its children are however unhelpful and distracting. It is common sense that articles about future events will change in time. There is no need to slap ugly template on top of them. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I can see where it would be useful to identify at a glance that the article concerns something that is upcoming but the template is not completely necessary. Epolk 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. {{future}} and its spinoffs are used on more than 2500 articles. Information on future events borders on speculative (even when it comes from official sources), and while that's common sense to some extent, it should still be made abundantly clear that the information is not always as reliable as is found on other encyclopedia pages. --Interiot 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template transclusions
{{future film}} 681
{{future album}} 316
{{future}} 262
{{future sport}} 245
{{future building}} 195
{{future election}} 172
{{future product}} 149
{{future comic}} 104
{{future book}} 102
... ...
  • KEEP this template has over 200 differnt articles tagged to it. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Especially the films one, since the template warns users about quickly changing information as more details are revealed about a film towards its release. It is already used on many film articles and will continue to be added to other new films. --Nehrams2020 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some things about the future are certain, like the next solar eclipse. Some other things did not yet happen, but then there are well-established ways in the English langauge of making that clear to the reader, via phrases like "it is estimated that this feature will be come available.... ", "the company is planning on...", "in most likelyhood, ....", etc.
Comment. Shouldn't these count as weasel words? Anyways my vote still Keep (see below). Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could as well post a similar template on articles about the (distant) past, or about anything where there is no perfectly clear knowlegdge, like Jesus, global warming, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template informs the reader that that information is available on the topic, but more specifcs aren't known yet. What's wrong with that? The articles can still be encyclopedic as long as they stick to the facts known about the topic, and the templates easily let the reader know. Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)(talk) 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. But in the same way one can put the following template on top of evolution:
This article or section contains information about a theory.
It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the science advances and more information becomes available.
Every article should be able to stay on its own, without naive disclaimers. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)
  • Keep. It's about likelihood of information changing. --Usgnus 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does no harm. --Lukobe 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is needed for the auto articles and is of great help to our readers. Also, as shown above there are many other similar templates for other products who are not yet in manufacture. Signaturebrendel 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A useful disclaimer. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nothing wrong with that, important info to tell THIS IS FUTURE EVENTS Aleenf1 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least future-film: I generally don't care but then I came across Grind House where the first words in the article are "Grind House is a film expected to be released in April 2007." The future box on this article does nothing but distract and contrary to views expressed above: I think that does harm. To much space for so little function that is repeated in the first sentence. Cburnett 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nkayesmith 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 08:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Easy way to tell it's in the future Bronzey 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I consider these to be a tool related to "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". They're a strong reminder, right at the top of the article, that while some future events are worth mentioning because of the high level of certainty that they will, in fact, occur, caution must still be employed because the specifics of the event cannot be considered a certainty yet. I wouldn't mind if all of the "children" of {{Future}} were redirected back to it, but I oppose getting rid of it and its "children" altogether. --Icarus (Hi!) 09:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Gabbec 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per avove. Also, its used in a lot of articles —Min un Spiderman 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I do question whether "future building" is of any real use doktorb wordsdeeds 11:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves a slightly different purpose than {{Current}}. {{Current}} is used to remind users who have come to Wikipedia to read up on a current event that the information could be quickly rendered out of date because the event is ongoing. {{Future}} and its descendents, however, is used to remind users that information is speculative and could change in the future. In a sense, though, they are very similar. {{Future}} is basically like an extended version of {{Current}} -- used for "current events" that are ongoing over a long period of time, perhaps with not much activity at any given moment. =) While it's true the wording of a "future event" article can make the uncertainty clear, the same is true for "current event" articles. In both cases, it's useful to have a tag at the top just as extra reinforcement of the uncertainty. The consistent appearance of the templates helps in recognition among frequent users, and they're also useful for categorization purposes. Powers 11:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all the articles. What part of WP:NOT a crystal ball are we having trouble understanding here? There is no deadline to meet; wait until the thing has been done and long enough has elapsed for respectable secondary coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doubtless there are articles tagged with these that should be deleted. But there are future events for which there's quite a bit of information available that is cited by reliable sources. For instance, 12 months before a new model of car is sold, most of the auto trade press have written at length about the known information about the upcoming car, and there are a lot of pictures published. --Interiot 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This would mean that articles like Freedom Tower would have to be deleted until the building itself was built. That's certainly not what "not a crystal ball" was meant to prevent. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It certainly makes sense for a lot of examples, such as future building (where the builidng may be under construction, but final height, etc. are regarded as trade secrets, and not declared). The templates give a nice and consistant method for showing something is not finalised yet, that is clear and easy to undrstand. - Ratarsed 11:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the harm of having it? -ScotchMB 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit it is a bit wordy. How is Template:Future_product_small? --gatoatigrado 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template is to point out first and formost that the item hasn't been released, so information in the article may not be part of the final product. And most of it isn't crystal balling, as people take the info they have (like the specs of a building) and put it in the article. Just because the item isn't out doesn't mean people don't know (or need to know) anything about it. JQF 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template can tell a Wikipedia user that the article subject they are looking at has not yet been made. This reduces confusion dramatically. Looking at an article about a not-yet completed building, for example, without this template would automatically make me assume this building has been completed and opened yet will make me confused to find that external links and references all say it hasnt been completed. - Erebus555 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It tells us that things may not turn out as in the article and that information may change. --kollision 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes it's difficult to know whether a film is out, being made or just rumoured. This template helps to clear up some of the confusion. --Tim1988 talk 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all pro-said above. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definate Keep. Its used in many articles and (IMO) does not fall under "crystal balling" simply because many facts (like producer, label, artist) can be confirmed with certianty. What cannot be and what is subject to change (like track names, lengths, release date, credits) although likly not to change are not set in stone yet. In almost all cases this information once known will not change but sometimes does. I think this template is useful because it gives fair warning to those who may think that the information they see is cannonical. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also forgot to mention that this template adds the article to [[Category:Upcoming Albums]] or Movies or whatever. I frequent this cat to see what to expect and find it very useful for finding new artists and new albums.
  • Strong Keep Just as it is important to flag current events as such due to the fluid nature of the relevant information, so too should we flag articles about events that haven't happened yet, but are in development. If we delete the future tags, someone should submit an AfD for the current event tags, since they are both similar in purpose. EVula 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above - bit of a no-brainer really!!!--Cavie78 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Necessasary, helps prevent crystal balling. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anyone like Template:Future_product_small? We should at least integrate the "if" statement, no need to have "section or article". --gatoatigrado 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep its vital, as most upcoming album pages have little useful info so the template lets you know Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone get lost on the way to the village pump? Kotepho 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks. Discuss the reasonning, not the editor. --Interiot 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WereWolf 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all other keeps. hateless 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Smeggysmeg 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a useful disclaimer that information is open to change. I was suprised to even see this up for deletion as I use I have found future film/comic helpful. (Emperor 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Interiot. --TorriTorri 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per all others. east.718 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree it's ugly (as are all these boxes that get slapped on top of pages). Perhaps someone with some graphic design skills could figure out a prettier way of implementing these notices, while still keeping them fairly prominent? Matt 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep though I agree with above comment regarding conspicuousness of boxes. TheLateDentarthurdent 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It really helps me identify a page (in which I may not be familiar with) as being a future. Sometimes (unless you are knowledgable on the subject) it may be difficult to identify future products. -HumanZoom 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about future events, products, etc. are sometimes very hard to write, but it's a valuable part of what Wikipedia does. -/- Warren 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. concur with Powers, Interiot --G0zer 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per all other keeps --DiegoTehMexican 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Especially for comic books, it keeps a lot of speculation out of the articles. --Basique 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep again, per all other keeps. --Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Kanto[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 deletion of both. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Johto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Hoenn}}

Two reasons:

1. The is already a template for kanto locations, I had made a few modifications, but theey were no use after finding out it was usless because there is already a template for Pokémon locations

2. It is unusable, not used in any article, probably because the articles use the proper template —Min un Spiderman 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Comment: Show me this other template and we'll talk. Toastypk 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh durrr, that one. Of course... so I'll say remove, that would be super-redundant. Toastypk 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:The O.C. character[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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The O.C. character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a redundant template, it is just a copy of infobox charcter, this template offers less features and is also slightly buggy and is unneeded anymore. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per my nom. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you please stop formatting stuff this way, the "per my nom" is just unnecessary and misleading. If the nom is any good it will stand by itself, you don't also need to get in the first "vote" (remember, this isn't a vote anyway). --Cyde↔Weys 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw someone else do it on TfD so i just followed how they do it on TfD. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, looks like they were doing it wrong too. Although I don't know where you saw this ... going through the TFDs from the last few days I don't really see any formatting quite like yours. --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even used.--Gabbec 10:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't used, and it's functionality is limited (to the articles that don't even use it). EVula 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Avatar23 [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 was speedy deleted by Stifle (CSD G3). --WinHunter (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Avatar23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is totally redundant to Template:Avatar, and was only created to get around that template‘s protection. Fyre2387 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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



Template:Hong Kong (PRC)[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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hong Kong (PRC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No longer in use, except as an editor battleground. SchmuckyTheCat 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can this be closed already? Instantnood is spamming users to come here and vote his way. SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The level of activity on the the talk page suggests that this is not an abandoned template. The page was only recently unprotected. The fact that the nominator of this deletion was involved in the dispute raises a red flag to me about the intent of the nomination. There is no information provided by the nominator about whether this has been replaced by something else. Neil916 14:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete, below[reply]
    • I don't know what changes made this abandoned. If the lists it was used on have moved on to some other template, great. I just noticed that it was no longer used in articles, so it seems a fine time to get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It being abandoned is rather minor compared to it being a bad faith creation from the onset as reason for deletion.--Huaiwei 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse on this one because I am one of those editors in the talk page. I can only say that Hong Kong is usually being referred to using other methods in most lists. (e.g. {{flagicon|Hong Kong}} [[Hong Kong]] ([[PRC]]) -> Hong Kong Hong Kong (PRC)) as in List of countries by population. Also, Hong Kong is usually being referred to as (in the long form) Hong Kong, People's Republic of China instead of Hong Kong {People's Republic of China). I am not going to comment on whether or not it should be deleted because I am not a disinterested party. --WinHunter (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The long form is and has, since July 1997, always been "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". This is its official full name. — Instantnood 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was disused only because of the dispute. — Instantnood 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend you to recuse because you are also a person of interest. --WinHunter (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, divisive and inflammatory. User:Angr 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The template itself isn't divisive and inflammatory at all, but point of views to downplay Hong Kong's status as an ordinary subnational entity. — Instantnood 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: And highlights the existance of people who attempt to downplay the the fact that HK is not a sovereign state. Speaks for itself why it is "divisive and inflammatory" (all forms of the writtern word on planet Earth are not divisive and inflammatory by themselves. It is the responses of people who see it which invokes these sentiments, so whats new?)--Huaiwei 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hong Kong is not, and has never been a sovereign state. It is a fact that nobody can be able to attempt to downplay. — Instantnood 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am sure plenty of folks here wishes it was true when dealing with individuals like yourself. Can we now quote this line as evidence for subsequent correspondance?--Huaiwei 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not the first time I say so. Just that some people like user:Huaiwei keeps assert Hong Kong as ordinary subnational entities, comparable to the provinces, municipalities directly under the central government and autonomous regions of the PRC, and keeps assert country = sovereign state. — Instantnood 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And its just that User:Instantnood (and hardly anyone else) gets all paranoid when users like myself use phrases like "Hong Kong, China", and say Hong Kong is a first-level sub-entity of the PRC, as thou that somehow reflects a failure to recognise the "special" status of HK? You have persistantly placed all blame squarely on everyone except yourself. Meanwhile, whether the word "Country" is commonly used to refer to a sovereign state is for extended discussion in the relevant talkpage. We would all appreciate a focused discussion on the topic at hand.--Huaiwei 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Hong Kong, China" should only be used when mentioning Hong Kong's designation, such as mentioning it as a member of an international organisation, or as a participating country at an international event. In other occassions, since China should not be used synonymously with the People's Republic of China as per an official guideline that address NPOV issues, "Hong Kong, China" should not be used. Country is not always synonymous with sovereign state. — Instantnood 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Who says Hong Kong, China should only be used when mentioning Hong Kong's designation? Great Leader Instantnood? The only reason why I mention "Hong Kong, China" is because I intentionally didnt spell out the PRC in full, which as I expected, you went about attempting to abuse a wikiconvention for this purpose. So does this "guideline" prevent anyone from writting "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China"? And do I need to replay my statement that a discussion on what "Country" means is beyond the scope of this discussion?--Huaiwei 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I bet there's no Great Leader on Wikipedia. Comma is for ordinary subnational entities, not for specifying the sovereign states of these countries. — Instantnood 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Template was created for no other reason then to enforce a POV over the international status of Hong Kong via a strange preference for parentheses over a comma. Numerous editwars have erupted for months between himself and several other editors on nothing but this issue. Instantnood's claim it was "disused only because of the dispute" hardly tells the whole story.--Huaiwei 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please justify the claim it's a strange preference, when it's a real-life convention to specify the sovereign power of countries that are not sovereign states. Thanks. — Instantnood 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If this was indeed a case of "real-life convention to specify the sovereign power of countries that are not sovereign states", then I would be expecting never to see commas between the words HK and the PRC in any text in existance today. Unfortunately, that is obviously not the case, unless you could proof otherwise? Do you intend to sue major hotel chains [1], [2] (local) academics [3], [4], [5], and the US Department of State [6] for instance?--Huaiwei 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's never shortage of exceptions. But you've yet to demonstrate countries that are not sovereign state are conventionally to be presented as such, in occassions when it's necessary to mention their corresponding sovereign states. — Instantnood 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The onus is not on me to demonstrate anything, for I am not the one initiating an attempt to modify between parentheses and commas, nor do I in any circumstance attempt to pretend that a "real-life convention" exists for either format. Since you boldly claimed the existance of such conventions, then I would think it is fair for evidence to be provided to support this claim. On my end, I have already provided counter-evidence, so the ball is in your court now. I challenge you to show that the sources I cited are "exceptions", instead of the "norm".--Huaiwei 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your counter argument is not valid, since the evidence you've presented failed to demonstrate comma is instead the convention. — Instantnood 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it helps for me to put it in another way, my evidence is meant to support my viewpoint, that the use of parentheses is not a real-life convention, which they clearly did. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence to support this so-called "real-life convention", nor any counter-evidence to debuke my stand. You dismissed my evidence by insisting they fail to support a viewpoint which is not even mine, so of course they would seem "invalid" to you.--Huaiwei 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • There can still be exceptions when using round brackets is a real-life convention. The examples you've suggested might merely be exceptions. If that's the case, the examples failed to support your viewpoint that using round brackets is not a real-life convention. — Instantnood 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The examples you've suggested might merely be exceptions. In other words, you arent even sure if my examples are indeed exceptions. Laughable indeed. So since you arent even sure if "this is the case", then on what basis do you conclude that my "examples failed to support my viewpoint that using parentheses is not a real-life convention"? Seems a rather hasty conclusion, isnt it? And if I have to repeat again, where is your evidence from your world of conventions? The examples you listed in [7] seems pretty palty for a "real-life convention"--Huaiwei 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If you fail to show the ability of your examples to demonstrate round brackets is uncommon and rare, these examples would fail to justify your claim. — Instantnood 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm still a bit unclear as to how this template was intended to be used and how other articles use similar templates, but the method described by WinHunter above seems preferrable since it doesn't require a different template for each separate country or sub-unit of a country. I can't see enough evidence of a bad-faith creation to support a speedy delete, although given the edit history of this template and the talk page history, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Neil916 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It was intended for use when it is necessary to specify the sovereign power of countries that are not sovereign states. — Instantnood 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Or to put it another way, it was intended for use to enforce a user's political POV across wikipedia by the sneaky inclusion of a single template compared to the current situation in which every parentheses and comma between HK and the PRC is being wikiwarred on when chanced upon.--Huaiwei 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's hardly anybody's POV. The reality is that Hong Kong is constitutionally "an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China", and it is not an ordinary subnational entity. One can't simply ignore such actual fact, and insist on a comma. — Instantnood 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have yet to explain in what way a comma supports or disputes that "reality".--Huaiwei 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The conventional way is to use a pair of round brackets, instead of a comma, when it's necessary to specify the sovereign states of these countries. — Instantnood 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • As above, show us that this convention exists, and is not just figments of your imagination. Repeatly telling us it is so does not turn it into reality.--Huaiwei 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • This matter should be discussed in the RfC. It's not immediately related to whether this template should stay or be removed. — Instantnood 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This RFD will decide its fate in wikipedia. Which wikipolicy says that this matter should be discussed only in the RfC? If the said convention is not related to this template, then this template will have no rationale for existance immediately and removed.--Huaiwei 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If the RfC consensus is to use a comma, then the template shall exist with a comma (perhaps with a different name). One's preference of comma to round brackets is not a valid reason to delete this template. — Instantnood 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no longer mass Fding. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Request for info before vote. What similar templates are currently available to denote Hong Kong, and what are the reasons for/against using them? -- ran (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think {{HKG}} or {{HKG-PRC}} are the alternates for this template. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's about right, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{HKG}} is for ISO and general usage, whereas {{HKG-PRC}} is for IOC, FIFA, WTO, etc., where "Hong Kong, China" is the designation. {{HKG-PRC}} was created upon Nightstallion recommendation (see template talk:HKG for details). The talk page of this template is already on RfC, btw. — Instantnood 08:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (modified 08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment {{flagicon|Hong Kong}} [[Hong Kong]] ([[PRC]]) produces Hong Kong Hong Kong (PRC) as mentioned above. This method eliminates the need to have a separate template for every single country or state. Neil916 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are such templates for every country, e.g. {{NET}}, {{CAN}}, {{FRA}}, {{AUS}}. The different is that Hong Kong isn't a sovereign state, and there are occassion that the sovereign power of countries that are not sovereign states have to be specified. — Instantnood 08:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In what way should a pair of parentheses specify the "sovereign power" of HK other than being a presentation anomaly for most users, including even people familiar with the Chinese state of affairs? In what way does a comma diminish the "sovereign power" of HK? I suppose if these punctuation marks are this powerful, seperatist states would be giving themselves lots of parentheses?--Huaiwei 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing to do with separatism. The sovereign state that is having the sovereignty of Hong Kong is the People's Republic of China. Meanwhile, there are occassions when the sovereignty background of countries that are not sovereign states have to be specified. — Instantnood 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And why should this have nothing to do with separatism, when an attempt to downplay political links with one entity either means an attempt to highlight one's own political autonomy, or her links with a third political entity? I would expect clarifications on this one. Why should there be "occassions when the sovereignty background of countries that are not sovereign states have to be specified", and should this be done via punctuation?--Huaiwei 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • What " highlight .. her links with a third political entity " are you talking about? — Instantnood 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • That was a theory I'm elaborating on, my dear, and not a factual illustration. Good heavens.--Huaiwei 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What theory and what links with a third political entity? — Instantnood 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Read the above again for yourself, perhaps with the help of a reputable English tutor.--Huaiwei 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't think there is any connection between this template, and separatism or third political entity. — Instantnood 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, distinction between (or among ;)) this and the other templates is rather clear. —Nightstallion (?) 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commant. I would like to know in what way this template will be useful other than to worsen the current state disputes over the international political status of HK.--Huaiwei 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whilst accepting that it does seem that a certain POV is being pushed via this template that alone is insufficient grounds to delete a template, especially given the fact that alternative templates are at least perceived to be equally POVy. Fundamentally this is an issue about how exactly Hong Kong should be named in various articles, and that is an issue beyond the purview of TfD (or indeed any *fD). Wait until the RfC is completed, then deal with the templates according to whatever the outcome is. --Daduzi talk 01:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what RfC? This template has been "disputed" for months. Instantnood will keep "disputes" open for years as long as the page/template/category/whatever is in the state he prefers. SchmuckyTheCat 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just going from Instantnood's comment "the talk page of this template is already on RfC, btw." If there isn't an RfC it might well be an idea to have one, or work out some other means of finding consensus. If it is just one user pushing the other way it should become clear through the process.--Daduzi talk 06:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too fail to discover the existance of any RfC, which in itself suggests something. While I acknowledge existing templates may already present one POV, I find the support for the creation of another for nothing but to wikiwar with other wikipedians detrimental for its overall well-being. Are we saying we are now justified to create forks for all kinds of content disputes existing in wikipedia? I hope not.--Huaiwei 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the new template was probably created as a result of a content disupte and that is certainly not ideal. Like I said before, however, my own view is that there's really no way to vote delete without taking sides as to which formulation is more valid, and in effect imposing consensus where none formally exists. That isn't to say that free license is given to create any old template as a means of continuing a content disupte; plenty have been created and deleted because they obviously met one or more of the deletion criteria (independently of their content dispute status), and see below for an example of a template that goes against a worked out consensus that is almost certainly going to be deleted. I'd stress again that it would probably be a good idea to put forward an RfC first, then put forward for deletion whichever template goes against any consensus developing from the RfC. --Daduzi talk 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hong Kong is Hong Kong. Or Hong Kong, China, Hong Kong SAR, China. No such Hong Kong (PRC) usage. Matt86hk talk 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Official name can be found in Basic Law of Hong Kong Chapter VII : External Affairs. [8]. As UN policy, only one China and it is PRC, Taiwan is part of China. So no need to use PRC before Hong Kong, Said by a native Hong Kong people. Matt86hk talk 11:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The full official name is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". "Hong Kong, China" is a designation it uses to join international organisations and to participate in international events. This template is used when the sovereign states of such countries have to be specified. — Instantnood 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, What use does it have? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When the sovereign states of these countries (roughly the unbolded and unitalicised ones on the list of countries) have to be specified. — Instantnood 10:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: And do we have to make a similar template for all of those "unbolded and unitalicised" entries when "sovereign states of such countries have to be specified"? Btw, perhaps you refuse to acknowledge that fact that the later statement is kinda confusing to most readers, because many do not use the word "country" the same way as you insist on doing. I would write it as "when the "controlling states of these non-independent entities have to be specified."--Huaiwei 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • " Controlling states " sounds like neologism to convey the concept of sovereign state (the latter is an established term in the study of political science), and " non-independent entities " can be every entity (province, state, municipality, commune) except sovereign states. — Instantnood 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not everyone is a political scientist (and neither do you sound like one), so do you expect everyone to agree with your opinion on the words "controlling state"? The word "Country" can also mean every entity (province, state, municipality, commune) including sovereign states, so in what way is your usage more accurate?--Huaiwei 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sovereign state is never a term that ordinary people would have to look up in dictionaries to understand. The word country rarely means ordinary subnational entities (provinces, cities, municipalities, communes, or equivalance of those), except for the constituent countries of the UK. — Instantnood 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passer-by 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This isn't drive-by voting. SchmuckyTheCat 05:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Star name[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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So long as the traditional name is mentioned in the article, and there's a redirect from the traditional name to the astronomical name, there's no need for this template, which seems to be sour grapes over the result of the move request at Talk:Gamma Crucis masquerading as a hatnote. User:Angr 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_24&oldid=1146589265"