Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 24

3827:

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. --

1407:. 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. - 2965:(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.-- 1225:}} -- 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. 4008:: 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."-- 3534: 2797: 928: 3949: 1607: 2756:. 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. 3094: 617:. {{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. -- 1118:". 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 3826:

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

3629:

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

3251:

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

3051:. 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 " 1289:

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

1254:

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

425:

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

3086:

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

1426:

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

3769:

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

3165:

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

3135:

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

3006:

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

3606:

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

388:

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

3199:

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

1330:

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

821:

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

3816:

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

1343:

this template can tell a Knowledge 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

1049:

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

4051:

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. —

881:. 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. 3279:: 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.-- 3616:

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. —

2940:

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

3175:

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. —

1637:. 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). 4037:

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)

3288:

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. —

807:

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.

4229:

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

2287:

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).

3114:

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. —

3800:

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

3343:

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

2974:"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 332:

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.

2906:: 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 2769:

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.

3357:

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. —

3770:

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. --

3007:"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?-- 389:"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, 2793:

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}} ] (]) -: -->

3929:" 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. — 1655:

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. -

992:. 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. 2328:

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. --

1898:

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

1418:

I also forgot to mention that this template adds the article to ] 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.

3787:

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.

1241:

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.

570:

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.

1213:}} is used to remind users who have come to Knowledge to read up on a current event that the information could be quickly rendered out of date because the event is ongoing. {{ 3594:. 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. — 2588:. The template creator's (and his sockpuppets) actions during the recent vandalization rampage to this page, removal of TfD notices, user pages, etc. speak for themselves. 416:

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? --

3067:: 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. — 799: 42: 37: 1217:}} 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. {{ 191:

Wait, so userboxes are supposed to be encyclopedic? Since when? There's no reason to delete this. It isn't masquerading as a Knowledge template; it's already userfied.

2931:

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?--

2601: 3755:. 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.-- 605:. 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. 1583:

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. (

557:

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.

2229:

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.

1481: 1454: 1431: 1399: 1374: 1360: 1348: 1335: 1322: 1306: 1294: 1249: 1229: 1197: 1180: 1144: 1132: 1106: 1094: 1065: 1054: 1037: 1017: 1002: 984: 972: 904: 812: 941:

It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the science advances and more information becomes available.

3322:

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.--

3212:

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. —

3310:

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. —

3016:

I bet there's no Great Leader on Knowledge. Comma is for ordinary subnational entities, not for specifying the sovereign states of these countries. —

2558:

vandalized this nomination (twice now), I repaired it, but would suggest that anyone reading check the history to confirm, in case he does it again.--

3247:. 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 3088: 2891:: 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. — 852:

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

3100: 393:

we can start deleting templates. Until then, we have to work gradually, and that means not deleting userboxes until the migration is complete.

1368:

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. --

4021:" sounds like neologism to convey the concept of sovereign state (the latter is an established term in the study of political science), and " 3630:

when the sovereignty background of countries that are not sovereign states have to be specified", and should this be done via punctuation?--

21: 3968: 2354: 2314: 2273: 2242: 1973: 1731: 228: 1667:. Articles about future events, products, etc. are sometimes very hard to write, but it's a valuable part of what Knowledge does. 3131:

an attempt to modify between parentheses and commas, nor do I in any circumstance attempt to pretend that a "real-life convention"

3145:

Your counter argument is not valid, since the evidence you've presented failed to demonstrate comma is instead the convention. —

412:, in which the person had not followed the proper naming conventions. Would you claim we must first move it to the correct name, 17: 3331:

This matter should be discussed in the RfC. It's not immediately related to whether this template should stay or be removed. —

2809: 362:

actually, it was deleted and then re-created — which is different still. you may want to consider voting again just in case. --

1344:

completed and opened yet will make me confused to find that external links and references all say it hasnt been completed. -

3264:: It was intended for use when it is necessary to specify the sovereign power of countries that are not sovereign states. — 796: 344:

It's already been deleted (about four hours after the nomination, IIRC). I don't know why this is still showing as open. --

3419:. What similar templates are currently available to denote Hong Kong, and what are the reasons for/against using them? -- 3395: 408:

deleting it, makes as little sense with userboxes as it does with articles? Let's say we found an advertisement article,

3732: 3475: 1079: 2919:

Hong Kong is not, and has never been a sovereign state. It is a fact that nobody can be able to attempt to downplay. —

4112: 3545:) as mentioned above. This method eliminates the need to have a separate template for every single country or state. 2204: 2779:

It being abandoned is rather minor compared to it being a bad faith creation from the onset as reason for deletion.--

1942: 280:. We're not nominating userboxes for deletion anymore. Also, why was this speedied? And where's the source code? 3797: 3509: 2699: 2576: 1644: 1488: 1315: 311: 3817:

saying we are now justified to create forks for all kinds of content disputes existing in wikipedia? I hope not.--

4362: 4175: 4160: 4134: 3410: 2670: 2655: 2623: 2476: 2450: 2195: 2175: 2160: 2144: 2134: 1796: 1781: 1755: 955: 865: 593: 575: 498: 483: 457: 76: 4361: