Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 12

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This is redundant to {{US numbered highways}} and the content is best suited as a set of lists and is cryptic. — master son^{T - C} 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The nomination speaks for itself. --Son 23:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I would not say redundant, as this is for specifically freeways and expressways. That being said, it is a red link farm, so delete. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a red link colony, and is very similar to the US numbered highway template. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as it is just a red link colony already covered by other templates. --CapitalR 04:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete red link farm; not really useful for anything. Alternatively convert the content to a list. (→O - RLY?) 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, classic navbox red link farm. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hardly serving a purpose. –sebi 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The template is redundant and is replete with red links. Use {{US numbered highways}} instead. -- Tckma 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Tckma above. GlassCobra 02:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This template consists of an HTML comment containing the following text: Excessive tags have been removed. These clutter the article, annoy the reader, and do no good. Discuss changes on talk or make them yourself. This project exists for the benefit of readers, not editors. Readers have no interest in internal project politics. The template itself serves no benefit to editors, as it does not inform them of what tags were removed. --- RockMFR 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really even understand why one would make this tag; all readers are editors. Why would you remove tags because they "clutter" an article? --Haemo 02:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment While I fully agree the template should be deleted for the reasons Jayron32 posted here, I don't agree with your arguments at all and you need to accept that there isn't a consensus for them. 99% of readers really DON'T edit, and while a small group of editors are practically spending their entire time putting these tags up there, a much larger group just finds them frustrating and insulting to post when you're doing nothing related to the article, which is the kind of person who made this template. Please just don't get too full of yourself in this discussion. Thank you. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

delete tag is combative and rude in tone; and serves no purpose other than to, in its own words, "annoy" and "do no good" of itself. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, utterly pointless template. –sebi 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it may not be divisive but it's certainly inflammatory. >Radiant< 09:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete. Divisive? Maybe not... but diruptive, definitely. Those tags are put there for a reason. Removing them simply means that articles that desperately need work won't get it. You want to see tags removed, improve the article. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Incites disruption, is not based in any policy/guideline (probably violates a few), and works against article improvement. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: What an ironic template. — The Storm Surfer 04:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Pointless template that actually contributes to the over-tagging of articles. Dave101→talk  18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, POV-pushing and encourages the removal of tags without rectifying the reasons why the tag was there in the first place. Also clutters the article itself. How ironic indeed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if you'd all waited until I'd had my say? No, the emergency was simply too pressing. Who knows what might have happened if that stayed that way just a week longer?

Guess what, guys? You can't control what other people think. You can't even stop them from expressing themselves. You can object, you can even throw rocks at what you don't like -- but you can't change other people's thoughts without giving them a great deal more courtesy than you are ready to extend.

Suggest you rethink this deletion before somebody just gets fed up and starts deleting tags on sight -- all of them. You can have a contest to see whether you can slam the tags back on faster than the pissed-off readers take them off.

— Xiong熊talk* 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate which was held and closed entirely without the author's input. 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 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 03:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Legal status of Hawaii footer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Already exists at Disputes about the legal status of Hawaii — JereKrischel 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 since it isn't actually being used. >Radiant< 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Suspect image (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was designed to be manually added to new images, creator was unaware that orphanbot does this with {{untagged}}. cohesion 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Intended to flag images for review for other reasons as well. It's not just the copyright policy that the tag is intended for. Sfan00 IMG 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

but given all the complexities of image tagging, will this be confusing?--perhaps it should say for reasons other than copyright, or something of the sort. DGG (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I should give more detail. If new uploads are tagged with this before orphanbot sees them they will become out of process. Orphanbot will not see them as needing tags, and will not tag them with our already established system. In general we don't tag images as "needing review" anyone can review images, we would rather people review untagged images than tag semi-random images at upload for someone else to review. If someone feels they can't review them, it is probably best to leave them alone. - cohesion 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Amend purpose and name? Sfan00 IMG 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 07:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. IronGargoyle 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Far too specialized to be of any real use; only two biography articles are included in the navbox, and it's only being used in one of them. PC78 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, there were 23 journalists and as many photographers killed in the war - the template needs expanding (and I placed it in the other article, not sure why it was only listed in one), not deleting. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Create articles first, nav templates later. PC78 18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Subst and delete. If there are a pile of such articles at some point, then make it a template. That's a big "if" too; simply having been shot in a war doesn't make someone notable enough to support having a Wikipedia article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to User space for now to allow for further development. Reintroduce only when the navbar is complete. - 52 Pickup 08:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 07:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Since when was Wikipedia working towards a deadline? — 82.16.7.63 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No basis for text in policy. Only one use in Compaq Armada. Asking readers to either request deletion or expand seems strange. The template text "the guidelines of the Criteria for deletion" is linked to WP:CFD which redirects to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. There is nothing called "Criteria for deletion". There is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion which doesn't mention "unfinished" articles. Template says "Do not remove this tag until this article is finished", but there is no notion of a "finished" article. PrimeHunter 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, above reasoning. –sebi 06:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensical template, every article is unfinished. Melsaran 12:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. violet/riga (t) 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Also delete Category:All pages needing completion. Being incomplete is not a reason for deletion. Everything here is incomplete. --- RockMFR 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete No where does the size or relative "completeness" of an article enter into CFD...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is unclear what the intention is. We already have stub templates for articles that are considered rather short. I can't see the purpose. SilkTork 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• What's with the weird boilerplate templates lately? Delete, no article on this site is ever complete, not even featured articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia has no deadline and was always incomplete.--PrestonH 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. violet/riga (t) 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

These templates are only used on one user's user subpage. They were very briefly used on Glagolitic alphabet in 2005, but are no longer used there. --MZMcBride 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all non-used, I do not see reasons to use again these templates. Carlosguitar 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, obsolete. –sebi 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. violet/riga (t) 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. The main reason for the deletion of the template - that it was coded and documented in a foreign language - now seems to be resolved (template is now in English, with optional German parameter names). Any further issues can be discussed on the template's talk page. Mike Peel 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:German plant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete Coded and documented in a foreign language. Needs to be replaced with an English-language equivalent. (see also discussion of Template:Japan dam, below) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's now fully documented in English. If there are any more problems feel free to notify me, or even write it on the talk page of the template. Have you worked with translation projects before? I'll try to get someone with experience in that matter on this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The documentation may now be in English, but this, from Brunsbüttel Nuclear Power Plant, is not:

|STILLLEGUNG = |REAKTOR = 1|S_REAKTOR = |BRUTTOGESAMTLEISTUNG = 806|EINSPEISUNG = 5.967|EINSPEISUNG_JAHR = 2006|DURCHSCHNITTSEINSPEISUNG = 4.527|GESAMTEINSPEISUNG = 117.883

nor is it acceptable. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to a policy or a president saying that? Thanks. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As below, why make something so region-specific? Why not try to improve the more general purpose Template:Nuke Plant Table instead? --DeLarge 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The title of German plant is a misnomer, it is generalized for all countries. Ironically, Template:Nuke Plant Table on the other hand, is US specific in its current form. Also feel free to see Category:Nuclear power plant templates for more templates that are going on in this area. I also have had a research reactor template made. The niche of the German plant template is a infobox for international nuclear power plants. It may be moved, which would be an improvement (I was just unsure when I started using this), but we happen to be in a TfD for some reason. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing the articles, Template:Infobox Reactor would be the closest we have to a well built template here that accomplishes what we need to. That was from when I was building the research reactor articles, and I actually requested on the infobox request page that we get one for that. After it was built, however, I immediately regretted having it named just Reactor, because articles for nuclear power plants are built by the site (or station) and not the reactor (there would be too many!!). Sadly, there's no consistent nomenclature over research reactors and power plants in English. This is the kind of collaboration I have been looking for on the nuclear power articles, but I still haven't found an appropriate place to do so. But... this isn't the right place to be asking these questions either. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Check out Template:Infobox UK power station as well. That's generalized for types of power stations and used for nuclear plants too. I still might find more. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete***. Avoid creating such country-specific infoboxes. There should be one standard infobox for something like this. If the standard infobox in its present form is too U.S. specific then make the U.S. specific parameters optional (along with any other country specific fields that make be needed). —MJCdetroit 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

***Comment/may change vote. T, if you can make all the parameters accept English names and use AWB to swap out the parameter names to the English names and template calls to the Template:Infobox NPP (which is very easy to do), then I will change my vote to keep and I think others will too. What would be even better is if you could build Infobox NPP into the standard that could replace any country specific infoboxes for nuke plants. —MJCdetroit 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Let me get these one by one:
        1. Accept English parameters - It currently does this, but in a quirky way, basically you can use either the German parameters or the original parameters used for Template:Nuke Plant Table. The latter is much easier to look up yourself, and the German parameters you obviously don't need to look up - Someone else already did it for you. I still have some documentation to add, but it continue to change fast.
        2. Change calls to Infobox NPP - Done for the US plants (I think), the German and French plants haven't been changed yet
        3. Swap out parameter names - I would like to learn how to use AWB to do this, right now I don't have the parallel English names for the German parameters built into the template, but it would be trivial to add. Before we swapped all the parameters in the articles though, I would want to recopy the values from the German page because they just switched to a new better version (they seem to know what they're doing). I would much appreciate if you could contribute your knowledge on how to do this. I think it could set a good president for managing Templates across languages (if there isn't already one). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can explain to you how to use AWB to do this. It is fairly easy for what you want. All parameters need to have English names first. —MJCdetroit 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • FYI, these are the parameters that are US specific:

|Status=What state is the plant? {This should be D, M or O for Decomissioned, Mothballed, or Operating.)
|Type=What type of Reactor? (This is either Boiling water reactor or Pressurized water reactor)
|Expires=When does the NRC license expire?
|Region=What number NRC region is it located in?

• • And they're already optional... one actual problem is that the NRC is for the US. I guess this isn't a big problem. Also, the whole D,M,O and PWR or BWR are options that would well describe US plants, but when you take in the entire world there will be cases other than those too. Let me say this one more time: The German plant template was not just created for German plants. Redundancy is a problem, but just saying Delete isn't a solution. If I can ever get around to it, I can put the US template parameters into the German plant template (after that's moved) and go from there. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Move - I moved this template to Template:Infobox NPP, which will serve as the universal infobox for all nuclear power stations, the Template:Nuke Plant Table was replaced with this one. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Why is there a redirect to Infobox NPP? Also, please rewrite Infobox NPP so that it has only English. There is no reason for other languages. Also NPP may not have been the best choice for title as it is non-self explanatory. What is wrong with Infobox Power Plant? What is so different between a Coal plant and a Nuclear plant? 199.125.109.58 05:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please understand what's going on before you comment. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than to delete the template {{German plant}}? The issues seem very straight forward. 199.125.109.58 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your argument makes so much sense! We'll just use Template:Infobox UK power station for all the nuclear power plants in the world! Look there is no Infobox Power Plant. What are you saying we should do specifically? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically create a template that can be used for all power plants, and name it appropriately. UK power station has zilch for documentation so I do not even see that as a useful model. In general the less templates that are created and maintained the better. As to retaining other languages in the coding "to make importing easier", that seems like an unusual argument - am I who know only one word of german, "nine" supposed to go to the German Wikipedia and import stuff and put it on the appropriate lines using the matching german words? No thank you. 199.125.109.135 05:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically create a template that can be used for all power plants, and name it appropriately - ALRIGHT! Good luck with that. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Theanphibian's promise to make English the default language for the code and swap out all existing German parameters in all existing articles to the English names. —MJCdetroit 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did sort of a demo replacement on Heysham Power Station. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep at Template:Infobox NPP. The dual language code can and should stay, to enable importing template data from the German Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• I need to edit for a while without that silly deletion line on the articles. I don't think it's going to get deleted for having parallel German variables, but whichever. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty to take the tag off of {{Infobox NPP}} because while much of the discussion is about the content of the template, the actual discussion is about a specific template. 199.125.109.135 05:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Creating a new name has obfuscated the discussion, and it would have been better to wait until the discussion was closed. 199.125.109.135 07:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. It is a very cool template, but standardization and accessibility are more important concerns for the mainspace. If anyone would like this userfied for use in other namespaces, let me know. IronGargoyle 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pop-up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A {{pop-up|little example|This is the tooltip that is shown}} to show how this works.

A little example to show how this works.

Footnotes serve essentially the same purpose as what this template does, and they are far less annoying. The only use seems to be on Guan Yu, where it is essentially translating a passage from a Chinese text. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic, and the same information could be provided through use of wikilinks or footnotes. (Oops, forgot to add: I would recommend Deletion) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I should comment that the single-page use of the template is probably due to the fact it was created just a day ago. Since the annotation of text should generally be dictated by Wikipedia's Manual of Style, I suggest that we delete the template as non-standard (or retain it only for use outside of mainspace). In case anyone is wondering what it does, try hovering over transclusions. Gracenotes^T § 01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete Popups are not an acceptable format for WP, as they are not universally supported and as a great many people for very good reasons turn them off in those browsers that do support them. DGG (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Technically speaking, it's a tooltip, not a "popup", but delete, anyway. They do seem useful, however, I'd prefer to see usage of footnotes instead. –sebi 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, you all seem to have already made up your mind on the matter, so I'm not going to try too hard to convince anybody. It does sadden me, because I think it is a cool innovation. Anyway, I offered the translation because I thought it would be a nice addition to the Guan Yu article. It corrected a misleading statement in that section of the article. If you decide to take the template away, who will fix the Guan Yu article? I ask because I'm not sure I would have the stomach for it. Do you have any idea how much work goes into translating a passage like that? To do all that, and instead of getting a, "thank you that's a really cool translation," I get instead, "That template is really annoying, you should have used footnotes." It's disappointing, but that's life I guess. -- A-cai 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I do apologize if I came across a bit rude. The template is interesting, however there are better existing ways to do the same thing. If you're not willing to translate, I'm sure somebody will, and the translations you've made so far won't be lost. The information you provided is helpful - nobody is debating that - it's just that there are other ways more in keeping with the encyclopedic style to do the same thing. Thanks for what you've done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't see it being used to great effect when links and footnotes work better. violet/riga (t) 15:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Footnotes are better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max Schwarz (talk • contribs).
  • I disagree that footnotes and links always work better, but let me give you some context. I have been translating the novel on Wikisource. I basically copied the passage from there. If anybody here has a minute, I would be curious to know how you felt about the template being used there. Please look at Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Chapter 1 on Wikisource and let me know what you think of the format so far. I understand the argument about footnotes in an Encyclopedia article, where only short passages would need to be included. However, on Wikisource, I'm trying to avoid flooding the user with a ton of footnotes (most of which would be ignored by the average reader). The theory is that people are more likely to read a note if all they have to do is mouse-over a word (I have seen this phenomenon in action). In this way, I can be extremely faithful to the original text, but still provide the reader with instantly accessible information. A lot of the things I'm putting in tooltips are allusions within the text, which would have been understood by the average educated Chinese reader 500 years ago, but would be completely missed by a modern Western reader. Anyway, I know you don't like the tooltips in Wikipedia articles, but what do you think of them for Wikisource? -- A-cai 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The template looks pretty good on Wikisource. It's almost as though the tooltips make the text more interesting :) Wikipedia is a bit more into standardization, though. Gracenotes^T § 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This discussion makes me rather uneasy. This is a really cool idea. OK, maybe not everyone uses browsers that support popups and maybe some people suppress their use. Yes, footnotes can be used, but there may be cases where this is better. Templates for deletion does not get a lot of traffic. Is there somewhere else that does get more notice where this idea can be more widely discussed? If so, I suggest we suspend this TfD discussion and have a discussion more widely there. --Bduke 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you (or someone else) give an example of a case where this is better? — The Storm Surfer 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Its use on Guan Yu may be one such case, but that was not really my point. I just think this may be too important to be deleted after discussion by a dozen people. I have therefore mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Bduke 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • In that case, I think it should be deleted. It has problems footnotes don't have. — The Storm Surfer 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe userfy. Even if we decide not to use it in articlespace, why not keep it for use elsewhere? -Amarkov moo! 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - are these the underlined sections of the quote in Physical appearance? If so, this feature doesn't work with my grandparents Safari, run on Mac OS X, with default settings. If thats the case, it should probably be deleted for this reason. Atropos 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This Template could be useful for expansion notes when needed in the context of a given Source, but is very poorly documented. Recommend Delete unless the documentation for this Template is fixed. - B.C.Schmerker 05:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: A) I can't tell what how this works - maybe I'm just not spending enough time with it - but I can't say ya'ah or na'ah - can someone show me an example of this template in place. B) Why did this template go from creation to AFD without any previous mention. I would, assuming good faith, think that there was a valid reason for its' creation. I'll check back on this later tonight, but just wanted to get this in here before anything was done in the meantime. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, bad idea in terms of layout and accessibility. >Radiant< 12:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; very handy and informative and entirely appropriate for the context. Maybe also generate footnotes for printing/accessibility? This is a modern encyclopedia; let's use modern stuff. Saintrain 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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.