Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16

em and en dash templates

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

The result of the debate was keep --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ndash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), Template:Mdash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates were originally developed as an extension of the idea behind {{·}}—to make it easier to correctly format lists with separators. The {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} templates, however, are almost never used in their intended capacities, however, since en dashes and em dashes are not often used as list separators. Many editors, however, have decided that ALL en dashes and em dashes on Wikipedia should be replaced with these templates. I've seen editors using AWB to mass replace dashes with these templates indiscriminately. Just browse through the "What links here" lists for either of these templates to get an idea of how often they are misused. The problem that these templates are trying to solve isn't really a problem. It's a trivial issue to add a non-breaking space in front of a dash if you're creating long lists separated with dashes (which is rare). The problems that these templates are causing, however, is significant, as they are making thousands of articles unnecessarily obfuscated for editors (for no good reason). Given the pros and cons, I think we should delete these two templates, but leave the other list templates like {{·}} (which do not correspond to common grammar used in article prose). Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: I guess I don't see the problem. I use spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes, and I find the template very useful. (I have no problem with deleting {{mdash}}.) I have begun using {{ndash}} (actually {{–}}) because it's easier than typing " –" each time. Does the template really clutter up the page code? (I find the opposite to be true; "{{–}}" is easier for me to read through than " –".) Since the MOS calls for a non-breaking space before en dashes (when used like em dashes), this seems like a very helpful template which can actually reduce code clutter. Scartol • Tok 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: I concur with Scartol; I too find the template easy to use, and don't see what the problem is. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Text on the internet has been wrapping before dashes for 20 years now. We don't need to fix a shortcoming of browsers by replacing every dash on the internet with a non-breaking space and then a dash. Besides, most editors would prefer " –" to {{ndash}} anyway since at least it's obvious what that is (and the same length). Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer: We should not be replacing a fundamental piece of punctuation with a template. If browsers don't handle the punctuation correctly (which is up for debate) that is a problem for browser makers to address, not us. Personally, I think adding non-breaking spaces before dashes is a bad thing to do anyway, and I can't find anything in the MoS endorsing this practice. Kaldari (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the sentence you are referring to in the MoS (under non-breaking spaces rather than dashes). I must say that I disagree with this suggestion strongly and will be discussing it on the MoS talk page. Kaldari (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Q: Does {{·w}} do the same thing? If so, just use that template. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, {{·w}} and {{–w}} have added functionality that {{·}} and {{ndash}} doesn't have. {{·w}} and {{–w}} may only be used in areas surrounded by {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}}. You can learn more in the documentation for {{nowrap begin}} and at Wikipedia:Line break handling. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - I completely agree with Kaldari. It should not be the business of Wikipedia to provide a hack to fix a perceived problem with browsers, either in the form of a non-breaking space before a dash or (especially) in the form of a cumbersome and unfamiliar template, especially when it is unnecessary and may create more problems than it solves. We should not be replacing a fundamental piece of punctuation with a template! -Exucmember (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we work around browser bugs all the time. If we didn't then most users couldn't even use Wikipedia properly. Have you ever viewed the source of a rendered Wikipedia page? For starters there is a whole bunch of lines for loading special CSS files that fixes bugs in the different versions of Internet Explorer. And we have CSS code that works around bugs in Firefox too, and Opera, and Safari, and so on. We who work with the Wikipedia CSS files and JavaScript constantly have to work around browser bugs, or Wikipedia would look like junk. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, at least until Wikipedia doesn't automatically linewrap a space preceding a hyphen, –, etc, within article text. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is controlled by the browser, not Wikipedia. Also, what about em dashes? Em dashes are not supposed to have spaces around them at all. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, stronger keep, I think, as browsers vary. To me, emdashes look odd without spaces. Actually, make that any dash, otherwise I guess they're acting as if hyphens. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Em dashes should not be spaced (with exception of some navboxes); spaced em dashes are very long constructs, and can break in awkward places due to line wrapping. And the argument about their looking like hyphens is only true for the edit window, considering that, in contrast to some fonts which may show en dashes very similar to hyphens, em dashes are generally long enough not to be confused with hyphens in proper article view. Waltham, The Duke of 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I avoid em dashes anyway as they're so long (relatively). Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm not convinced about its uselessness. Wikipedia isn't the entire internet. --G2bambino (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The "deletion being considered" notice is appearing in the middle of articles. Can somebody fix it, it looks awful! --Cameron* 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed it for now. Kaldari (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: It is useful for lists, since I think it is clearer (more readable) to have "salt{{spaced ndash}}pepper{{spaced ndash}}curry" than having "salt – pepper – curry", and it is easier to type and spell correctly. It also makes it clear which dash is used. Since in the edit window -, – and — all look pretty much the same. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

When is it preferable to use dashes to separate lists anyway? I can't think of any Wikipedia articles that actually do this. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, extension to my comment:) That these templates are slightly overused is not much of a problem. I think they do provide a net benefit. But I think we should perhaps delete the redirects to them since it would be easier for people to learn what they are if they only used one name each. (But first all usage of a redirect has to be fixed before the redirect can be deleted.)

Kaldari: For starters dots and some dashes are used all the time in link lists in navboxes at the bottom of articles. Sometimes they are even used together in some navboxes. Didn't you check the "What links here" for these templates? Try that again and select the namespace "Template" next to the [Go] button. Yeah, these dash templates have their perhaps most important use in navboxes. It is not just about raw article text. And those navboxes are then placed in articles so these templates are very widely used.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: It seems the indescriminate editors may be the problem, not the templates. --- W5WMW (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am trying to establish a practice of not bolding any text in deletions, but I'll break it in this case: delete {{mdash}}* and keep {{ndash}}. En dashes should be used as separators in lists intead of spaced hyphens, because of their better appearance, their general usage (dashes separate; hyphens join) and typographic conventions. The space preceding them should be non-breaking because the alternative is to have dashes starting lines, which is inelegant and confusing (ending a line with a dash one cannot see for a split-second is one of those impediments to smooth reading that correct usage of hyphens also aims to eliminate). Personally, I do not use the template in running text for the sake of consistency, and because I prefer unspaced em dashes to spaced en dashes for interruption. I do use them a lot, however, in navboxes, where there are lots of separators and the syntax needs this extra clarity in the edit window that the template offers. All that having been said, em dashes should never be spaced, and the template introducing a space before such a dash leads to inconsistency and perpetuates a practice deprecated by the Manual of Style; such a template should not exist. Waltham, The Duke of 21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• *Keep them both; see below. Waltham, The Duke of 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: It seems to me here that someone has the point exactly wrong. This is not a fix for browser breakage, and it's not because someone doesn't want to use an ampersand code and some values. Nobody puts in (tl|mdash}} or {{ndash}} as a substitute for the code being used. It's obvious they put it in as a mnemonic for the item. Someone does it because it's easier to remember that way than to remember what the exact item is for a short dash for a long dash, just ndash or mdash. I use {{middot}} rather than having to find a dot and copy it from somewhere. It's a lot easier to use a simple template over having to remember which is which. I do not see why there is such a fuss over something otherwise minor and inconsequential, and which represents a good mnemonic aid that means what is says and does exactly what it means. Why was this whole fuss even necessary? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, both templates have the same functionality, which is correct in the case of the en dash but almost always incorrect in the case of the em dash, which normally should be unspaced. If we keep {{mdash}}, we should a) severely restrict its usage to some navigational templates which do use em dashes as separators (basically for style reasons which I do not find so important that we couldn't replace the em dashes with something else) or b) remove the preceding space that the template inserts. Option "a" would be unsafe (how can you control the usage of a template?) and option "b" would cause confusion with {{ndash}}; after all, they have been used in the same way so far, and one would expect them to continue to. This is a tricky decision, and I still believe that deleting the template will save us trouble. Waltham, The Duke of 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Waltham: There actually are some technical means we can use to prevent the usage of the {{mdash}} template outside of navboxes. But I wouldn't want to apply such dirty tricks just because some of you are annoyed that some people use dashes in the "wrong" way.

What I think you should do is to update the documentation of {{mdash}} so it states what is proper and not proper usage, and you can put a big yellow {{caution}} message box at the top of its documentation that tells something like: "Don't use this template in articles. It should only be used in navboxes, but even there its usage is disputed."

And why don't you guys see this as an opportunity instead? This is a template, so it has the "What links here" toolbox link. You can use that to find cases and fix them. If people instead manually enter " — " or " — " then it will be much harder to find the cases and fix them.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr Göthberg, you have used convincing arguments; the template does make the usage of spaced em dashes more controllable. I'm striking my "delete" and proceeding to update the documentation of {{mdash}} as you suggest. Waltham, The Duke of 13:01, 19 September 2008 (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.

Template:MinorPlanets Navigator

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

The result of the debate was keep. delldot ∇. 18:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:MinorPlanets Navigator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is useless for navigation in most articles about minor planets. Most minor planets are not notable and as such they do not have and will not ever have an article about them. There are tens of thousands of numbered minor planets of which only some tens are notable enough. So in most articles where this template used, it only adds redlinks to non-existant articles about non-notable minor planets, which will never be created. See for example Makemake (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet), 90482 Orcus and other articles. We already have much more useful templates that classify minor planets by orbit or other property, which better helps navigation than simply linking to two minor planets with n+1 and n-1 numbers. Dojarca (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question 1: Which other templates are you thinking of? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  For example, this Template:Trans-Neptunian dwarf planets and this: Template:Trans-Neptunian objects. If this is not enough, there can be made other useful templates.--Dojarca (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question 2: Given that Wikipedia is, among other things, a gazetteer for all named geographic features, why do you believe that it cannot also be an ephemeris and so have articles for all minor planets? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a database. How about creating a template for people according their passport number ("next person by passport number", "previous person by passport number")? It is evident that templates should point you to already existing articles, or potential articles, not to some non-notable objects. Besides this, most minor planets do not have even name. They have only number and it is good if their orbit even known.--Dojarca (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree it is completely useless for Pluto, Haumea (dwarf planet), and the like. However, it is useful for the asteroids, at least the first hundred or so. I think the solution is to remove the template for anything over some agreed-upon limit, say the first 500 or 1000 or 5000 asteroids. At higher numbers, where we only have articles on minor planets if we have something to say about them, and never have articles on their neighbors, this template just adds clutter. However, for the earlier asteroids, which are often just stubs, and where the adjacently numbered asteroids also are stubs, the template is not too much, and is useful for navigation. kwami (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  This presumes that all of first 500 or 1000 or 5000 asteroids are notable. I don't think so. This template should be substituted by templates which classify asteroids by their properties (for example diameter "largest N", date of discovery "N first discovered", orbit "Jovian trojans", place of discovery etc.). Each template should integrate multiple links to different asteroids, not only two.--Dojarca (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed to the deletion. It serves a very useful function. It has been in use since 2005. Why is it now, after over 3 years, being considered as unuseful? Thor Dockweiler, astronomer. 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  And what's its "useful function"?--Dojarca (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this type of navigator is used for many types of sequentially selected subjects. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  That it is used in many articles does not mean it is useful. Just the opposite: in the majority of articles it is not useful.--Dojarca (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  That wasn't even my argument. I said that this type of nav template is used in a variety of sequentially selected subjects. IOW, there are other templates that function like this one, and they are used on many articles. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  If for each of the sequenntually selected subjects have of may potentially have article (such as Roman emperors for example), then nothing wrong with it. But using it for subjects, wast majority of which never will have an article in Wikipedia completely nonsense.--Dojarca (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not see any reason for deletion of this heavly used template. It does not have any better substitute and does not violate any policy or guideline. Sometimes a reader may want to know about the previous/next minor planet and this template is currently only convinient way to go directly to the next/previous asteroid without going to the search first. Ruslik (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  What abot creating templete about next/previous person by passport numbrer or by telephone number catalogue?--Dojarca (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument for the deletion. Besides I have nothing against creating such templates. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, go on and create :)) Such template would be especially useless as there are probably no persons that both have pages in Wikipedia and have consequtive passport numbers. --Dojarca (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2008 (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.

Template:Cats needed

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

The result of the debate was revert to redirect and userfy to mazca, the only person who volunteered. delldot ∇. 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cats needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stupid joke with no legitimate use. NE2 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Replace with Template:Ducks needed. Userify or delete. –Howard the Duck 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep We can be serious about encyclopedic integrity without taking ourselves too seriously. Far from "no legitimate use," such lighthearted things help counteract the nastiness that often prevails here. Userfying would be OK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Desprit keep – moar cats of rite sort much needed, stupid non-nasty jokes good for collegiate working. .. dave souza, talk 13:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Baleet, but Raul's capable of userfying if he wants to. Joke templates are well-established in userspace, but we don't want them polluting other namespaces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy and revert to the legitimate redirect that occupied this title for quite a while (until it was replaced with the joke earlier this month). There's room for jokes, but not in the template namespace. —David Levy 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere (my userspace if nobody else wants it), it's a wonderful template but not encyclopedic. As all it seems to be used for is jokes in User and Talk space, it does not belong in Template:. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with sugar on top. Because I'm worth it. ZockPuppet (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with most commentators here that the template should be kept (as a harmless joke), but not in the template mainspace. The simple solution is to userfy it. Waltham, The Duke of 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Revert as the person who initially made the change. It was a short-lived joke that I meant to resolve a while ago. ffm 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Revert and userfy. As much as I would prefer to see more members of my species, I think that going back to the {{uncategorized}} redirect would be the best thing for that encyclopedia thing you humans like so much. EvilCat (meow!) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Should have been speedied. Hesperian 04:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Userify and revert per David Levy. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yoozerfie. It's a silly gag, but it doesn't belong in template space. Lovelac7 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Do the TfD properly The nominator has only tagged the talk pages of 2 editors, bypassing 3 others including the template's creator. I was going to vote for a straight delete with a "let the creator userfy it if he/she wants to keep it", but if the nominator's not even bothered to notify the creator of the TfD, then Keep. Bazj (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? I notified the creator. I did not notify Thryduulf, who had created a redirect at the same name. --NE2 08:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oi! this one is cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.206 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - sometimes this template is needed because sometimes cats are needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy A nice little joke we've got here, but it doesn't belong in the template space. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete Dzhugashvili (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Revert the joke seems like vandalism to me. The original redirect seems correct. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2008 (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.

Template:Abandonia

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete under CSD G12 and WP:IAR. The HOTU template was kept because it was believed that there was a substantial noninfringing use for it, and because we believed at the time that that use would be respected. What has happened here is that the Abandonia template has been added to many (a hundred or so?) copyrighted games; the net effect is to turn Wikipedia into a source that aids and abets blatant copyright infringement. This changes the nature of the beast substantially. Per WP:CSD G12, and also, frankly, under WP:IAR, I have deleted both templates and removed the links from the pages they were added to, and warned The Fifth Horseman to not add such material to Wikipedia again. Nandesuka (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Abandonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These abandonware sites host software downloads for old games whose present copyright holder is unknown or whose copyright is (seemingly) undefended. I shouldn't need to point out that providing links to software downloads of questionable legality is not a good idea. Having templates for it encourages the behaviour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As it happens, Template:Hotu has been proposed for deletion at least once before under the same notion - which failed due to lack of consensus whether the copyright issue does or does not outweigh its usefulness as an information source. I see that applicable in regards to both templates. In addition, the status checks performed in regards to games placed on Abandonia are stricter than those affecting those placed on HOTU (which has to my knowledge on some occasions hosted straightforward oldwarez). --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  I find the second statement extremely dubious, what with The Lost Vikings being available on Abandonia despite Blizzard's parent company having an active interest in suing people for the like and with there having been a Lost Vikings franchise game released for mobile platforms in the recent past. Anyway, consensus can change, so I'd like to see whether it has. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Abandonware is illegal if no consent is given from the copyright holder. Both HOTU and Abandonia engage in this activity; although they remove "ESA-protected games" as well as removing games at the request of publishers, they still host games outside of this protection under an "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" policy, which is nonetheless illegal. However, both sites also host games that they do have permission to distribute, and I think having a template is OK for such games. I don't feel strongly enough about it to vote 'keep', though. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (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.

Template:Chess image

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

The result of the debate was delete delldot ∇. 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Chess image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used for chess images from xboard, but they have all been moved to the wikimedia commons, so it is not being used. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:08, 16 September 2008 (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.

Template:Biota

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

The result of the debate was delete--tough one, but it looks like consensus is pretty strong. delldot ∇. 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Biota (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created in order to provide invisible semantic information by wrapping taxon names in a microformat. From what I can tell, consensus is that this will massively complicate page code for no particular benefit. e.g. [1], [2]. For an example of its usage, check this out. Hesperian 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remark – I can see no point in adding this to articles such as Lassie or Animals (album) (complicates page code for no benefit whatever). It might have some use where names are used in a taxon context. Occuli (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This template offers massive benefits, in that it emits a species microformat for the name of the organism (as emitted for over a year by {{Taxobox}}), where the names are not in the taxobox, such mentions subspecies (as on Peregrine Falcon), prey/predator/pest species, symbiotic species, etc, examples of species on genera and higher-rank pages, lists of, say, families like that on Neogastropoda; or where using a Taxobox would be inappropriate or impossible,, such as in prose ("The hospital was shut by an outbreak of Escherichia coli").

More typical examples of usage than that given above would be [1] or [2].

The only other way to apply a microformat in these cases would be by using in-line HTML spans (or other suitable elements) and classes; understandably some editors consider that approach unacceptable.

There is consensus for and very widespread use of microformats on Wikipedia already, including hCard for people, organisations and venues; hCalendar for events and Geo for coordinates. There is also precedence on Wikipedia for in-line templates which emit microformats, for example nearly a quarter of a million instances of {{coord}} (with a similar number again as the recently deprecated coordinates templates are converted).

Taxonomic names are based on, but are not, Latin. When the taxonomic and IETF-languages communities agree a language code for scientific names (I'm involved in discussion of the issue in both communities), the template will allow that language code to be applied, also.

Though ready for use in limited number of cases (chiefly, vernacular, bi- and trinominal names using the Zoological code), it's still under development, and I have undertaken to include requirements and fix issues raised by more taxonomically-knowledgeable editors than I.

Another user has already approached me via my talk page, to request a merger of this template with his new creation for displaying multiple common names.

Finally, it seems odd that this template has been nominated for deletion when a longer version of the above explanation has been posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#New template for in-line display of vernacular & scientific_names; where I have also said that I am happy to answer further questions. There is no consensus against the template at either of the cited pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus against the template at either of the cited pages. In total four people have expressed their opinions ofresponded to your invitation to make comments on the template on those two pages, and in all four cases the opinion expressed was that the template is pointless. Hesperian 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I see at either of those pages; no doubt other editors will read them for themselves. BTW, I posted there; where do you think I expressed that opinion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very droll, Andy. Refactored. Hesperian 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've removed one misrepresentation, what about removing the false claim that remains? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support deletion with reservations. I oppose its use for vernacular names. It will create more problems than it solves, since vernacular names are associated with specific species only in some groups, so that subsequent parsing will likely separate the same species ({{biota|vernacular=chamise}} and {{biota|vernacular=greasewood}}--I don't know why it forced a line break evidently fixed) and combine different ones ({{biota|vernacular=hemlock}} the herb and {{biota|vernacular=hemlock}} the tree). One can even imagine clueless editors creating cases of "{{biota|vernacular=dog}} {{biota|vernacular=rose}}" , "{{biota|vernacular=cow}} {{biota|vernacular=parsnip}}", and "{{biota|vernacular=cat}}-o'-nine-tails" (I've heard that there are one or two clueless editors at Wikipedia). In contrast, I see its usefulness for scientific names, since they are much more often used in a biological context, and I see the species microformat as a credible way to mark up scientific names in text.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you "see its usefulness for scientific names", and "see the species microformat as a credible way to mark up scientific names in text", why are you supporting deletion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In its present form I believe it has potential to harm the encyclopedia. If you were to offer to remove the "vernacular" portion, I would probably be neutral—I don't see a pressing need, neither do I see harm.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • If there is consensus to remove that property, then of course I would (or anyone else could) remove it; but I feel that you have made no case that harm would be done by the optional "vernacular" property (I don't see any argument for removing the same property from {{taxobox}}), and I would argue against such a move. BTW, hypothetical bad edits by clueless users shouldn't be seen as evidence for requiring a deletion; the same could be said of anything, including plain-text edits. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think a consensus is likely, since there are a lot of unreserved "delete"s. As far as removing the property from taxobox, I wouldn't ever advocate that, in that taxoboxes are used in an explicit manner (far more explicitly than common names are used in groups other than birds and a few others). My objection is to species microformat in running text: it involves adding an additional layer of data (e.g., "This is a species"), which won't always be supported by the text on the page. Because binomials and other scientific names are most often used explicitly, the chances of improperly overspecifying with the template are low, so that I think the advantages cancel the disadvantages, and I am neutral. In the case of common names standing alone, I see zero value outside of groups such as birds, where there is a 1:1 correspondence between "common" names and scientific names, and numerous disadvantages, some of which I've spelled out above. The flaw lies with common names, not with the species microformat or with the template, but the template serves to exacerbate the problem, by permitting editors to "call out" common names that may have already been imprecise. I've talked about the problems with common names in other contexts, most recently here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I for one am not an unreserved delete. If this was constrained to scientific names and to names with article links (on the logic that it should not be used for every instance on a page, and the decision on which instances to wrap is essentially the same as the decision on which instances to link), then I would be ambivalent. Hesperian 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support deletion.
  • 1. For screen scraping purposes it's only useful if consistently used. It won't be.
  • 2. There isn't a serious problem with formatting of taxon names, and the cases where there is a problem are mostly due to people who wouldn't have used the template anyway.
  • 3. It's an obstacle to editing, particularly to casual editors. (Who, reportedly, have a higher ratio of content to format edits than the average.)
  • 4. It diverts effort into editing instances of the template into the article, where this effort would be more productive if directed elsewhere.
    • Lavateraguy (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • 1 Your "only useful" comment is not correct; even a single instance will be useful to someone browsing with a tool which detects microformats.
    • 2 This template has not been created to address any supposed "serious problem with formatting of taxon name"; so that point is a straw-man.
    • 3 There is consensus for in-line templates; such as {{convert}}, {{lang}} and family, {{coord}} and the various templates it has deprecated, {{birth date}} and family, {{ISSN}}, {{cite book}} and family, and more. All are very widely used, without apparent problems.
    • 4 No-one will be coerced into adding the template; they can still add and edit plain text if they wish.
      • Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Overuse of templates make the raw wiki text less understandable, especially for new users. The benefits of this template are too small to justify that cost. Microformats do not have to be added at each mention of a species; each species should be linked to the wikipedia page of the species, and that is the proper place for a microformat. This can be handled in {{Taxobox}}. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing that we link each mention of a sub-species on Peregrine Falcon to a separate page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would think so. Every taxon is notable. I've written plenty of articles on subspecies. Hesperian 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Perhaps the ideal place for some subspecies is on the article of the species. But that does not mean that there has to be a special template to format the name of the subspecies. It may be desirable to add a microformat for a subspecies whose page is merged into that of the parent species. But that should in my opinion be inserted sperately from the running text; for example, in a mini-taxobox. Templates should be kept outside of the article text as much as possible. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How do you propose to use "mini taxoboxes" on Neogastropoda? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

        I don't. The superfamilies and families on that page all deserve (and mostly have) their own pages. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or somehow mark as experimental (userify? document it as such?). TfD is a lousy place to debate the merits of microformats in this particular context, but if anyone is trying to run a search engine against wikipedia, looking for names of organisms in text, they'll be better off using heuristics than anything which is going to be as inconsistently applied as this sort of template. Taxoboxes (and chemical infoboxes, place infoboxes, team infoboxes, etc) are a different matter as they already are structured data, for which microformats (and/or other ways of dumping structured data) have a chance. Oh, and as for the arguing by analogy, {{lang}} is controversial, ISSN is little used in text, and I could go down the list but I suspect it would take us pretty far afield. Kingdon (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of the discussion of {{lang}} and I don't think I would go so far as to call that debate a "controversy" (is there anything on Wikipedia which hasn't at some time been questioned on a talk page?). How else would you propose to comply with WCAG requirements and mark-up in-line changes of language? Never has one of my uses of that template or addition of it to relevant project pages (e.g. WP:France) been contested; and I note that there are over 155,000 instances of it. There are over 133,000 instances of {{Birth date and age}}, let alone the other templates in that family. The purpose of a microformat is not simply to serve search engines (though that is one benefit). How would you propose to mark the template as "experimental", and what effect do you think that would have? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question: I disagree with the opposition to the inclusion of common/ vernacular names, for a number of reasons, and note that such names are not only part of our language, but by consensus are already used widely, matched to taxonomic names, on Wikipedia (not only or birds, but for fish, reptiles, mammals, plants, fungi and more. I also note that such names are already used in Taxoboxes and in article content; and for part of the 'Species' microformat specification. However, this is not the place to debate that. It seems that some people oppose this template only or chiefly for that reason. If I agree to remove the "vernacular" property from this template, in order that it can be established and its uptake measured without it, would that satisfy those currently calling for its deletion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Your statement about the wide match of common names to scientific names is incorrect for plants, except perhaps trivially in the UK, where I understand that there is a certain degree of standardization. I confirm that I will be neutral on the AfD if common names are removed from the template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • On reflection, I'm still opposed; in fact, more strongly than ever. Even if we all agreed that microformats are fantastic, this particular microformat is a draft proposal, which apparently merely means that Andy wrote a proposal for it at the Microformats wiki, and a few people kinda liked the idea. I have installed the Operator extension in order to investigate this further, and I can confirm that that extension does not support the species microformat, at least not "out of the box"; and so far I have been unable to find clear documentation on how to add support. I have been unable to find any other site that has taken this microformat up, and it is my onsidered view that our current usage of the species microformat caters to an audience of maybe four or five people in the whole world. This is an encyclopedia, not a microformat advocacy site. Hesperian 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess it had not registered on me that it was still a draft. That makes me wonder about the value even of having it in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Most microformats are labelled as "draft" (including the "Geo" microformat which Wikipedia uses around a quarter-of-a-million times); it's a quirk of the process by which they are created. Even as a draft, its benefits are available to our users. Operator's support for 'Species' is clearly documented; it's also supported by Cognition. Thank you, Hesperian, for your "considered" view; can you substantiate your assertion? Among the microformat's early adopters were the very reputable Amateur Entomologists' Society. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

          • A Unicode draft standard, for example, comes with a warning for implementers that the final specification may change. I suppose the advantage of a Wikipedia template is that when/if the standard does change, it's easy to fix globally. But it still makes me uneasy. I clearly see the benefit of specialized markup for scientific names (I was suggesting something similar in the last century), but widespread adoption is contingent on widespread acceptance, and a flawed (in practice, not in theory) Wikipedia implementation has the potential to turn a lot of people off of the idea irrespective of its merits. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this template if we were discussing how to leverage its merits and remediate its deficits prior to pushing it out, rather than arguing over it in a TfD.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

            • "I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this template if...". Me too. I made a point of inviting comments as soon as I completed the template, and have already undertaken in to include several requested changes (in some cases, I will have to ask for a assistance from a more experienced template coder). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

          • Wrong documentation is not clear documentation; the one sentence instruction failed to mention that after you've added the user script, you need to manually add it to your data formats. I've got it working now, on Wikipedia at least. But I've clicked all over the Amateur Entomologists' Society website and haven't encountered a single species microformat. Why is that? Hesperian 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Is there any chance I might get an answer to this question? Hesperian 03:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Apologies; I missed your question in the flurry of editing, last week. The AES announced their use of the microformat, giving the URL I cited as evidence. There is indeed a species microformat at that address. As to why you didn't see that, I cannot say. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Thanks, it's working now. I'm not sure why it periodically fails; today I couldn't see any taxobox Microformats for a while. Hesperian 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Removal of the vernacular parameter would make the instances of this template lighter and more acceptable, but personally, I would still have to be convinced of the benefits of this template. What exactly are those benefits? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe I answered that in my first post in this section, alongside my "strong keep" comment. Is there any point which you feel requires clarification? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Your answer, as I understand it, was "It emits a microformat." What benefits does this have? The only one I can think of (provides links to more information about the named species in a microformat-aware browser) duplicates the function of the wikilink; we already link to the article of the species. I believe it's a guideline to prefer internal links to information; external links on a topic (such as a species) should be confined to the page about that species -- and that's why microformats have been built into {{taxobox}}. So that is what I would like to see: concrete benefits of the emitted microformat. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I've dumped a quick explanation at Microformats/Species. If you bear with me, I'll polish and re-factor it over the next day or two. No additional information is added to a page when the template is used; all that happens is that the existing information is identified as being about a living thing. No new internal or external links are added to the article. As I've said before, Wikipedia already makes widespread use of microformats whcih do these things for other types of data. My answer also referred to the inclusion of an appropriate language tag, when ready. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Like all templates created for microformat purposes only, this template unnecessarily obfuscates article wikitext and makes editing Wikipedia more difficult with no benefit to most readers. Keeping articles editable for anyone is more important than semantic markup experiments. A project utilising Semantic MediaWiki or similar would be more appropriate for this than Wikipedia. --Para (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is now widespread consensus for emitting microformats on Wikipedia, both here and on other-language variants, with literally hundreds of thousands of examples, and including the use of inline templates. This is not a "markup experiment". As I have already identified above, a whole range of in-line templates have not prevented Wikipedia from being edited. If you wish to pursue a case against the use of microformats per se, then please do so in the appropriate forum, but don't try to have useful tools destroyed to prevent microformats from being used in specific circumstances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • When microformats are used on Wikipedia, they are only as a side effect of templates created for other purposes, such as consolidating layout and structure. This template isn't one of them, and there are no wide spread templates used in article space that exist for the sole purpose of emitting microformats. --Para (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that's because you've deleted, marked-as-deprecated, or reused them? And you're wrong, because the widely-used {{Start date}} and {{End date}} exist for that very purpose. It so happens that in a large number of "low hanging fruit" cases, adding microformats to existing templates has been the easy, sensible "quick win" way to do. That doesn't mean that doing so is the only, or only acceptable, way to do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • The stated purpose of {{Start date}} is to "return a date, or date-time... which degrades gracefully when CSS is not available." Hesperian 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • You over-abbreviate your quote. It is "These templates ... return a date, or date-time, duplicated in a hidden ISO date format, which degrades gracefully when CSS is not available." And the only reason for having the ISO date is that that is used by microformats. Please read past that first paragraph, for more on the subject. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I am aware that microformats are mentioned further down the page. The fact remains that the {{Start date}} documentation presents the template as primarily serving some other purpose; viz, to return a date or date-time that degrades gracefully when CSS is not available; microformat support is presented as an added bonus. If this is not the case, if microformats are the raison d'etre of the template, then the documentation is rather dreadfully written, wouldn't you say? I wonder why you wrote the documentation that way, Andy? Hesperian 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
              • You're still miss-reading, It presents "a hidden ISO date which degrades gracefully"; for no other purpose than to allow dates in microformats. Why else would it do that? And no, I don't think I wrote the documentation dreadfully (but some might consider that an attempt at a slur). Of course, this being a wiki, you're welcome to improve it if you disagree. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Oh ho, you've omitted a critical comma, you tricky thing. I think we had better get the full quote out on the table:

                  "These templates ({{Start date}} and {{End date}}) return a date, or date-time, duplicated in a hidden ISO date format, which degrades gracefully when CSS is not available."

                I assert that this sentence unambiguously states that the primary purpose of these templates is to present a date or date-time that degrades gracefully when CSS is not available. I assert that this sentence makes no mention of microformats. I assert that if the primary purpose of these templates is, as you now claim, to provide a microformat, then the documentation is dreadfully written. I suspect that the dreadfully written documentation has obfuscated the true purpose of the template, thereby playing an important part in its adoption/acceptance, and that Para's point is therefore not refuted. Hesperian 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

                • Assert away; you're wrong. The hidden ISO date "degrades gracefully when CSS is not available"; the date in plain view does bot "degrade" at all, because it is not styled. Do we really need to debate this, and does it help other editors' understanding of the issues relating to {{Biota}}? I created {{Start date}}'; I think I know better than you what it is for. Or do you doubt my good faith in saying so? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

                  • Why not change the documentation to say "These templates ({{Start date}} and {{End date}})) return a date, or date-time, duplicated in a hidden ISO date format. The hidden date degrades gracefully when CSS is not available." Then we can move on.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Will do; and will mention the microformat also. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 19 September 2008 (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.