Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Template:Wikimedia, Portal:portal


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

The result was: delete Portal:portal, no consensus/keep Template:Wikimedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia, Portal:portal
More portal stuff. Not discussed, only contributed to by anon, still at experimental stage. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Results: "Portal:portal" delete (3 Deletes; no dissent); "Template:Wikimedia" no consensus (de facto keep) (1 Delete; 1 Keep; 1 absention). Moshe's rationale, if I understand it correctly, suggests we should have voted the same way on both, but we didn't for whatever reason. Hopefully an orphan template will either be no great concern for the near future, or maybe prove to be useful. Otherwise, we can renominate it down the road for another review. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now for Template:Wikimedia.
 * Delete Portal:portal; we have no consensus if we have Portal (pseudo-)namespace. --Aphaia 04:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete "Portal:portal" unless anonymous user registers and convinces the community what use such pages would be. Keep "Template:Wikimedia" for now, as it may be a useful substitute for multiple interwiki boxes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Re: Template: Please note that the only page currently using the template is the above-mentioned Portal. I do not believe it is a coincidence. Notice that it links to pages with the same name on the 'pedia (which is sane), wiktionary (which we rarely do -- we usually only link to wiktionary in theme pages if it's obvious there'll be no 'pedia article), 'source (which we link to when it's a written source in the PD, which is quite rare anyway, but in any case certainly not in themes) and commons (which we almost never link to -- the only sane reasons would be audio/video files of someone saying quotes, and so would be mostly from people pages). Note also that 'source and 'pedia themselves often disagree on naming, and wikiquote sometimes disagrees with either of them (I think we try to strive for true to source at all costs much more than wikipedia, so we often use &amp; where they use and -- I guess it's a cultural thing). So, to sum up, the only way the template could be useful, ever, is if we had an article which is named the same in 'pedia, 'source and commons, we would think that even though we have a 'pedia link, a wiktionary link would be useful, and that the commons link is useful for quotes. The likelihood for that is so low, that if it does crop up when we're 50K articles, we might as well just use four boxes (for something like that, surely the list of external links would be large enough so the four boxes + external links would actually take up less vert-space than using the template). However, for portals, this template makes perfect sense: the Law portal on wikiquote would link to the Law portal on 'pedia, the Law portal on wiktionary (useful for those pesky legal terms), the Law portal on commons (illustrating the quotes, perhaps?) and a link to the Law portal on 'source (so people would have an easy time browsing all the source files) and even a link to the Law portal on 'books (so people could learn more about the law to understand what quotations mean). So, if we decide that at this point in time we're not ready for portals (before discussion, using demos in Wikiquote namespace and so on), I am pretty sure this template will remain useless. Sorry for the long rant. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:35, 9 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.