Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats


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

The result of the debate was  Keep. I will tag as inactive editorially. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Microformats
This is as far as I can see a relatively under-used wikiproject. The last entry on the article's talk page was over three months ago (20th October) and the only three entries in the main project space during that time were by a bot, a user adding a header, and a relatively inactive user adding their name to the project. It seems to me that this project is to all intents and purposes, dead. On top of this, the project seems to have a remit to tread on the toes of other wikiprojects who may not want (or feel they need) microformats.  L.J.Skinner wot 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page history shows that the "relatively inactive user" only joined up on January 20, the project page lists three active proposals for extensions to microformatting, and the work being done seems to mostly relate to templates like Coord, which is very widely-used on Wikipedia. It may be a little underused, but it doesn't seem dead or abandoned to me.  To be fair, though, this is not really the place for that discussion--WikiProjects are generally tagged with Historical rather than deleted. -- jonny - m  t  04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As said, Microformats are part of other templates and (fortunately) relatively stable but still not finished, as Nanoformats show. Just in case, I agree with L.J.Skinner to mark it Historical if there is no better choice. --Geonick (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All the work on coord is ongoing anyway, and does not need to project to continue - it can be discussed on the talk page. I seem to remember their are still a lot of articles using  anyway, as google supports this template but not coord.  As Geonick has said, the microformats are relatively stable, so the work has effectively ended.  None of the previously very active users have edited the main project page or the discussion page in over six months.  Oh, and delete of course.   L.J.Skinner wot 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly tag as inactive. If the project has had substantial activity, and may have even actively achieved many of its goals, there is no reason to remove the information regarding how and if those goals were achieved, as such information could be useful to anyone attempting a roughly similar action in the future. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A tag as inactive or historical would perhaps be more appropriate. See if anyone else emerges?   L.J.Skinner wot 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and mark inactive. —Sam Wilson (Australia) (talk) 23:01, 7 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.