Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7

edit

Template:Infobox Milan metro

edit
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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Milan metro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, orphaned and replaced by the standard {{Infobox station}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Top contributors

edit
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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top contributors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Top Gear Episode

edit
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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top Gear Episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Top Gear episodes do not have individual articles or sections, therefore, we don't need this. Even if they did, it would be redundant to {{infobox television episode}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Regions which belonged to Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon (1920)

edit
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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regions which belonged to Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon (1920) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am proposing this for deletion because: 1. it is redundant to a better-designed templates, {{HUCountiesto1918}} and {{Provinces of medieval Kingdom of Hungary}} and 2. it violates a Neutral point of view policy (template does not show actual administrative units of former Kingdom of Hungary, but it show modern geographical regions outside of present-day Hungary which are claimed as parts of "Greater Hungary" by modern Hungarian nationalists. Template also contains many errors since some of these regions (for example Croatia) were not part of Hungary between 1918 and 1920 (Croatia became part of Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom in 1918). Template does not list starting year from which these regions started to be administered by the former Kingdom of Hungary, implying that these regions "always belonged to Hungary". In its current form,this template is violation of accuracy and neutrality). PANONIAN 17:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I look at it now, it does seem a bit irredentist. But can we simply weed out that (more or less subtle) slant and have something that contributes to the encyclopedia? Or is it not salvageable at all? I'm not sure either way. It would be good if a reader who is not from any of these regions could answer that question :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, an analogous observation holds for e.g. List of tallest structures in Yugoslavia. I weeded out the biased/anachronistic stuff from there, but I'm still not sure if such a list really makes sense any more. Having such historical lists may be particularly bad if they are hard to maintain; having such historical navboxes may be particularly bad if they litter many current articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Joy, I tried to correct the template, but user:Hobartimus is reverting my edits trying to keep it in current form. In its current form, template violates NPOV policy. It either should be NPOV-ized either deleted. Wikipedia should not popularize nationalistic concepts. PANONIAN 06:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I instituted a new version of the template, with Croatia-Slavonia removed to try to make it less problematic. I already suggested this earlier at the talkpage but now im putting it up outright. A similar version of this already existed in 2009 so it would be a simple return to that removal[1] with Croatia-Slavonia removed It's hard to address the large number of false statements in the nominating post because almost everything from there is false. For example the claim the template not listing starting year implies that the starting year is "always" (maybe the big bang?). In the English language there is no such implication. Croatia question is solved by removing Croatia-Slavonia from the template which I have done. Also a false statement is that the template shows 'modern geographical regions' some of the geographical regions are several hundred if not thousand year old there. Moreover it was PANONIAN who last edited those regions for content!! And now he cites partially his own edits as a reason to delete very clever. If there are some modern regions I would not oppose removing them and replacing it with actual regions used at the time. Using modern regions would be anachronistic as well on the template. However again it was PANONIAN who last edited those regions making changes to them. An additional reason I don't think this should be deleted at this time is that this nomination might be a retaliaton for this ANI thread[2] as there was a debate regarding the template which should have been solved by discussion at the talkpage. Additionally deleting this (instead of redirecting or otherwise preserving it's history) would break all the links in ANI and elsewhere, taking all it's context away from the diffs. So I ask the closer that at least the history and with it the links are preserved if the debate goes that way.Hobartimus (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in light of my detailed reasoning above. Hobartimus (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hobartimus, you made only cosmetic "corrections" that did not much changed POV nature of this template. Croatia was not only problem. There are other regions listed there that were not under Hungarian administration from 1918 to 1920 (for example Banat, Bačka, Baranja, Rijeka, which were administered by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom). See the map: [3]. If you want to make this template to be NPOV and accurate then you either should remove these regions as well either you should rename it to refer to pre-1918 and not to pre-1920 period. Also, POV word "belonged" from the title should be replaced with one that is more NPOV, such is "were part of", "were administered by" or anything similar. Also, starting year from which these regions were under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary must be specified. Otherwise, the template is reflecting extreme Hungarian nationalist point of view that these regions "always belonged" and "should always belong" to Hungary. Fact is that many of these regions were not under Hungarian administration for much of the history: some of these regions were under Ottoman administration in 16th-18th century, some were separate political units (like Transylvania, Vojvodina, Banat, Military Frontier), while Kingdom of Hungary itself was no more than Habsburg province from 16th century to 1867. It should be clearly specified to which "Hungary" this template refer since there are many different historical entities to which this name could refer: independent medieval Hungary, Habsburg Royal Hungary, Habsburg "enlarged" Hungary, Hungarian Democratic Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic, etc. I believe that template is purposely made to be confusing so that readers could get impression that Hungary always existed with "large" borders and that mentioned regions always "belonged to Hungary" and main goal is convincing the readers that these regions were "stolen" from Hungary by "evil neighbors" and that they should be "rightfully returned to Hungary". Also, these geographical regions listed in the template were never official administrative units of the former Kingdom of Hungary. If we have one template related to former country we can list actual administrative units of that country, but what is point of listing modern regions? Yes, Hobartimus is right that some of these geographical regions existed as such in the past as well, but some other did not (for example Burgenland, Prekmurje, Međimurje). As for the claim that I was the one "who last edited those regions for content", I am not sure was I the last one or not, but I only tried to make template more NPOV. However, template is still POV and this still require some action - either deletion either NPOV-ization. Also, claim of user:Hobartimus that I opened this thread as "retaliation for his ANI thread" is ridiculous. This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody. I firstly tried to correct template and to make it more NPOV, but since my changes were reverted by user:Hobartimus who trying to keep this template in its current form, I saw no other option but to propose it for deletion. And it was user:Hobartimus who told me that I can propose this template for deletion: [4] PANONIAN 07:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't talk about "administration" so all your claims about which was and wasn't under "administration" is irrelevant, so all points based on this are false. Removing areas involving Croatia-Slavonia an edit I made recently after this discussion started is by no means a small or "cosmetic" change making this statement false. Your personal POVs and opinions are irrelevant so please do not bring them into this discussion. PANONIAN's comment is full of "" marks, making it appear that he is quoting someone but he is only quoting himslef "large" put between quotation marks with PANONIAN doesn't appear on the template "evil" doesn't appear on the template and so on and so forth he is quoting texts made up by himself a silly tactic for an argument. PANONIAN also writes "I was the one "who last edited those regions for content", I am not sure was I the last one or not," when he could have changed the regions to anything editing them just a few short hours before nominating this template. He could have easily changed Burgenland (a modern category indeed) to "Őrvidék" or similar historical terms that existed for hundreds of years. Or simply could have removed the modern regions entirely saying they are irrelevant in a historical context. This could most certainly not be a basis for deletion as they are easily addressable following talkpage discussion and edits to the template. Hobartimus (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hobartimus, please try commenting disputed content, not other users. If this template doesn't talk about "administration" (and I agree that it does not), can you then say about what exactly this template talk? About modern nationalistic territorial claims, right? Also, the fact that you removed Croatia, but not Banat, Bačka and Baranja creates another problem because status of Croatia, Banat, Bačka and Baranja was same before 1918 and between 1918 and 1920. So, why you removed Croatia and not these 3 other regions? Also, can you clarify this: does this template speaks about Kingdom of Hungary that ceased to exist in 1918 or about short-lived pre-Trianon Hungarian republics that existed in 1918-1919? If it speaks about pre-1918 Kingdom of Hungary then we cannot speak about this kingdom between 1918 and 1920. Also, if it speaks about Hungarian states that existed between 1918 and 1920 then we cannot include into this template some territories that were not under administration of these states. So, can you clarify about what exactly this template is supposed to speak? And it is outrage that user:Hobartimus claims that I "could have changed the template", while he actually reverting my edits and do not allowing me to implement needed changes. He thinks that he owns that template and since template is example of heavy POV and full of inaccuracies, which cannot be corrected due to revert warring of user:Hobartimus, I see no other option for this template but deletion. PANONIAN 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"because status of Croatia, Banat, Bačka and Baranja was same before 1918" that's your personal opinion and original research. Please once again don't bring those here. Yes you were the last one to edit the template content regarding the regions, that's easy to see you "could have changed the template" however "outragous" that is to you. You are confusing the content of the template with the NAME of the template which can only be changed by consensus and not non-discussed brute force methods. You could have easily changed the template to say the historical names of areas instead of using modern names such "Burgenland" if that was your problem you could have easily changed that. Instead you are bringing up irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with deletion or keeping of the template for example once again you bring up "administration" when that word doesn't appear on the template. Your personal interpretations and opinions about history do not matter in deciding whether the the template should be kept or not. It would be good if you could keep this type of arguing to a minimum it's getting really out of hand. For example you imply, you want to discuss content not other users, then you explicitly mention "user:Hobartimus" and "he thinks he owns that template"(sic) in your text. This could easily be considered another personal attack. Hobartimus (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion? If that is the case, then why these maps are showing that Croatia, Banat, Bačka and Baranja had same status in 1918: [5], [6] - do you see that all these regions - Croatia, Banat, Bačka and Baranja were part of the Serb-Croat-Slovene kingdom in 1918? How exactly status of Croatia was different than other 3 regions? Which source say that this status was different? Also, can you show diff which prove that "I was the last one who edited template". "Last edit" before my deletion proposal was obviously your revert. Also, which Wiki rule say that names of articles and templates "could be changed only by consensus"? Every user who is able to change these names is allowed to do that. And what "brute force methods" you speak about? I reverted you only once, while you reverted me twice, so who exactly is imposing "brute force" here? Me or you? And how can I change the template when you will revert me? The "historical names of areas" are not problem but basic nature of the template. You still did not answered my question: what exactly is this template supposed to show? Pre-1918 Kingdom of Hungary or short-lived post-1918 Hungarian republics? Can you answer that simple question? Only after we clarify this, we can discuss the accuracy of the content of the template. PANONIAN 11:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this again? I really don't understand it. There is a statement about "because status of Croatia, Banat, Bačka and Baranja was same before 1918"and you bring the following "evidence "these maps are showing that Croatia, Banat, Bačka and Baranja had same status in 1918" Please tell me why are you doing this? Do you feel that "before 1918" and in"1918" are the same thing? Or you can't admit that you were wrong and before 1918 they most definitely DIDN'T have the same status? I can't understand it. Please explain to me why are you outright ignoring what was said before? You write ""Last edit" before my deletion proposal was obviously your revert" You seem unfamiliar with basic wiki concepts such as the difference between an edit and a revert. An edit creates a new article state, a revert returns to a previous article state. In this case the last one to edit the regions were you as it is clearly visible here You added Jászság, you added Kunság, you added Hungary a couple of places indicating (correctly) that for example the historical region Bácska today belongs partly to Hungary as well. In fact the regions portion of the template is still in that state as you last edited it. Jászság still there, Kunság still there, Hungary all there as you added it. Everything with the regions is how you left it in your last edit. What are you complaining about? Hobartimus (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also can I point out that we are not supposed to discuss the content of the template here, that is what the discussion page is for. The only question here is to keep or delete the template. This is also not a forum for unrelated issues or a general historical discussion forum, but a deletion discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPOV issues aside, this is a navbox-cruft. Even a category would be problematic. We should not categorize (or worse still, navbox-ize) modern regions according to all the countries they were part of in the past, at arbitrary points in time. Using that logic, a turbulent region like, for example, Bačka would have some 30 templates/categories for all the states it used to belong. Such information would be fine for, for example, Bács-Bodrog County, but not for general article about a region. Navboxes should help navigate closely related articles. These are definitely not. No such user (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:Infobox districts of Malaysian states

edit
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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox districts of Malaysian states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused frontend of template:infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Banning-enforcement undermining

edit
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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banning-enforcement undermining (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Kim Bruning for T2 "a template that is a blatant misrepresentation of established policy". However it appears this is controversial, so we need to answer the question, is this template against policy and therefore should be deleted?, or does it comply with policy and is useful to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet template(s) is only used on userspace. {{spa}} is actually used for comments.Curb Chain (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

WikiFun Police warning templates

edit
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 delete Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hw-vandalism1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hw-vandalism2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hw-vandalism3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hw-vandalism4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hw-error1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hw-error2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hw-error3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates aren't nice to newcomers, don't make much sense ("meticulously erased," "swept up," "take away the toys"), and aren't being used as far as I know. Also, considering that the WikiFun Police is marked as an inactive wikiproject, the template set probably won't be expanded or maintained much. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 00:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wp:WikiFun Police/Warning Templates specifically says: "All of the sources for the templates should include a note about what template they were based on and a <noinclude></noinclude> section." None of these templates have ever had that. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy for a joke to be taken the wrong way on the Internet even with those with whom you've already communicated. It's almost certain that these attempts at humour will go astray. Fun is one thing. These templates seem to be poking fun at people. JIMp talk·cont 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_7&oldid=1142562979"