Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4

[edit]

Template:NI district population

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and somewhat out-of-date. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Keith Edkins. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2015 (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).

Template:Municipalities of Central Serbia

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails reason 2 and 3. Replaced by Template:Municipalities of Serbia. The template follows the old statistical-administrational law (prior to 2009); municipalities of the obsolete statistical region are present at Central Serbia. Zoupan 22:36, 4 November 2015 (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).

Dubrovnik nobility

[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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 20. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails TFD reasons 2 and 4. Both are replaced with Template:Republic of Ragusa topics. The two templates fail NPOV as representing noble families of the Republic of Ragusa as "Dubrovnik noble families", also using Croatian, and not Latin/Italian names for these. The city of Dubrovnik ≠ Republic of Ragusa. Zoupan 22:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense. Zoupan created what is essentially a duplicate template (with all Italian names pointedly) and wants to delete the old ones, that have served just fine for years and years. As for "NPOV", the user doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the city of Dubrovnik, and the nobility thereof, did not evaporate with the Republic of Ragusa: they continued on as nobles (usually counts) of Austria-Hungary. In fact, believe it or not Zoupan, the majority of those families exist today as well (you're talking with a relative).
In short: strong keep. I'm afraid this is a bad-faith, POV-pushing proposal, intended to advance a particular historiographic point of view. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem in deleting obsolete templates? The notability of every single article listed is their Ragusan nobility status. There is no dispute over their importance and part in legacy of Dubrovnik, but using the term "nobility of Dubrovnik" for Ragusan nobility, and then using only Croatian names for these, is not suitable. It is anachronistic. Dubrovnik does not have nobility since long ago. Yes, when parts of the Ragusan nobility entered Austria-Hungary, they became part of that system. Descendants may exist today, but that does not mean that they are "Dubrovnik nobility". One should indeed be proud of his heritage, but not take these kind of things personal. These templates should be scrapped.--Zoupan 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zoupan's duplicate templates or redirects show his particular POV. As for the language, the official language in the Republic of Dubrovnik/Republic of Ragusa was Latin, and both Italian and Croatian were commonly spoken, hence both are at least equal. --Silverije (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Long-standing discussion. Everyone agrees that both Italian and Croatian were spoken in Ragusa, but for some reasons this nobility of Ragusa (Dubrovnik?) is presented mainly using the Slavic variant of the name, which is indeed a neologism. Side note: sources are in favor or using the romance version of the name when referring to those noble Houses. However, the articles do not meet IMHO the minimum requirements of notability and should be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2015 (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).

Template:!Copy to Wikimedia Commons

[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).

The result of the discussion was merge bang into no-bang. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:!Copy to Wikimedia Commons with Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons.
The exclamation mark version seems to be used by templates such as {{PD-Italy}} which automatically add a "Copy to Commons" template when you use a special parameter which tells that the file also is free in the United States, and sorts the files into Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (inline-identified). I don't think that we need a separate "MtC" template for this purpose; it should be enough to add an extra parameter to the usual "MtC" template which places the file in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (inline-identified). Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial merge - Provided the main template is updated to have inline=yes or simmilar. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after the latter has a new parameter to serve the former's purpose. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect {{!Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. I have compared the two using WinMerge; {{!Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} is slightly inferior. Slightly, but we have no need for a slight downgrade, right? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update, A suitable paramater has been added to the sandbox of the main version. If someone wants to review test and confirm it all works, then the uses of this template can be migrated over, and the merge progressed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (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).

Template:Providence Friars football navbox

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with exactly one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 4 November 2015 (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).

Template:Talk-vandal1

[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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 20. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A four-level series addressing vandalism to own talk page. Judging from an old discussion found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 1 this series created in 2007 was supposedly meant to deal with cases where users removed e.g. warning templates from their own user talk page. Judging from Previous revision of Wikipedia:User pages the templates would have seen very little meaningful use then, and likely even less now, were they to be promoted. They have never been part of the Uw series, and I can't see a reason for why they should be. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:15, 4 November 2015 (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).

Template:FixedGearFever

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website this is used to link to (http://www.fixedgearfever.com/) is permanently down and it doesn't look like it's coming back. BaldBoris 13:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2015 (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).

Template:Long Beach State 49ers football navbox

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Alakzi (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One bluelink, all the rest red. No point in having a navbox that doesn't go anywhere. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those with adequate links do; however, navboxes that are 100% red links (or nearly so) are routinely deleted. Please review the WP:NAVBOX guideline; these are the criteria applicable to all navboxes, not just those for college football or other sports. You may also want to review the open TfD discussions from October 25, 26 and 27 regarding navboxes for college coaches and athletic directors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_4&oldid=1138533321"