Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 4

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

October 4[edit]

Template:Infobox Russian federal district[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) 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian federal district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, unused. Nero the second (talk) 13:55, 4 October 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 UK settlement[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) 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, unused. Nero the second (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, created by a now blocked user, and as far as I can tell, it was never used. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 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 District Albania[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) 01:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox District Albania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, unused. Nero the second (talk) 13:50, 4 October 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:2007 Rock Hall Inductees[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) 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 Rock Hall Inductees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are several inductees in the Rock & Roll Hall of fame. Should the templates be used to navigate the artists, it should include all of the inductees in the template list, not just only 2007. My original proposal is to suggest the deletion of the template, but if consensus has reached, deletion may changed to expansion if appropriate. Regards. G(x) (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's already a list of this. They are otherwise unrelated.Curb Chain (talk) 11:40, 4 October 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:Cref2[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 keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cref2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) 147 uses
Template:Cnote2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) 160 uses
Template:Cnote2 Begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) 158 uses
Template:Cnote2 End (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) 153 uses

These templates were developed to create content notes separate from Cite Footnotes. Grouped footnotes were added to cite.php in March 2008, thus these templates can be migrated to standard markup. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with invalid HTML caused by cref2:

  • Keep Weak Keep - I do agree that there should be a standard markup, but disagree with the approach. While cite.php does allow grouped footnotes ("note 1", "note 2", Etc.), it does not allow to my knowledge numbering footnotes alphabetically ("A", "B", "C", Etc.) nor does it allow numbering it using roman numerals ("I", "II", "III", Etc.); this allows explanatory notes to be more concisely differentiated from references, which is not a feature available to my knowledge through cite.php (which requires that they be part of a group). If it could be demonstrated the cite.php could fulfill these features, I would be willing to change my position. Otherwise, I believe deleting these templates is premature. --Tony 155.99.230.137 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That feature was implemented in the 1.17 update; see Help:Cite link labels. See this update to Wintersun for example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco brought up a point that I believe should be addressed, but I can't be the judge of usability. Otherwise I'm satisfied with your reply. Good find. 155.99.230.180 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I may be one of the few who still uses those (at least 5 articles using cref2 are ones I have written in the past 6 months), but I appreciate the sheer simplicity of it. I've taken a look at the writeup for cite.php and I can barely make heads or tails of it. Unless there is another template that duplicates this function, I don't think we should delete this. After all, the main reason for using templates is to make life easier on editors. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't repair articles like List of American Civil War battles without using <ref> tags. See W3C markup validation for List of American Civil War battles for the duplicate HTML ids induced by Cref2 resulting in invalid HTML. You may find User:Gadget850/Footnotes#Cite labels easier to understand. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much easier to understand, thank you! However, I still consider this template more user-friendly, and don't even use cite.php anyways (my references for the past 50 articles have been SFN). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have happily been using cite.php. {{Sfn}} is not a reference style, it is a template used for Shortened footnotes. It is simply a handy wrapper for one or more <ref> tags. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to know (and interesting to see that two of my articles are up there [the Indonesia-related ones]). Is that a complete list? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I used AWB to generate a list, ran it through [http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/batch.html.en WDG HTML Validator, then manually searched for the errors and copied the article name, then a bit of formatting to add the validation template. Not a lot of work for 150 articles, but 10% invalid is a high failure rate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alberthiene Endah used two instances of [A], which means the associated HTML id is duplicated, which breaks the rules. There is no error checking in cref, whereas cite.php (which is a software extension, not a template) has extensive error checks and creates unique ids. I need to start a help page on HTML validation. And it is now fixed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Crisco.--Zoupan (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have two comments concerning the W3C HTML markup validation:
    1. Per the HTML markup validation issue, I see that there are errors other than those produced by Cref2.
    2. Despite these errors, the results were largely inconsequential to the rendering and behavior of the page.
    155.99.230.180 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: The first and last two are common to all pages and have been reported; they are outside our control as they require developer fixes. Invalid HTML affects portability, usability and accessibility. Backlinks do not work as expected— depending on the browser, the backlink will return to only the first or last in-text cite. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "portability, usability and accessibility". I'm suppose to take your word for it. However the only issue I see are the back-links. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't want want to see this turning into a crusade like de-linking dates. 155.99.230.180 (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Keep - Seems there's no problem using it if there's only one backlink or by adding the optional "n=" parameter if there are multiple backlinks and it's way easier to put a nested ref into a CRef2 when embedding references within footnotes. That being said, I did go and fix List of American Civil War battles but figuring out WP:REFNEST was a real pain since the {{#tag:ref}} magic-word syntax is not very intuitive and I kept getting a cite error until I found the explanation at User:Dan Pelleg/Sandbox/Nested refs. Is that a bug? Mojoworker (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget850, I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't repair articles like List of American Civil War battles without using <ref> tags" or did you mean {{tag|ref|o}}? Either way, as I mentioned above, I did change that article to use cite link labels with group=upper-alpha, but it looks like I could've changed that article to produce valid HTML simply by adding the "n=" parameter to the multiple {{CRef2|D}} instances like I did on Battle of the Nile and a few others. Unless I'm missing something, I (or another editor) can change the others.
And there's one additional difference with Cref2 — see Note "A" at List of American Civil War battles#Notes. Is there a way to inhibit the long list of backlinks (a b c d e f g h i j k l m n)? Cref2 with the n= parameter produces a single backlink as in "Note A" at Battle of the Nile#Notes. Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to add a second reference and found something additional. Using the {{#tag:ref}} magic-word syntax seems to cause a cite error and only works on the first reference. Cref2 appears to be the only way to have more than one instance of an explanatory note that includes a reference. Mojoworker (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles can be easily fixed then this should be done away with. It doesn't make sense to maintain a legacy footnote system for the sake of less than 200 articles, especially if said system generates invalid markup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification: it doesn't necessarily generate invalid HTML, but it will if used improperly in situations with multiple links to the same note without specifying the n= parameter (see above). Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. I inserted the code in Bay of Pigs Invasion, after briefly exploring the options, and fruitlessly inviting help on the talk page. As mentioned there, at least one alternative solution did not work with the Infobox Military Conflict. I remain confused by the whole subject and the discussion here, but if someone can help achieve exactly the same result, I would welcome that. PeterWD (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. (Roughly equivalent to Delete, but not immediately). I think Cref2 is the wrong answer to a deeper problem (regarding the use of footnotes), but as it is not entirely useless as a palliative it should be kept for the duration. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One thing that I was able to do with this was nest named references that were not appearing anywhere else in the text. Cite.php gives an error when one tries to do that (by using #tag:ref or {{refn}} and namedrefs not appearing in the article text). I edited one article (Krishnamurti's Notebook) that used that trick in a couple of notes. However, today I changed the article refs to cite.php to avoid showing that ugly tfd tag. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Incomplete[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 keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is {{expand}} by a different name. While I didn't agree with the result of {{expand}}'s last TfD, it stands to reason that the consensus there should be applied here. {{incomplete table}} and {{incomplete list}}, along with {{expand section}}, point at specific improvements that can be made to an article. This one basically says it isn't finished yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of the justification (poor as it was) for getting rid of {{Expand}}, was that {{Incomplete}} could be used. Note that it is recommended that a "reason" field is used. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Since the "expand" template has now been deprecated, the "incomplete" template should be deprecated also. I agree that it would be better to use the more specific templates that are noted above, because "incomplete" is too vague and, in all practicality, could be placed on almost every article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "incomplete table" would have to be made a stand alone template, as it calls on "incomplete". --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is exactly the same as {{expand}}.Curb Chain (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Will you people please stop nominating cleanup templates for deletion? Gosh... As stated above, you can't remove Incomplete just because it's the same as Expand(WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Expand was deleted because it was the same as Incomplete. Unless there is some other template that has the same purpose, I don't see why this template should be deleted. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Blake said. A little crossover between templates is not a bad thing, it allows us to be more specific about the needs of the labelled section. Master Deusoma (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just used this myself. Not only does this flag editors for assistance, it also lets readers know that important sections of articles are missing. It is our duty to warn readers when articles have potholes so severe as to give them a biased or severely-lacking assessment of the subject. ThemFromSpace 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Themfromspace says, this template serves a valid need to inform readers that vital parts of an article about a subject are missing and thus the article might misrepresent certain aspects without actually violating NPOV or being intentionally biased. Regards SoWhy 14:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is that it doesn't "inform readers that vital parts of an article about a subject are missing", at least not in current use. It just does the same thing {{expand}} did, and while I didn't have a problem with that it seemed that the community disagreed. At the very least a mandatory reason field needs to be added if the comments regarding informative value are to carry any weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm opposed to the community's habit of deleting cleanup templates just because they happen to be slightly redundant to another existing template. I've said it before and I'll say it again: variety, having multiple options to choose from, multiple ways to say the same thing, is a good thing, particularly when it comes to cleanup templates. It may not be for things such as policy/guideline pages.. but for cleanup templates it's a poor reason to delete, IMO. -- œ™ 14:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not because it's similar to an "existing template": it's because it's similar to a deleted template {{Expand}} was deleted because it was too vague and didn't have a clear scope for use: in its present form this template suffers from exactly those faults. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In its default form, this template is useless: every Wikipedia article needs expansion now and always. Nonetheless, it accepts an argument {{{1|}}} which might read "section", "paragraph", etc - in that form, it might be somewhat useful in tagging a specific aspect to expand. Furthermore, it places articles tagged for expansion into a special category. I haven't looked closely enough to be sure about this, but my thought is that you should revise the template to suppress the display of a message unless parameter 1 is specified, but not suppress the category. Wnt (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or improve. I use this to tag specific suggestions for improvement on talk pages. There's a need for such a tag in order to automatically make lists of articles on certain topics with actionable expansion suggestions, e.g. for WikiProject use. -- Beland (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I'm reading this correctly, was {{expand}} deleted and this template is likely going to be kept solely because {{expand}} was nominated first? If the two templates are exactly the same, and {{expand}} was deleted and this will be kept for that same reason, I'd argue we should have/should be debating which template to keep, not blindly have two deletion discussions that consider their respective situations in isolation. Morgan Wick (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can read the TfD for {{expand}} if you want. Only one editor brought up {{incomplete}} in that discussion; and as SoWhy correctly pointed out at the time, "{{incomplete}} is just another variant of {{expand}}". The closing decision is long and considered and goes into quite specific detail as to why the template was deleted. This should really have been a co-nom at the time, but it was presumably missed because it had about two orders of magnitude fewer transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's useful to have a template for articles that are incomplete because it informs people about articles that are in need of improvements to make them more comprehensive, and hence, more encyclopedic. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:14, 13 October 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:Laconia[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) 01:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer needed, due to a recent reform of local government areas in this area. While Wikipedia keeps articles on defunct municipalities, a navbox which intermingles current and obsolete ones is not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same goes for all other templates in the Category:Greece prefecture templates, except {{Infobox Pref GR}} and {{Prefectures of Greece}}. Markussep Talk 11:47, 4 October 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:LSD[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) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template with no purpose given. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unusedCurb Chain (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Had included a copyvio, now is only three letters. Even if it were used it would serve no actual purpose, as three letters is actually less effort than writing the template. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 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:Kung Fu Panda character[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) 01:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kung Fu Panda character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Usages replaced by {{infobox character}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:13, 4 October 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:Beceni, Buzău[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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beceni, Buzău (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{Buzău County}} which is in use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template should not be deleted but included in the relevant articles i.e for Beceni, Buzău and the component villages. The template is not redundant with {{Buzău County}} which list the communes in Buzău County while the present template lists the villages which are components of Beceni commune and identifies the neighboring communes.Afil (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such relevant articles. We don't have articles about villages in Romania, any content about those villages is included in the respective commune.- Andrei (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on villages in many countries including countries neighboring, such as Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary. There is no justification to considering Romania as less important country, who does not deserve to have articles on the villages. Why are the villages of Botswana and Bangladesh more important that those in Romania? Andrei Stroe does not state that the articles - even if stubs - on the villages have first been deleted by Biruitorul, because he does not want any articles on the villages. This deletion (actually a replacement with a redirect from the village to the commune) has not been the object of a discussion. There is also the question why villages in Romania can have articles in the Romania wikipedia and also in other language wikipedias (Italian, Russian, Bulgarian a.o) but not in the English wikipedia.

Attitudes against any country (and in this case anti-romanian attitudes) should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Afil (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and can we please comment on content, not on the contributor? This is not a question of "anti-romanian attitudes", or of "considering Romania as less important country", it's a matter of logical consensus achieved between a number of users. As Andrei notes, here at en.wiki we simply fold content on component villages into articles on the parent communes, and redirect so readers can find the villages. It's more efficient, it reflects the fact that villages have no administrative status and essentially always have so few sources on them that they can be covered at the parent commune article, and avoids a sticky problem — administrative centers of communes almost always have the same names as the communes themselves, so there's no practical way to distinguish between them. Please, let's give this a rest already. - Biruitorul Talk 06:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not true. At en.wiki "we" do not fold content on component villages into articles of parent communes. It is only Biruitorul who does it and he singles out Romanian villages. He leaves the Polish, Bulgarian, Bangladeshi and other villages have separate articles from the communes. Second, it is not true that villages have few articles on them that can be covered. If Biruitorul had some knowledge about Romania and had consulted the Romanian language Wikipedia he would have found out that many villages have extensive articles separate from the ones on the commune. Most villages have their own history. Third, there are not only cases in which the communes have different names, but the villages in a commune have different names than the ones of the commune. The administrative structure of a country changes. There are many villages who have been separated and have formed an independent commune. In other cases communes have been merged. The statements of Biruitorul are incorrect, they reflect a superficial knowledge of the realities of Romanian communes and as stated before are extremely discriminatory as he applies them exclusively to Romania, though the same arguments could be made for other countries. I definitely consider that any discrimination in Wikipedia is not acceptable. This has nothing to do with personal attacks which I have avoided. But the proposal of systematically eliminating Romanian villages (and only Romanian villages) from en:Wiki and even advocating this is a form of discrimination. Afil (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Yes, per consensus we do fold content on component villages into parent commune articles if those villages are in Romania, for the logical reasons outlined above.
2.) Technically it's incorrect that I single out Romanian villages: I've done the same thing for the Republic of Moldova. More to the point, I leave other articles alone because a) I feel like it b) I'm not concerned with them and c) I have no idea what administrative divisions are used by those countries. It doesn't concern me, and so long as we have a uniform structure concerning Romania alone, I'm comfortable with that.
3.) For one, actually, the amount of usable, citable material on most villages is quite small. For another, let's not bring up those "extensive articles", which are by and large unsourced cruft. And finally, let's drop the personal attacks ("If Biruitorul had some knowledge about Romania...").
4.) You don't really have a point here, since all your concerns are trivially addressed within the current structure:
a.) Sure, none of the villages in Drajna Commune is called "Drajna". But whether the reader types in Drajna or Drajna de Jos or Drajna de Sus or Ogretin or what have you, he still ends up at the correct place. And he is still told what the commune is named, what its villages are and what the administrative center is.
b.) Yes, some villages are split off to form separate communes. And we note that. When Racşa was split off from Oraşu Nou Commune, we (actually I) gave it its own article. Every commune has an article, and if, say, Remetea Oaşului village also gets split off from Oraşu Nou, it too will get an article.
c.) Yes, some communes have been merged. And where that happens, if the information is available, we note it.
5.) I vigorously and unabashedly advocate systematic merger and redirect of all Romanian villages into their parent commune articles, and not only do I advocate it, I have done so robustly, zealously and thoroughly. No, this does not stem from "superficial knowledge of the realities of Romanian communes". And no, it's certainly not a case of "discrimination", even if you repeat the word three times, and even if you label it "extreme discrimination" (the horror!). It's simply a matter of logic, efficiency and how we arrange content. I welcome and encourage contributions on Romanian villages; I and others only ask that it be presented at the parent communes' articles, not separately. This is really a rather sterile issue and in any case doesn't require the kind of alarm seen above. - Biruitorul Talk 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I resent the we, when there is no consensus reached on the issue. The entire action has been done only by user "Biruitorul" - no nead to use the royal "we" as if this was done by a collectivity. And it was done only for Romanian language speeking countries - Romania and Moldova. The question which I was asking is why is there a different policy for these two countries from the one which is applied to other countries where village articles are acceptable. All the arguments presented by Biruitorul simply indicate that - in his opinion - Romanian speeking villages are not worthy of separate articles. This is however not valid for Bulgarian, Polish, Ukrainian, Hungarian and other countries. Is that not a discrimination? In Ro:wiki all villages have their own articles and this is the result of the extensive work of a team - carried out several years ago - in a separate Wikiproject. Why are Biruitorul's arguments valid for en:Wiki and not for Ro:wiki, where of course there is much more knowledge about the information which can have encyclopedic value. How can anybody consider that making a rule which is valid only for two countries and simply discarding the work done by a team of wikipedians who live and know the realities of their own country better than Biruitorul - whatever his claims - be anything than a discrimination which reflects a negative view of these countries. Stop pretending otherwise!Afil (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'm not using the royal we; several users agreed on this course of action. I won't name names, but I will point out that one participated in this very discussion.
2) It's not a question of policy, and certainly not one of "discrimination" (can we drop that irrelevant charge already?). It's simply a matter of what fits best for Romania (and Moldova). Given the reasons above (I won't restate them, but I can if you wish), we (and yes, this means multiple people) decided it would be best to stop at the commune level for separate articles, and cover whatever there is to cover on villages within those articles. (In a similar manner, editors decided not to have separate articles on the barangays of the Philippines; there are a couple hundred such articles, but 99.6% of barangays do not and will not have articles.)
3) I neither know nor particularly care what administrative system exists in Bulgaria or Hungary or Ukraine; it may be that a more logical system for arranging locality articles for those countries can be devised, but I'm not going to delve into the matter. I'm concerned with Romania, where discussion has determined the best course.
4) I also don't particularly care what goes on at ro.wiki. But I do know that their project is not markedly improved by having permastubs called Comuna Corbu, Constanța, Corbu, Constanța, Luminița, Constanța and Vadu, Constanța when whatever relevant there is to be said about the subject can be said in one article at Corbu, Constanţa. I will also say that I did by hand as a one-man team precisely what they did by bot, only arranging the material differently; that I "discarded" nothing (I didn't touch their work on ro.wiki); and that no, there isn't perforce "much more knowledge about the information which can have encyclopedic value" at ro.wiki, given the very vague grasp of WP:V, WP:N, WP:PSTS, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and other policies their editors seem to have.
5) Again, kindly refrain from personal attacks and insinuations about who lives and knows the realities of their own country better than I, about the alleged dubiousness of my claims, about "discrimination" (that word again) and about my alleged "negative view" of Romania and Moldova. This churlish diversion isn't scoring you any points. I do what I do based on reason, not sentiment, and in any case, my sentiments toward those countries are very positive. Simply wishing to cover their villages in a certain way doesn't say anything about what I think of them, and I do wish you'd stop before I have to take further action. It's very simple: comment on content, not the contributor, don't raise baseless charges, don't impute false motives, do focus on the matter at hand, and do drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Biruitorul Talk 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a discussion, it should have taken place within Wikipedia, which is not the case. Other discussions should not be relevant, because Wikipedia discussions should pe open to all.
It does not matter what you care about or what you don't care about. There has to be a policy on what type of geographical entities can have articles. And this general policy should be applied to all countries. It is not possible to have a different approach for the same entities in different countries. This policy should be the result of a wikipedian discussion.
I was not discussing the quality of the articles in ro:wiki, simply the fact that other wikipedians have found that information about Romanian villages have encyclopedic value of their own. There is no reason to consider that you are superior to the wikipedians of Romania. And I think that it is unfair to state that they do not grasp the notions of Wikipedia, and that you are the only one who does. But they have better access to information regarding their own country and their opinion should not be discarded. Of course, the wikipedia of each language is a separate entity, but the principles of Wikipedia are the same for all languages. It is not possible to consider that a certain subject has encyclopedic value in one language and not in another. And I also consider that Romanians know more about Romania, Germans about Germany and Australians about Australia, and therefore their opinion should matter.
You have no right to threaten me. I was simply stating that you should not unilaterally take a decision on how to handle a certain group of articles. And that any decision should not be focused on any particular country, group, nation. All countries should be considered equal and treated as such. Having a way of handling countries you "care about" and a different one about countries you "don't care about" should not be acceptable in Wikipedia.
As a conclusion, I think that this matter should be treated in a consistent way for en:wiki and a consensus should be reached in an open (not private) discussion on which geographic entities should have their own articles. It is not a question if your or my opinion is correct. It is simply a question of how this matter is handled in Wikipedia for all the countries of the world, a decision which is based on a generalized discussion, not in a discussion regarding Beceni, Buzău. Afil (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Oh, but there have been on-wiki discussions. This one springs to mind right away, but there have been others as well.
2) Actually, a country-by-country approach makes far more sense, simply because "village", "commune", "town", "county" and so forth mean different things in different countries. I would say, somewhat less arbitrarily, that having a local government implies notability. Thus, each of the communes of France is notable, even if over half of them have under 500 residents. Each of the civil parishes in England is notable, even those that are villages (Kewstoke, Rawcliffe, Onecote, etc). But Romanian villages do not self-administer, which is just one element that makes them not notable enough for a separate article. As I said, the same may or may not be true for Bulgaria or Ukraine or Macedonia, but the key, in my view, is consistency within countries (which Romania and Moldova now have), not across all 193 UN member states.
3) I never claimed superiority, or that "only" I understand the apposite policies. All I said that a lot of the material there was sub-par, and that in any case, whatever relevant information there is on villages easily fits into commune articles.
4) This is not a question of rights or of threats. Just a simple statement that further comments on the contributor and not on content will require administrative intervention, whether you like it or not. I'm here to have a rational discussion, not to listen to nonsense about what you think is inside my head.
5) Given that a global discussion is probably not forthcoming and would be unproductive, considering each country has its own territorial-administrative setup, I say we focus on this particular template again. And given that the villages of Beceni do not and will not have separate articles, considering their lack of inherent notability and our ability to handle any relevant material on them within the article and with redirects, it's high time this weeklong discussion end with a deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 15:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the existing convention is to use the "Foo County" templates (see Category:Romania municipality templates), and this one is simply redundant. If you want to change the convention, start discussion thread somewhere and we can debate the merits of a reformat. Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 12 October 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Barbera[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) 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused specific-source template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:06, 4 October 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.

Abondoned redesign of {{location map}}[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) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago Zocky started a redesign of {{location map}}. He created several subtemplates. It soon became clear that his redesign had problems. He stopped work on the redesign.

In February 2010 two of the subtemplates (marker and rectangle) were brought to TFD. Zocky argued that he was still working on it and it was closed as "keep for now" but with the comment that they "could/should be renominated if not put to some use in article space". A year and a half later Zocky has still not touched them.

In August this year one of the subtemplates was brought to TFD. Zocky was informed of this. He made no comment. It was deleted.

Last week I made a suggestion on Zocky's talk page that he userfy the subtemplates if he really still intends to work on them. I suppose he must be busy in real life since he has not replied. I've just added that I'm bringing them here.

I suggest that they be deleted. This is the list.

JIMp talk·cont 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the linked talk page suggests that these don't work as planned anyway these days? Anyway, sounds like another sensible bit of cleanup given the complete overhaul to the main {{location map}} this summer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:27, 4 October 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:Star Gladiator series[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) 01:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Gladiator series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary navbox for a two-article series. Both articles already link each other repeatedly, starting with the first paragraph of each. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 23:04, 4 October 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_October_4&oldid=1086089358"