Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:21, 24 September 2006

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

Template:Serbian speaking states

Almost as silly as the template below with the Romanian speaking states and created following its example. bogdan 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well. Dahn 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 17:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although, I was the one who created it to make Vojvodina article more NPOV, since template Romanian speaking states is posted there. As soon as Romanian speaking states template is deleted, delete this one too. PANONIAN (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian speaking states

The template is controversial at best: it lists a country who does not recognize Romanian as an official language, together with an international organization were Romanian is, at best, a working language (and where speaking Romanian is certainly not the criteria for inclusion), and a region inside Serbia were Romanian is one of the many working languages. Template also gently glosses over the fact that a Moldovan language has been theoretized by the Moldovan government to exist as opposed to Romanian (as specified in the article on Moldova, where the arguably NPOV text is in blantant contradiction with the advocacy of the template discussed here). Let me make it clear that I personally do not endorse the view that Moldovan and Romanian are different, and that my reasons (since these have already been subject to speculation on my talk page) have to do only with consistency and neutrality. Dahn 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania has Romanian as it's only official and national language. Then, Moldova lists Moldovan language as it's official language, although it is widely considered to be Romanian language. Education is provided in Romanian (there is no such thing as Moldovan language in schools); Mass Media, Internet all use the term Romanian; also the law on languages of Moldova asserts the identity between Romanian and Moldovan.[1] Even the most critical source says Moldovan is just the name used to describe "officialy" Romanian language in Moldova. According to the census in 2004, even if Romanian is taken separately from Moldovan, still 22% of the Romance-speakers in Moldova consider they speak Romanian (not Moldovan), that percent rising up to 40% in the cities.[2] (See also Romanian language#Legal status in Moldova, Moldovan language). In Vojvodina Romanian is one of the six official languages, equal in rights with the Serbocroatian language according to the law. The Latin Union is the organisation of the romance languages: both Moldova and Romania are member states of the organisation and Romanian (only Romanian, not Moldovan) is one of the 5 offcial languages of the organisation. Any yes, speaking Romanian (or another Romance language) is a criteria for inclusion, see Latin Union. --Danutz 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Education is provided in Romanian" - so is education in Hungarian in parts of Romania.

"(there is no such thing as Moldovan language in schools), Mass Media, Internet"; also the law on languages of Moldova asserts the identity between Romanian and Moldovan. Even the most critical source says Moldovan is just the name used to describe "officialy" Romanian language in Moldova." - so? is there a document that stresses Romanian is the official language? No. Again, I draw the same conclusions, but they are personal ones, empirical ones, not subject from a template. As I have attested before: an ambiguity in Moldovan law remains precisely that - "an ambiguity", not cause for "my certainty" and "your certainty".

"In Vojvodina Romanian is one of the six official languages, equal in rights with the Serbocroatian language according to the law." - note the switching of criteria - Vojvodina has Romanian as an official language, therefore it is a Romanian-speaking territory; Moldova does not have Romanian as an official language, but it must be a Romanian-speaking country...

"Any yes, speaking Romanian (or another Romance language) is a criteria for inclusion, see Latin Union" - well, since Portugal was not admitted for having Romanian as an official language (as Danutz himself points out in the in-parantheses part of his reply), inclusion of the Latin Union in the template is misleading and point-gathering in its purpose; furthermore, the Latin Union may have Romanian as an official language, but it is not a working language (as you may find out from the French version of the article) - since the EU will have Romanian as both a working and offical language in the near future, I guess it will be included in the template as well! (I am guessing that, according to the criteria devised, several European-wide bodies already belong in there).

Bottom line: templates shouldn't ever rely on subjectivity, especially when they are contradicting the text of the articles they are included in. Dahn 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the navigational use of a template that will probably always have 4 (four) articles included in it, of which one is obvious (Romania), one is determined by the solid rules of divination (Moldova), one is taken out of context (Vojvodina, where the template would call for the rapid creation of some 6 others just to match the actual language landscape), and one is a mislabelled (the Latin Union). I also fail to understand the necessity behind a template that lists "states, territories and organizations" (note: it is not even made clear what sort of organization, allowing me to include football clubs, trade unions, and perhaps a topless bar as well), when in fact in includes the impressive list of "1 (one) organization; 1 (one) territory; 2 (two) states". All of the issues the template could possibly address are already present and referenced in countless articles, without any such oversimplification. Dahn 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, education in Moldova is provided in Romanian not Moldovan. There is no such thing as Moldovan in education. Romanian is official in Romania, Moldova (although under another name, but it is a consensus it is just Romanian renamed, that even an official consensus, see law on languages), Vojvodina and the Latin Union (what if Romanian isn't a working language, it is an official language). Yes, EU will also be included from 2007. --Danutz 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the laws of Moldova does it say that Romanian is the or at least an official language in Moldova? Without divination, please. Dahn 12:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::Romanian language was official in the constitution between 1989-1994. Now, even if it is not mentioned in the constitution that is "official" it is written: "the low that regulates the official language of R. of Moldova is the one approved in 1989." So, it's still official also with this constitution. Blaga. Sockpuppet of permabanned user:Bonaparte. Dahn 13:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I changed the template so it reflects this:)) lol. It says "Nations, territories and organisations with Romanian (or Moldovan) as an official language". That way everything is official, see the Template:Romanian speaking states. --Danutz 13:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Perfect. Now go and add Transnistria, and ponder the absurd implications of "Romanian (or Moldovan)" in that context.</sarcasm> Dahn 13:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What's next, {{French speaking states}}, {{German speaking states}}, or {{Swahili speaking states}}? The list would go on forever. —Khoi khoi 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the reasons presented up here. And why not have templates like French speaking states, German speaking states, Spanish speaking states and so on? --Danutz 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because all such templates are useless and, in almost every case, subjective. Dahn 12:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since Vojvodina have 6 official languages and since ALL OF THEM ARE EQUAL, this template send a message that Romanian is more equal than other and that is POV pushing. If this template is included into Vojvodina article then I would be forced to make same templates for other 5 official languages (Serbian speaking states, Hungarian speaking states, Slovak speaking states, Rusyn speaking states, Croatian speaking states). However, one can imagine how large revert wars such templates will start, so I am not sure that I want to do it, but there are only two solutions for the problem: either to remove this template either to create other five (and the second option is bad for Wikipedia because it will encourage POV pushing and start revert wars). PANONIAN (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template does not only generate neverending NPOV discussions, but it's also totally useless. It is intended for inclusion in Romanian language (and probably nowhere else), but in that article all the information the template is supposed to provide is already described in detail, without pushing any POV and without making a fruit salad of states, regions, and organizations. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sarcasms notwithstanding, Dahn is right in this case. Dmaftei 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, templates are supposed to be useful for navigation. What's the point in having a template with two countries? bogdan 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Favicon

Delete: Unlike logos, favicons do not tend to uniquely identify entities, and they generally aren't well-known. There's nothing inherently fair-use about them. --Carnildo 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The purpose of favicons (or icons) is to be unique and identifiable. Whether an image is unique and identifiable really comes down to the skill of the artist, and is beyond the scope of TfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newenglandsports

Good intentions, but there are plenty of other means to do this. A template to include in every sports team located in New England? Obsessive. And then there's the aesthetic problems... ccwaters 16:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is just obnoxiously big. Resolute 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Att userpage

I think this template is redundant; there are several other templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace that do a better job, particularly the {{tpv}} series of templates ({{tpv0}}, {{tpv1}}, etc). Also, the wording doesn't conform to the standard user talk namespace template conventions; it's harsh enough to be a level 3 or 4 warning. Lastly, it's unused, but to be fair it was just created today. Aaron 16:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — purpose served by other standard templates as per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - yes I know I created it, but i really think it could be useful, if it gets into wider usage --Frogsprog 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common vandal

Text ("Some editors really do not like this article. And we mean, really!") inconsistent with title. No useful purpose, borders on disruptive. — ERcheck (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — ERcheck (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep, I think it's effective, I didn't create the actual tag myself, I just put it on a template page. Don't delete, I think it could work on articles that are frequently vandalised --Frogsprog 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 I think this template is redundant; there are several other templates in [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]] that do a better job, particularly the {{tl|tpv}} series of templates ({{tl|tpv0}}, {{tl|tpv1}}, etc). Also, the wording doesn't conform to the standard user talk namespace template conventions; it's harsh enough to be a level 3 or 4 warning. Lastly, it's unused, but to be fair it was just created today.  [[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 16:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' &mdash; purpose served by other standard templates as per nomination. &mdash; [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
+:*'''keep''' - yes I know I created it, but i really think it could be useful, if it gets into wider usage --[[User:Frogsprog|Frogsprog]] 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Common vandal]] ====