Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 25 January 27 >

January 26[edit]

Template:Vector-images.com[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) 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vector-images.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and only used for five images. Please replace the license on them and delete this template. (Note: The category for this template is also up for deletion.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced all uses of the template. I agree with the deletion of the template. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that those five are replaced. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (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:Extra album cover[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 Move {{Extra album cover 2}} to {{Extra album cover}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra album cover (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another suggestion: Move Template: Extra album cover 2 to this name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete of current version and rename of Extra album cover 2 to Extra album cover. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (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:MSWWiki[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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for linking to an unrelated (non-Wikimedia) wiki about Murder, She Wrote. Since wikis are generally not acceptable as sources and only sometimes as external links, it appears that there would not be many possible uses for this, and those could be handled with regular external links. RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (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:SLWiki[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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for linking to an unrelated (non-Wikimedia) wiki about Second Life. Since wikis are generally not acceptable as sources and only sometimes as external links, it appears that there would not be many possible uses for this, and those could be handled with regular external links. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 2 February 2010 (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:Maros (Mureş) County[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.

This TfD was complicated by canvassing on both sides and by irregular threading practices including comments without signatures that required double-checking to see who said what. Contributors are asked to please, in the future, respect the canvassing guideline and to follow good practices for discussions. Please do not place your comment in the middle of somebody else's, and please remember to sign your notes.

Consensus of responders is that this template should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maros (Mureş) County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are six reasons for deleting this template:

1. The information contained here is substantially a duplicate of Template:Mureş County.

2. There is no such thing as "Maros County". There is Mureş County in Romania, and there was Maros-Torda County in Austria-Hungary (until 1920). The coat of arms used is that of Maros-Torda County, but that entity ceased to exist 90 years ago.

3. Romania has just one official language, Romanian ([1]). To the extent that these places are known by English speakers, they are today overwhelmingly known by their Romanian names.

4. It is true that in places where Hungarians form over 20% of the population, Hungarian is co-official at the local level. However: the county has lots of areas that are under 20% Hungarian, and in any case, the Romanian name takes precedence, as all localities are created by the central government.

5. I should stress that it is proper (indeed worthy) to mention the Hungarian-language names of every place in Transylvania, but within the respective articles (as is presently the case). There's no need to create a special template just to emphasize their Hungarian-ness, though.

6. I don't question that the template was created in good faith, but this seems awfully like an attempt to make it seem as if this county still belonged to Hungary. Well, it doesn't, and we shouldn't be giving that impression.— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

129.10.104.115 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC).— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Redundant to {{Mureş County}}. In every case that I checked, the name given on {{Mureş County}} was the name used for the article, while the name used on this template was a redirect, which suggests that this template represents a minority POV about the proper naming of these localities. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I do not agree with the above remarks.

1.) Alternative geographical names as an encyclopaedic information may have a place in an encyclopaedia, and there is no reson to restrict mentioning of alternatives names on WIKIPEDIA to 1 single usage inside an aricle lead. The template contains this information in a consised form which does not disrupt any article, places as footer. It has nothing to with how a place should be named officially but with how it is actually named beside the majority naming. It is not true that it is substantially a duplicate of Template:Mureş County, as it is only 50% identical. If I delete Romanian names and make an only Hungarian named template, that overlap is zero, but the information misses. The information enables the reader to identify geographical placenames on a certain territory not only village by village. 2.) Maros Megye (Megye being County) has 63.000 results on Google. The Coat of Arms may be changed, but it is clearly indicated that this is a historical coat of arms. The picture is "design element".

3.) The rules on the official language of Romania has has nothing to do with how a place is actually named, it regulates what language should be used in Romania in a specific situation. There is no evidence on how English spaekers know small villages in Romania ( for most likelyhood zero or close to zero information), but this template is an alternative toponym template, which for further information contains Romanian names as well.

    • To the extent places such as Sighişoara or Târgu Mureş are known in contemporary English, they are known by their Romanian names.

4.) Political issues has nothing to do with alternative naming. 5.) I agree that it is proper (indeed worthy) to mention the Hungarian-language names of every place in Transylvania, but disagree that only within the respective articles. I agree that there's no need to create a special template just to emphasize their Hungarian-ness, but I hold that the case here is not such, otherwise there would not be Romanian names at all. Moreover, I consider that the best would be to insert into the alternative name template the German names as well, in order to give information on all relevant naming. 6.) "Honi soit qui mal y pense" A template with alternative names is about information and not about terrirorial claims.

To the opinion of User: RL0919. This is not a minority POV but contains real information how these places are named in a regional, albeit not offical, language.

Off course, the name used on this template is a redirect, to make it possible for the reader to navigate from this template. too. Why we need such a template? If you are English-speaker but with Hungarian or Transylvanian Saxon ancestry and in your family tradition the placenames are kept in the alternative place names, you may need such template. Similarly, dealing with history, you are likely to look at historical maps of Mures county, and you will hardly find any Romanian names before 1918. How do you want to identify these with current names. You can do it easily by this template.

Please note, that this template is one narrow line in the footer, nothing else. More than that, you are absolutely free to open it or keep it closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokarudi (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 January 2010

  • Note: Rokarudi has attempted to stack the vote with a rather inflammatory message to people he knows are likely to agree with him, here and [2].

If letting know other registered users about a proposed deletion is forbidden or unusual, than I am sorry for that. I work in good faith under my user name .

My opinion is that a free encyclopaedia should not be primarily restrictive, so there should be a very good reason to ban something. I do not see such a good reason here. If you can have an alternative names article or list as cited why an alternative name template is unrelevant. Sighisoara is indicated as Sighisoara in the relevant aricle, the template is an alternative toponyms template where English-speaking readers have a chance to identify placenames otherwise than officil names. If they are not interested, they are free not to open it. Rokarudi 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"and there was Maros-Torda County in Austria-Hungary (until 1920)" By this standard I'm afraid nothing can be taken seriously as said by the IP. Hungary already severed any links with Austria in 1918 so there was no more "Austria-Hungary" after 1918, just Hungary (as can be seen in all the relevant articles). And in what article this template is used and what's exactly the problem with it? Apart from, you know ultra-paranoid xx party style comments such as "to make it seem as if this county still belonged to Hungary." That's a little over the top even for an IP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, strike comment six (although, yes, calling it "Maros County", using the coat of arms of a county from the Kingdom of Hungary, and starting off with Hungarian-language names does perhaps give one the impression that the territory in question is in Hungary) and replace 1920 with 1918. We are not debating the precise date when sovereignty was transferred to Romania; what is clear is that this area has been part of Romania for roughly 90 years. The other points still stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.4.157 (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add a further reason for deletion: the slippery slope. Having templates like this one for each county in Transylvania, plus a bunch with German names, plus two with Turkish names for counties in Dobruja (and one with Russian names), plus a couple with Serbian names in the Banat... Well, you get the picture. Templates of this sort are for navigating among localities by their common (ie, official) names, not for encompassing every possible name they have had from the various linguistic groups who happen to inhabit them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.4.157 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template was proposed for deletion with the assertion that it is redundant to {{Mureş County}}. From the IP comments, it is clear that the real problem is not redundancy at all, but on the contrary, the additional information (Hungarian names) it contains compared to {{Mureş County}}. the use of alternative names is regarded as an defiance of the territorial sovereinty of Romania, which is not at all intended and not at all done. If the template is inserted in an article no naming guidlines are violated as the article itself remains the same. If someone is scrupuluos, it may be named as toponyms of Mures County in Hungarian and Romanian or similar and in the article you will not see only Romanian names. Only if someone wants to know more than official names, he/she opens the template (this is freedom). No one can decide that a collection of alternative geographical names (individually used in articles, collectively in lists) for a specific territory lacks evey encyclopaedic information.

Actually, the redundancy is the main problem. We are here to promote simplicity and accuracy, not to defend any country's territorial integrity. That said, the impression given by the template in its current form is misleading, and it is indeed redundant for navigational purposes, as English speakers are far more likely to be looking up localities by their Romanian names (and for those seeking Hungarian names, we have redirects). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.4.157 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of an English speaker's lookig for Chibed is practically the same as of looking for Kibéd: 0.000000000000000001, for Mures County's villages in general 0.0000000001. If he/she does, then no statictics prove, only good sense of promoters of monolinguism, that they would consider a chance of knowing the neighborhoods alternative placenames as an obviously redundednt information. If you consult English Wikipedia before going to Galilee, being Turkish you are likely to look first for hebrew placenames with latin writing, if you happen to be from Pakistan, you may prefer to know arabic names for you are more familiar with arabic writing. I do not fill up articles with Hungarian names. ONLY ONE LINE IN THE BOTTOM with only one Hungarian name (Maros) consisting of 5 letter.Rokarudi 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"To the extent that these places are known by English speakers", Romanian is preferred. I agree Chibed is largely unknown, but Sighişoara is not. And again, this is not about promoting monolingualism, but about avoiding redundancy. Also, I might add that some areas in the county are over 90% ethnic Romanian, so those are in fact nearly monolingual. Finally, if we are to bring up Galilee, I will point out that the articles for that region have just one template, with names in Hebrew or Arabic (keeping in mind that the two are co-official in the State of Israel, unlike in Romania, where there is a single official language), but not both. The two-template solution you have imposed seems unknown in Wikipedia, and begs the question of whether it is really needed. - 146.243.4.157 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 146.243.4.157, Exactly, this the point here. Bagalil, ein b'aya, y'holeem ledaber b'ivrit v gam be'aravit. You can call places as local people call it, Tz'fat in Hebrew, Afula in Arabic. Europe is different, here linguistic assimilation is still the general rule and objective of dominant ethnies. For Transylvania, the article title is always in Romanian even if 100% of the population is Hungarian, Hungarfian editors accepted and respect it, although for South-Tirol with 5 times less minority speakers, minority naming is the rule. On the other hand, Hungarian placenaming is regional and not local, everything has an alternative Hungarian name. Israel is a lot more free than Romania and Europe in term of fair linguistic practices. There are everywhere bilingual signs in Israel, in private life including business no official language is imposed on non-hebrew speakers. For English Wikipedia, which is the 'global' encyclopaedia, with readers of different background, it is useful that the chance is given to see things from more than one side until order is kept and articles are not disrupted. The bilingual Galilee template is an excellent idea, this will be my next undertakling: Hebrew names with Latin and Hebrew writing, Arabic names with Latin and Arabic writing :)Rokarudi 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

  • I think it should be converted to a LIST. A list of the Hungarian-Romanian names of the mentioned settlements. OR the originial {{Mureş County}} template should contain the Hungarian names too. And, btw, the template is not correct. Some settlements are missing, but the template is included in their article. --Perfectmiss (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Perfectmiss, Thanks for trying to help a compromise. I also thought of a list. The reason why I made a template was to use the same technique as done with the "official names", as it is more transparent. If the "official" data were in a list, I would have made a list, too. Practically, in terms of content a template containing alternative and official toponyms is identical with a list containing the same. The problem of the IP was not where the toponyms are contained, in a list or in a template, but that they may appear in a setting in which only Romanian names ought to be used in his view. Alternative placenames must be hidden in some very general list unrelated to any concrete aricles. If I made an embedded list and put it under the same village stubs with "see also Maros (Mures) County with Hungarian-Romanian placenames", the result would be the same. Both template and list are tools only to group related articles. The declared reason for the proposal of deletion was not at all form but the "redundant" content, therefore, a list with the same content is not less redundant than the template. I respect naming conventions, this is why I did not touch the Romanian template, and left the Romanian template the prominent first place on the pages. As I do not want disrupt articles or give excessive prominence to Hungarian names, I chose template as a form, because I thought that a one-line template in the footer can not make any harm, or cause confusion.

Can you please tell me which settlements are missing?

  • Redirect to Template:Mureş County. While pages about the "Maros" region are O.K. as redirects to the main "Mureş" pages, separate pages for the two (including templates) would suggest that they cover slightly different subjects. Which is totally wrong. A given place on Earth at a given time has but one identity, even if alternate names are used. It is a historical fact that most of the places in Transylvania had two or three names (Hungarian, Romanian, German), which are still used either for the tradition's sake, either because some of their inhabitants cannot speak Romanian, but any of the other two languages. However, the region of Transylvania belongs to Romania since the 1940s at least, and since Romania's only official language is Romanian, the Romanian toponym should receive first priority in any reference about contemporary geography. And since there's a single identity for the Mureş county, but more than one name, all pages regarding this subject should mainly use the Romanian toponym and keep Maros as a redirect. This is actually valid for the article Mureş County, therefore the respective template should redirect as well. (Impy4ever (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep The background of the nominator strongly suggests a POV-pushing agenda. Obviously, this template is a very important and there is no reason what so ever to delete it.--Nmate (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty weak argument right there. You know nothing about the "background of the nominator", and that's not relevant to the discussion either. Which, precisely, of the six reasons given for deletion "suggests a POV-pushing agenda"? The desire to avoid redundancy? Mention of the fact that Hungarian is not co-official in much of Mureş County? Do tell. Reasons have been given for deletion, and saying something is "obviously" "very important" doesn't seem very convincing (WP:ILIKEIT). We already have a template for navigating the communes of Mureş County; we don't need a second one that performs the exact same function, except for an entity ("Maros County") that doesn't actually exist and in a language that is not used to refer to those localities in English sources. - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly interested in what you consider pretty weak argument. Also I am not particularly interested in what type of status is for the Hungarian language in Romania. In 2002, Mureş county had a population of 40% Hungarians and this is the only thing that matters to me.
The Wikipedia guidelines also do not tell you to delete relevant alternative names, see Wikipedia:NCGN, general guideline no. 2. A quote: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. IMO "group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" applies to Hungarians in these cases.
I gave my vote to keep this template, which is still valid.--Nmate (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it interests you or not, the official language used in Romania is a factor here - not a deciding factor, but a factor nonetheless. Moreover, have another look at the map - some areas of the county are indeed heavily Hungarian, but others are almost entirely Romanian.
WP:NCGN applies to "Wikipedia articles on places". A template is not an article, and you may wish to re-read a point made three days ago: "I should stress that it is proper (indeed worthy) to mention the Hungarian-language names of every place in Transylvania, but within the respective articles (as is presently the case). There's no need to create a special template just to emphasize their Hungarian-ness, though." - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that a simple google search proves that with smaller settlements the relevance of alternative names in English usage is greater than for big names. eg. Chibed (Romanian) has 13500, while (Kibéd) Hungarian has 7020 google results.Rokarudi 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep or admit the idea. The Template:Maros (Mureş) County accentuates the fact that this county has a multilingual population (and two as majority). The places also have two officially adopted names, and the Romanian is not exclusively the commonly used one. I would suggest this template to be used in Hungarian majority localities or the existing Mureş template to be transformed as a bilingual template. Aakmaros (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies the multilingual nature of the county's population. That should be (and is) emphasized at Mureş County and in articles on individual localities. The question is whether this separate template is really necessary for navigation, and I would suggest it is not. I do like your suggestion of including Magyar names in the existing template, perhaps for localities with over 20% Hungarians. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This template should be kept, but edited because it obviously fails WP:NPOV right now. If you look at Mureş County, the ethnic Hungarians are sizable minority, but a minority nonetheless. I support a bilingual template, but it's clearly wrong to have the Hungarian names wikilinked and the Romanian ones in parentheses, when all the Hungarian links are redirects to the Romanian-titled articles. Pcap ping 03:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But do we really need to have two separate templates with essentially the same navigational function? Why not, if we must (and no one seems to have complained about the Romanian-only template until now), write in the existing one "Iernut  • Luduş (Marosludas)  • Miercurea Nirajului (Nyárádszereda)  • Sângeorgiu de Pădure (Erdőszentgyörgy)  • Sărmaşu (Nagysármás)  • Sovata (Szováta)  • Ungheni", indicating Hungarian names for places where that language is co-official? - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a single biligual template would be okay. Some of the lists might have to be separate because of the sorting issue: the Hungarian names might a little hard to find because they wouldn't be in alphabetical order. I'm a little worried about the coat of arms in the Hungarian one though. It differs from the Romanian one for some reason, and it looks anachronistic, if not irredentist. Pcap ping 04:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per initial request and

1. Let's be honest - Romania has 41 counties (judeţe) and each of them has a template of this kind in the same way. Why should we be using here the Hungarian name and indicating the Romanian ones just as an alternative?

2. Once again : the only official language in Romania is Romanian. The Hungarian names must be indicated, but, inside the articles. I see no point in acting like Mureş County is part of Hungary. In articles regarding Slovakia - with a similar situation - there is no such discussion about replacing Slovakian names with Hungarian ones or considering the Slovakian names just an alternative.

3. Officialy there exist no Maros County, the official name is Mureş County. To me these kind of attempts seem redundant and we should stop once forever this kind of discussions. --roamata (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Rokarudi is again attempting to sway the result of the discussion; see here: "VOTING on Maros (Mures) County Template". 71.192.241.118 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi's opinion (summary): The original argument against the template was that it is redundant to Mures County template. An additional argument was that the template pushes a minority POV on proper place naming (User:129.10.104.115 and RL0919).

If we deliberate about these arguments in the light of Wiki deletion guidelines, we see that the template may be deleted if it contains completely or largely redundant information compared to Mures County template, or if it violates naming conventions. The content of the bilingual template is Hungarian placenames with their Romanian counterpart, and is currently used as an additional template along with the monolingual Romanian one on pages of settlements where according to naming conventions the mention of the Hungarian name is allowed.

- Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists, and navigation templates. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). There are dozens of exonym lists which contain alternative placenames together with the official ones. With respect to Transylvania as User:146.243.4.157 mentioned, there is e.g. the List of Székely settlements and German exonyms (Transylvania). Templates and lists are not more than methods of organizing information, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. If a great number of exonym list are acceptable, I do not see any reason why an exonym template is, as a principle, excluded. If I make an exonym list with the Hungarian placenames of Mures county, this will be OK, but if I make the same in the technical form of a template is NOT OK. As to redundancy, the problem of opposing editors is not with the repeated Romanian placenames, but with the use of Hungarian toponyms, which is not the ‘redundant’ part. The fact, that both templates takes the reader to the same is not redundancy, as the information contained is different. Being so, the compliance of this template to WP: Naming conventions (geographic names) rules shall be examined instead of arguing with redundancy.

- The real subject of discussuion here is whether Hungarian placenames are acceptable or not in a template for a territory which is not the part of Hungary, but has a sizable Hungarian minority (40% in the county).

First, the naming rules apply for the articles, and not for the grouping of information (lists, templates). If apply, then the naming convention provide that relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. As Mures County has a 40% Hungarian population, the Hungarian language is undoubtedly used regionally. As I cited, Google gives a significant number of results on English pages for Hungarian placenames. Maros Megye (Megye being County) has 63.000 English results, in case of the village name Chibed (Romanian) has 13500, while the name (Kibéd) Hungarian has 7020 google results. The town of Sângeorgiu de Pădure 8160 to Erdőszentgyörgy 1300. Veţca has 7430 to Székelyvécke with 3150.

Moreover, although specifically for Romania, there is not a listed convention for naming, but there is a generally approved practice and it is the following:

Both Romanian and Hungarian names shall appear in the infobox if Hungarian population ≥20. Both Romanian and Hungarian names shall be bold if Hungarian population ≥20, and Hungarian names shall be in Italics anywhere in Transylvania, even if Hungarian population is <20%. The same applies to also German names if applicable. See also: the old naming discussion and compromise at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc.

In the light of the above, I feel that a template containing exonyms for a territory with a sizable minority and relatively widespread use in English sources can be admitted, as it is consistent with the naming rules. Of course, its concrete use in articles may not be POV, excessive or creating an impression that Mures county is more Hungarian than Romanian or it belongs to Hungary etc.

Many reference was made by Romanian editors to the Constitution of Romania. With all respect to it, however, I would also like to refer to European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages to which Romania is a party and which is more specific for the use of regional languages: Article 10 point g.)provides that "in respect of the local and regional authorities on whose territory the number of residents who are users of regional or minority languages is such as to justify the measures specified below, the Parties undertake to allow and/or encourage the use or adoption, if necessary in conjunction with the name in the official language(s), of traditional and correct forms of place-names in regional or minority languages." From this follosw that restrictions on the use of minority or regional language placenames may not be supported by legal arguments.

The argument that the Hungarian names are and shall only placed in the individual articles is not decisive, as template and articles are not of identical character, template s a method of organizing information, in this, grouping alternative exonyms for those interested for navigation purposes. Templates, in their turn, do not alter the articles unless used excessively. A template is only one line in the footer. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The wall of text arguments above about language use and politics have virtually nothing to do with the fundamental problem: redundancy. We have two navigation templates that navigate to the exact same articles. I don't care what language is used for the article titles, nor do I mind if the template includes both languages. But we do not need two redundant navboxes to do this. One of them needs to go, and since one template links to the articles by their actual titles and the other uses redirects, I favor deleting the one that uses redirects. Add the alternate names to that template if it seems helpful to readers navigating the articles; I take no position on that. I am not Hungarian or Romanian and don't give a fig about the political/cultural POVs that are quite obviously motivating a lot of the discussion. Editors who are more interested in international political strife should take their disputes to a different forum. --RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, both templates navigate to the same aricles, but from absolutely different keywords. In geography, different toponyms represent different pieces of information, even if they denote exactly the same place. Two Romanian templates navigating to the same articles, yes, this is per definitionem redundancy. As you seem to use "redundant" as "superflous", could you please give a fig and explain me how you will be navigated to the article "Gheorghe Doja" from the Romanian template if you happen to know the village by its Hungarian name as "Lukafalva" or if you are looking at an 18th century map with Hungarian or German placenames? I think that this is not a simple database integrity problem, but also how to provide easy access to information. I agree that all the political stuff is really unrelevant, but it was put on the table by the IP nominator with 4 previous edits.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example: A map from 1910 or Military Map (Josephinische Landaufnahme) 1782-1785--Rokarudi 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)--Rokarudi 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could, in extremis, type in Lukafalva, and that would take you straight where you want to go—right? 71.192.241.118 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, then, we do not nead the Romanian template either, right? You can also type Romanian names and it also takes you where you want. The point here is not what you say.--Rokarudi 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you look around Wikipedia a little, I think you'll find many articles that have a multitude of redirects pointing to them, but rarely if ever two templates performing more or less the same function. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the Hungarian template is useless. The Hungarian-speaking Wikipedia users may use the Hungarian page. The English page should keep only the official name in Romanian

The autonomous province Vojvodina, where Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, Croatian, Pannonian Rusyn are official languages has a single template, in Serbian. Putting the Hungarian template on English page is a revisionist action (Iaaasi (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Even for Transnistria there is a single template (In Romanian), there isn't an alternative one in Russian (Iaaasi (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]



Following this, Iaaasi and others from the deletion supporters have engaged not only in votestacking on this and other minority names related discussions, but in wikihouding as well. Sorry, but this has nothing to do with a simple redundancy discussion, this is absolutely different and shows the real intentions hidden under the surface of redundancy objections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gomezko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yopie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this messy template. The user roamata already said what is was to say. --Olahus (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kardzhali Province (Bulgaria): Turks 61.649% Template "Municipalities of Kardzhali Province" ONLY in Bulgarian

Transnistria (Moldova): 2/3 Rus + Ukr, 1/3 Moldovans Template "Cities and communes of Transnistria" ONLY in Moldovan

Also the districts in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have templates ONLY with greek names, even if most of the population is formed Of Turkish(Iaaasi (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2010 (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:Galánta (Galanta) 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 Improper nomination, as the template was never tagged. Feel free to renominate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Same reason like the template above[reply]

  • Delete with reason as above.--Yopie (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nationalists from successor states of Austria-Hungary push their dominant ethnie POV using Wikipedia slang and raising technical issues to wrap up their agenda.The only relevant meaning is placenames shall appear publicly on the language of dominant ethnies.--Rokarudi 09:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Avatar (film)[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 Speedy close. Deletion of this template was just discussed and closed as "Keep". Renaming is not typically an issue for TFD unless a merge is involved. If the move is uncontroversial, any editor can complete it. If there is a controversy or administrative assistance is needed (such as moving over an existing redirect), place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Avatar (film) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rename to Template:Avatar (2009 film) To match the film name Avatar (2009 film), since there are multiple Avatar films, and renaming it would make it easy to figure out the template associated with the film. 76.66.195.93 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (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:Avatar[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 Speedy close. Renaming is not typically an issue for TFD unless a merge is involved. If the move is uncontroversial, any editor can complete it. If there is a controversy or administrative assistance is needed (such as moving over an existing redirect), place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

RENAME to Template:Avatar: The Last Airbender. Matching the title of the main article, and gets rid of a title that has been highly contentious in articlespace (Talk:avatar), and also for the second most popular film in history {{Avatar (film)}} (Avatar (2009 film)) 76.66.195.93 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2010 (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:GP3 Seasons[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. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GP3 Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template to cut down on link listis, but has only one link in it? Should wait until there was more than one season. Falcadore (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it up when that is in place, but three articles is still too few for such a template IMHO. This should not be put in place until at least a second series has started. We do not have even one race completed yet. --Falcadore (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::I think that we can wait slightly less than four months before the first race. Cybervoron (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For once I agree with Falcadore, I don't think this template is necessary with so few links on it. A much better idea would be to merge it onto the GP2 Series template. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support your idea of a merger. Cybervoron (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose merge - fundamentally different series. Redirect the template to a Template:GP3 until there are enough seasons to support one. Build a GP3 template with links to appropriate articles (chassies, series, FIA, etc) 76.66.200.154 (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are no more fundamentally different than GP2 and GP2 Asia. They are run by the same organisation and GP3 news is directly posted on the official GP2 Series website. I think they are pretty closely linked to be honest and GP3 does not really need its own template, it's just silly for so few links. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (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:Trainweb[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 Withdrawn by nom after changes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The license does not allow derivative works and has be deleted on commons IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unlike Commons, English Wikipedia can have files that are non-free content (typically under fair use guidelines), so the limitation of the license doesn't necessarily imply deletion here the way it might on Commons. --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • then someone turn the template into a non-free template, re word it or replace it with a redirect to a appropriate non-free template.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2010 (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:1998 Atlanta Falcons NFC Championship[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) 14:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1998 Atlanta Falcons NFC Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was nominated for deletion but with other templates, and not much discussion before it was kept. Those other templates it was listed with have since been deleted, and I think this one should be as well. This is the only template I'm aware of for a runner up. We have templates for teams that won championships, but the NFC championship is not notable enough for a template, given that the winner has to play in the Super Bowl two weeks later. Muboshgu (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete from a Falcons fan. There are too many of these sort of templates, anyway, and making them for conference championships will increase the clutter that exists at the bottom of easily hundreds of pages. Does anyone ever actually use these for navigation anyway? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:06, 31 January 2010 (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/2010_January_26&oldid=1079614037"