Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20

Dubrovnik nobility

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Appears to be a content dispute better resolved somewhere with more participation than obscure TfDs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Nonsense. Zoupan created what is essentially a duplicate template (with all Italian names pointedly) and wants to delete the old ones, that have served just fine for years and years. As for "NPOV", the user doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the city of Dubrovnik, and the nobility thereof, did not evaporate with the Republic of Ragusa: they continued on as nobles (usually counts) of Austria-Hungary. In fact, believe it or not Zoupan, the majority of those families exist today as well (you're talking with a relative).
In short: strong keep. I'm afraid this is a bad-faith, POV-pushing proposal, intended to advance a particular historiographic point of view. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem in deleting obsolete templates? The notability of every single article listed is their Ragusan nobility status. There is no dispute over their importance and part in legacy of Dubrovnik, but using the term "nobility of Dubrovnik" for Ragusan nobility, and then using only Croatian names for these, is not suitable. It is anachronistic. Dubrovnik does not have nobility since long ago. Yes, when parts of the Ragusan nobility entered Austria-Hungary, they became part of that system. Descendants may exist today, but that does not mean that they are "Dubrovnik nobility". One should indeed be proud of his heritage, but not take these kind of things personal. These templates should be scrapped.--Zoupan 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the template isn't "obsolete", but is instead being attacked because you disagree with the name forms used in it. You're deliberately attempting to render it "obsolete", by way of a duplicate template, so as not to have to actually push the changes you want to see. This is about your disagreeing with Wikipedia's use of perceived "neologisms".
Furthermore, it doesn't seem like you thought this through: your template "Republic of Ragusa topics" deals with subjects relating solely to the Republic of Ragusa (1358-1808), whereas the majority of these families have histories since as early as the 12th century, and continued to exist (in one form or another) for 200 years after the fall of the Republic. I.e. its scope appears to be about half the time these families existed. -- Director (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zoupan's duplicate templates or redirects show his particular POV. As for the language, the official language in the Republic of Dubrovnik/Republic of Ragusa was Latin, and both Italian and Croatian were commonly spoken, hence both are at least equal. --Silverije (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Long-standing discussion. Everyone agrees that both Italian and Croatian were spoken in Ragusa, but for some reasons this nobility of Ragusa (Dubrovnik?) is presented mainly using the Slavic variant of the name, which is indeed a neologism. Side note: sources are in favor or using the romance version of the name when referring to those noble Houses. However, the articles do not meet IMHO the minimum requirements of notability and should be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be because Dubrovnik (Ragusa) is a Croatian town? But this illustrates my point from above: what's at issue here are the name forms used in the template, not the template itself. This is an attempt to deliberately try and make the template "obsolete", so as not to have to properly discuss its content, i.e. the said noble surnames (presumably due to lack of relevant arguments: all I've heard is "they're neologisms", which, even if accepted - doesn't matter per policy). -- Director (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Talk-vandal1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was delete. (

non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Adding {{Talk-vandal4im}} belonging to the series. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Outdated and obscure warning templates. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Users are permitted to remove most kinds of warnings, per
    WP:BLANKING. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Chicago Outfit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was relist at Dec 5. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only used in one article. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes So are most of the templates for most crime families. What difference does it make for it? --Donovan Ellis (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Donovan Ellis, which other ones are used in only one article? I would like to nominate those as well. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes Idky you're doing this because either mine or the other crime family templates have violated any rules but its all the five families and some of the other crime families--Donovan Ellis (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Quackers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per

WP:CSD#T2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

violates

WP:SIGNT. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Zoos footer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 7. Primefac (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template seems to be added to every zoo navbox, which is not appropriate use, as the toplcs listed here are too broad to be linked in a geography specific navbox such as {{

talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I see your point, which I partly support, but then logically, the other links maybe also should be removed? Before I express any opionion, which links at the footer would you suggest as alternative? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the topics covered here are "too broad". They are essentially the same topics as are in the left column headings (zoos, aquariums, etc.), and they replace items that would otherwise probably be in the See Also section. Looking at the "Zoos of" templates now, I realize that the footer is actually redundant, since the categories at the left are linked. So if we retain the links on the left, I think this template becomes unnecessary. Don Lammers (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Are your serious Rob? You know there is a discussion ongoing, you are involved in that discussion, and you can see there is no consensus that items on a list which is listed on a template can't have this template. In fact this zoo template is the prime template focused on at the discussion. I put the templates on every zoo article, it is entirely appropriate and immensely useful for the Zoos project and for Wikipedia readers interested in particular zoos, and you once again are taking away weeks of my work for no reason other than you think something is policy when it is not only not a policy, not a guideline, but by ongoing discussion consensus seems perfectly fine. And Dan Koehl is taking your word as template-gospel? Please, Rob or Dan, put the templates back. Thanks.EDIT: strike, it's not the {{Zoos}} template, my mistake and apologies. Randy Kryn 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)/ 16:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have {{Zoos}} why do we need this? We can just have two footers at each article, one like {{Zoos of California}} and the generic {{Zoos}} together -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, the template Zoos footer isn't the same as template zoos. And yes, the {{Zoos}} template seems to me appropriate for each article. Randy Kryn 14:33, 21 November, 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure how to interpret this, are you suggesting a fusion of the two templates, e.g. that the template "Zoos of X-region" should in its footer incorporate the template {{Zoos}}?Dan Koehl (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not suggesting a merger. I am suggesting we use template as other articles uses templates, that is, when appropriate, have more than one template as the footer templates on an article. There is no reason for a regional template to include generic information, when there is a generic template to provide those links. Just use a second template. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this template because I thought these items would be handy to have in individual zoo articles, and I had the same experience as Dan K. (see
    WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I'm lazy, so rather than inserting these entries manually in every single "Zoos of" template, I created this template. I would personally prefer to use the two templates as 70.51.44.60 suggests. Randy K above says this bidirectional rule does not have consensus, but on at least two occasions in the past years, individual zoo articles have gotten modified to remove the second template, based on this rule. Putting at least some of that information "in the same template" (by using the footer) seemed like a better solution than not having any of the information. If we can keep people from editing out the Zoos template, there is no need for this template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, I should have gone back before I posted and looked up the original, which was back in 2012. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo/Archive 3#Zoos template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for whenever there is consensus that an article is improved by transcluding this template. Thincat (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Pitch Perfect film series

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Two films, no series article. Can easily be dealt with through normal linking.

talk) 12:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Scottish dogs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was relisted to Nov 28. Consensus has not been reached, and thus the premature merger has been undone. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:English dogs
.
I propose changing the name of
talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Irish dogs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was relist to Nov 28. The merger has been undone until consensus can be reached (it was headed towards delete but could swing towards merge, hence the relist). Primefac (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:English dogs
.
I propose changing the name of
talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Portimonense S.C.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links only to two stadia. Two blue links, not a useful aid to navigation Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom.
    Portimonense S.C. (football team), without a reason. Portimonense is primarily known for its football team, its amateur sections are not notable. Besides a move like this should have been discussed.--Threeohsix (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Dil Dosti Dance

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was delete. (

non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The template is meant to be for the characters of the fictional show Dil Dosti Dance, but has piped links to the actors and not characters unlike maybe how Template:Desperate Housewives has links to characters. And I don't think we make templates of actors who have worked in a TV show. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Uw-imagepermission

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Less effective than and redundant to {{

Npd}}), which uses {{di-no permission-notice}} to notify users. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a bad template, but it is certainly redundant to {{di-no permission-notice}} (in the case of DI deletions) and a clear explanation of the problem by the FFD or PUF nominator (in the far less common case of nominating a file lacking permission at those venues). What's more, it has barely been used in 6+ years. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was relisted on December 9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template namespace page has been blanked, the corresponding edit summary read "remove for now per

WP:BRD". Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I can't really see any advantage in deleting because a blank notice is treated the same as a deleted notice by the editnotice system. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Bentley Falcons football coach navbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

The result of the discussion was delete. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template", and there isn't an article for the Bentley Falcons football or its coaches. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_20&oldid=1138533347"