Misplaced Pages

:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 28 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Biruitorul (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 3 June 2008 (+). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:34, 3 June 2008 by Biruitorul (talk | contribs) (+)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28

Template:American songs

Template:American songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:Irish_songs and the reasons listed their — Gnevin (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete/rename as it is, it's very POVish. Because its used on several dozen pages, it might be better renamed to Template:Patriotic American songs. Juliancolton 20:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The template is named American songs but the content is reserved for patriotic American songs. There is also a corresponding category and article related to this template. I will repeat here what I wrote in the article's AFD. I feel that this is blatantly original research without any verifiability to support the contention that any of the songs mentioned are patriotic. It seems to me that editors are just adding songs that they personally feel are patriotic to the article, category or template. We have the controversial Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American) listed in the category. We have a civil rights protest song We Shall Overcome in the template. We have the war song The British Grenadiers in the article. What about songs like PT-109 or Lift Every Voice and Sing? What exactly does all these songs have in common that makes them patriotic? Whose patriotism is this? The conservatives? The liberals? The African-Americans? The KKK? The God fearing believer? The atheist? The military? The anti-war protestors? A patriotic song to one is a rebel song to another. There is no clear inclusion criteria to the article, category or template. We have folk songs, gospel songs, war songs, protest songs, even modern pop songs all arbitrarily included as patriotic songs with no consideration to context or subjectivity. Like the article, this template should simply be deleted per WP:OR. --Bardin (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a very handy organizational template. It's not really POV... every song that's listed is well-referenced as being a patriotic American song. (If there are any exceptions, then it's those songs that should be removed from the template.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, on probation "American songs" is clearly over-broad, but "Patriotic music of the United States" (the current title) ought to be tenable. There are many songs that undeniably fit in the category, and it is valuable to have such a navigational aid. On the other hand, I see the border-defining problem. "We Shall Overcome" is a significant song in the history of the U.S., but it is not specifically patriotic. A number of other questionable entries are currently included here. The only solution I can see is that the definition of whether a song is "patriotic" needs to be made by a reliable source, and not by WP. I'd like to give it a chance, but if significant improvement cannot be made, I would support deletion next time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Template:Xenogears

Template:Xenogears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is only one Xenogears article remaining, no need for template Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - A navigation template that... doesn't navigate anywhere. Bin it as pointless due to there only being one article on the subject, and therefore little prospect for the template expanding (and ergo becoming more useful). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:18, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-needed. There are no other Xenogears-related articles, rendering a navigation bar effectively useless. If links to other articles are needed, they can be added in a "See also" section of the Xeneogears article. FusionMix 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I plan to create a Music of Xenogears article detailing the albums released for the game, but two articles would still not be enough to make a template necessary. Kariteh (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Template unneeded. Also, some background info. This game is linked with Xenosaga and the template is redundant to Template:Xenosaga. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Blah lblah blah

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 debate was Speedy Deleted Chrislk02 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Blah lblah blah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be a test template TN‑X-Man 17:05, 28 May 2008 (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:Polish scouting ranks

Template:Polish scouting ranks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is unused, all linked articles were merged into one article. —— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Spain Squad 2008 UEFA Euro

Template:Spain Squad 2008 UEFA Euro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per the WikiProject, neither the regional event (or any other event than FIFA World Cup)) is current nor past, should be use a Template to present the squad. — Matthew_hk tc 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I also nominated Template:Portugal Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Matthew_hk tc 14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Class box Albatros corvette

Template:Class box Albatros corvette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Futile, it is an infobox for an unexistent article. Mojska 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a copy-paste mistake in the link; this is fixed now and I would propose removing the tag. I must admit it's a bit disappointing to have your very first non-anonymous edit shot down one minute after it was posted. Pietrow (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmh... There is a infobox in the article, with the same information of this. That is the official MoS infobox, this is a copy of that template with another style. Sorry, I don't think it is necessary. I wait other opinions. Mojska 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the infobox at the right of the main article? If so, I wasn't aware that this box can be used on List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service; my apologies. Pietrow (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A template created for only two articles is futile. Mojska 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So, I vote for delete this template. Mojska 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well obviously I will leave this to more experienced people. However, I checked other templates and it is probably noteworthy that every single template on List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service is used only there. So if you would like to delete this template perhaps a complete reorder is required. Two examples: and . Pietrow (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current rover mission

Template:Current rover mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Way too narrow in scope. The only two articles that has this template should use a modified {{Current spaceflight}} tag instead. See also TfD for {{Current mars lander mission}} — Kildor (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Romanian historical regions

Template:Romanian historical regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - There is no scientific verifiable source for the information presented in the template, which is just another mere irredentist invention on Misplaced Pages and serves basicly for desinformation of Wikipedians. Romania and all related to the term "Romanian" exists since 1871 (just for general info) — Moldopodo (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - the template serves a legitimate purpose of bringing together the various regions that comprise, or used to comprise, Romania, and are, or have been, unified by a common language, culture, religion, national consciousness etc. Similar templates exist for Prussia, Ukraine and Poland and if this one isn't perfect, the answer is editing, not deletion. I also cannot help but notice a fair amount of bad faith: "just another mere irredentist invention on Misplaced Pages and serves basicly for desinformation of Wikipedians". This is not about "irredentism", it is about history - that some historical Romanian regions happen to be outside the boundaries of present-day Romania is true, but has no bearing on their status as historical Romanian regions. Biruitorul 14:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You, nor anybody else who edited this template has ever provided one single verifiable source neither for the name of the template, nor for its contents. Take Moldova, for example, it has never used Romanian language, Moldavian being official in it since 14th century and it only "lived with" Romania for about 20 years... Let's include Russia in historical German lands as it was occupied by Germans for 4 years during Second World War, or in historical Tatar lands (more years there). Once the evidence is produced for this invention called "Romanian historical lands", a discussion may be most certainly started for proper renaming and further eeventual editions. Unless it is so, it should be deleted--Moldopodo (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. For the same general info, the term "Romania" exists at least from 1816, "Romanian" at least from the XVIth-XVIIIth century. The oficial name "Romania" of the present day country was established in its first constitution, dated 1866. Enough about "general info". Now, this template deals with all regions that were part of Romania since 1866. Most of these regions were also part of the principalities of Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Terra Dobrotici etc. in medieval times. We have: Banat (1918 - present), Bessarabia (1918 - 1940; 1941 - 1944; southern part aka Budjak: also between 1866 - 1878), Bukovina (1918 - present; northen part until 1944), Crişana (1918 - present), Dobrudja (northen: 1878 - present; southern: 1913 - 1940), Hertza (1866 - 1940; 1941 - 1944), Maramureş (1918 - present), Moldova (1866 - present), Muntenia (1866 - present), Oltenia (1866 - present), Transnistria (administration between 1941 and 1943-44), Transylvania (1918 - present), Wallachia (1866 - present). To deny obvious historical facts means: serious lack of appropriate lecture, bad faith, or/and promotion of "stalinist" history, which said that "Romania is an empire of oppressed nations". This makes me sick! --Alex:Dan (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
All we know about the term "Romania" are phrases: "at least", "believed", "hypothetical". Check the tiny article using basicly terms like "hypothetical" and "believed" History of Romanian language and compare it with the article on History of the Moldovan language which clearly gives references and an extensive history. All the dates you cited are fakes: Bukovina speaks Ukrainian and Moldavian, although they do indeed have about 1% of Romanians, the same applies to Moldova, which even never had anything called "Romanian", even more Transnistria and others. Like I said, this template is a mere specualtion and invention and you prove it only by your personal view statements, with no scientific encyclopedia worth background support.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe Stalin is elsewhere, not here. Go find him. Misplaced Pages is (should be) a neutral encyclopedia, not a place for old rotten stalinist theories... --Alex:Dan (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Moldopodo, you only get to vote once. Biruitorul 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant filling of the project page, Biruitorul, please obstain from this practice.--Moldopodo 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but modify it to include only the regions in present Romania. The regions outside Romania have nothing specifically Romanian about it. Moreover, all had been under Russian, Turkish or Bulgarian rule for at least 100 years, while Romania controlled them for less than 25 years, some of them not even legally. Also, if one has doubts about the purpose of the inclusion of non-Romanian terriories in this template, he just has to look at the map proeminently featured in it. He'll instantly understand it's about some irredentist dreams of "greater Romania" (a interwar medium really opressive for the non-Romanian majorities of those regions). It's OK to have templates to help readers easily find out about the other historical regions of Romania, but there's no justification for calling territories with only a frail Romanian ethnic minority ruled by Romania for merely 20 years as such. Also, accusations of lack of education, bad faith and "stalinism" reflect the state of mind of the editors supporting the "speedy keep". I am really concerned about the ability of such people to respect the rules of objectivity on Misplaced Pages.Xasha (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - the "Romanian-ness" of Southern Dobrogea and especially Transnistria are indeed questionable; Northern Bucovina and especially Bessarabia, less so. However, that's not the main issue here: it's that these regions were, in fact, part of Romania - a rather finite amount of territory, after all. Given that the Russian and Ottoman empires existed for centuries before Romania was formed, it's not surprising their control would last longer, but that's not especially relevant either. "Legal" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder - true, the USSR never recognised Romanian sovereignty over Bessarabia, but the Western powers either did so or didn't particularly care; what is relevant, though, is that, "legality" aside, Romanian institutions (army, railways, etc) functioned there exactly as in all other parts of the country for over two decades. And I'm sorry, the comment about "irredentist dreams" does indicate bad faith - no one here or on the template's talk page has made such assertions (I for one have repeatedly denied them). (I also question the claim that Romania was "really opressive" to non-Romanians, but that's a discussion for another venue.) Also, note that Bessarabia had a Romanian majority, and Northern Bucovina a relative Romanian majority (also irrelevant, since this is a discussion about Romanian state territories, not Romanian ethnic territories). I for one have a long record of objectivity here, and my colleague Alex:D likewise, both here and on ro.wiki. Biruitorul 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant imagined personal view statement, not worth of any encyclopedia value and most certainly not supporting in any way your would be "argument". As for infrastructure, it owes nothing particular to Romania, as it existed before and was even more developed later, with the help of Russian Empire. Just for a quick note on infrastructure in Romania - thanks for EU funds! --Moldopodo (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Very strange and absolutely irrelevant argumentation, very strange user as well (looking at the editing history), and again, no source whatsoever...--Moldopodo 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Biruitorul has notified the community of the Romanian Misplaced Pages that someone has proposed renaming our Misplaced Pages -- a most reasonable course of action IMHO. Then one thing led to another and someone else pointed to this page in a different reply. I take that back, I now noticed that he has indeed mentioned this page in the context (I hadn't even noticed that when I first read it). --Gutza 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But then again, nobody's perfect. --Gutza 21:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Gutza, please, refrain from disrespectful comments (you said) "nobody's perfect" in my regard, like a civilised Europeanised Romanian (should you be one, I never lose the hope). There is a difference between (I said) "have a look at discussion" and (Biruitorul or rather yelled in hystery) "Dear colleagues, it's a serious thing! A Moldovanist porposed the change of name of ro.wp into mo-ro.wp I ask you to express your opinions as long as there is some time left, and if you do so, look also at another proposal of his". Saying what you say, Gutza, you support the disprespectful message of Biruitorul in my regard on ro.wikipedia.org--Moldopodo 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're being modest quoting so little from your own message -- my eyes were caught by this: "spread this to interested Hungarian users". --Gutza 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This is getting childish, what do you expect me to write "no, don't spread it to anyone"? Hungary, neighboring country, has surely a word here, just as any other country.--Moldopodo 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, spare us the righteous outrage. I've asked Romanian editors (who naturally are interested in the subject) to express an opinion here. (On en.wiki we have this page for just the same purpose.) I did not indicate how they should vote, and I certainly did not do it in a "very aggressive" fashion. This witch-hunt is rather tiresome. Biruitorul 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you just said: hurry up, a Moldovenist is out there with proposals of his.--Moldopodo 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'd rather translate my words exactly, rather than have them distorted further. "Esteemed colleagues, the matter is serious! A Moldovenist has proposed changing the name of ro.wiki to mo-ro.wiki. Please express your opinions there while there is still time, and if you are to do that, you may as well see this proposal of his. Thank you very much." First, this was not "yelled in hystery", it was rather measured. Second, the link here was an aside - the main point of the message was to link to the meta discussion. And third, we have this page on en.wiki for just the same purpose. So really, there's nothing to see here. Biruitorul 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Moldopodo "kindly" informed Italian wikipedians of this TfD. I would vote speedy keep just for that reason... --Jaqen (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment: He just followed the example of more experienced Misplaced Pages editors (i.e. Biruitorul). So why not speedy delete? (Note I personally don't support this option.)Xasha (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no verifiable source for the information presented in the template. Also agree with this comment: Could Transylvania be a "historical region" of Romania being part of the state since 1920 (Treaty of Trianon)? Isn't it misleading that the title reads "1867-present"?and on, and on.. too many questions without answers and mistakes for one template----László (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it's a fact that all these regions have been part of Romania at various times since 1867 - or do you deny that? And after all, can't we do something like this: Banat (1918/20-) • Dobruja (Northern Dobruja (1878-) • Southern Dobruja (1913-1940)), etc? Surely clarifying, rather than deleting, is preferable. Biruitorul 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This sure looks like canvassing. multichill (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's make it clear what is canvassing and what is not here. As per Misplaced Pages definition Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. When you compare the contents of Biruitorul's and mine messages you see a huge difference. First Biruitorul refers to a user (myself), second - in the following terms and proposal of his, third he clearly gives an indication how to vote by claming that I am "Moldovenist", four - he urges users to do it quickly... Whereas all I do in my message is informing people of the discussion, period.--Moldopodo 08:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Er, actually, that part of the message referred to the meta discussion. And in any case, I did not send messages to "multiple Wikipedians", only to a noticeboard, of the very kind we have here. So really, there is zero cause for complaint. Biruitorul 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
comment: I've been involved in several very similar arguments with our fellow Romanian editors, who usually tried to push a Romanian bias into the articles. I had neither time nor energy to fight, but it has been pointed out several times that Romanian editors "not always able to tell" historical facts from Romanian education, which have relations to history but not always describe the same reality as we others know. (And I must confess it's most probably not their fault!) I am sure neither Moldavian nor Hungarian (as myself) editors are clear of bias in this topic, since the lands here around has been assigned and reassigned (often with bloody transactions) to several countries. I would very much like to invalidate eastern european non-professionals votes, and let non-involved outsiders and (very much preferably) professionals to decide what is correct and what is not. My opinion would be to try to keep real historical names instead of current day countries, but I am not professional either. And since this is a very heated topic (Romanians vs. surrounding nations) people going to keep canvassing, and keep denying it. --grin ✎ 08:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a small region with a heated history, everybody's biased -- one might also speak about Hungarians vs. surrounding nations, Ukrainians vs. surrounding nations, Russians vs. surrounding nations and so on. The thing is, we typically don't like to attach labels indiscriminately to large groups of people, e.g. by ethnicity or citizenship. It would indeed be great if these matters were handled by professional historians, but that wouldn't really be Misplaced Pages any more, would it? But then again, when you get overwhelming evidence that the claim on which this entire proposal is based on is false I don't think you need a history degree to make a decision (see the original claim at the top of this section and my vote above for my rationale). --Gutza 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a troll magnet which generates more heat than light. _R_ (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just an idea: what if the template also included the years when each of the regions became part of Romania? Like, Banat (1918), etc. It wouldn't make the template too large and maybe it would solve the problem. – Alensha  20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comments - canvassing on bg.wiki - not sure from which of the two sides, but see - .

It seems he did that on a number of wikis - . --Laveol 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more acceptable. The title is still kinda strange (Transylvania is rather a historical region of Hungary and a present region of Romania), but I don't know what title would be suitable for including all these regions at once. Squash Racket (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No it's not, since this version is trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa (thing that was tried in Romania. but was ultimately rejected by the country's Supreme Court).Xasha (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Will you, at long last, stop imputing sinister motives to my name? The fact is that Romania reconquered those territories during the war. That the reconquest was accomplished by an odious regime is immaterial. So no, I am not "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", and I would ask that you withdraw this inflammatory accusation. Biruitorul 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any note that Wallachia and Dobruja were not under Romanian rule in 1916-1918, or that every part of Romania had the same relation to the Soviet Union in 1944-1947 as Bessarabia had to Romania in 1941-1944 (i.e. occupied territories). The only logical justification is the above.Xasha (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I simply forgot about that - do review WP:AGF. I again ask that you withdraw the serious accusation you have levelled, and stick to commenting "on content, not on the contributor". Biruitorul 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you did "forgot", why didn't you act to correct your mistake when you were informed about it?Xasha (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
First, because this potential problem was pointed out while under an implicit charge of fascism (vorba dulce mult aduce). Second, because templates are not meant to provide an exhaustive account, merely an overview - I suppose one could, if one wanted to, describe village by village when Romania lost and regained land in the world wars, but that would be far too excessive. And, of course, Romania occupied part of Transylvania in 1916, and part of Hungary and Serbia in 1918-20 (and Jimbolia only entered Romania in 1924), and Transnistria during WWII, and actually the Soviet occupation lasted till 1958... Look, history is messy sometimes. As long as what we have isn't blatantly inaccurate, readers can easily find out the minutiae from the relevant articles. But accusing me or what I propose as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" is not a productive method of trying to start a dialogue on the issue. Biruitorul 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)