Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11 edit

Template:Population timeline of Abu Dhabi 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population timeline of Abu Dhabi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged this information with Abu Dhabi using the {{Historical populations}} template, so it is now orphaned and can be deleted (if there are no objections to the merger). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:55, 11 May 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:DE State Senate 1 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DE State Senate 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 18 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 19 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE State Senate 21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DE Congress At-large (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Interesting idea, but these templates are orphaned and would need to be continuously updated (last update in 2007). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How do these templates differ from a regular article? What is the potential use? Either way, the information contained within the state senate templates is redundant to the content of Delaware Senate.--Millbrooky (talk) 16:57, 18 May 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:The Manchester Regiment 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Manchester Regiment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Duke of Wellingtons Regiment history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Royal Air Force Regiment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates which are mostly redundant to infoboxes already appearing in the parent articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 11 May 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:Infobox The Green Green Grass Series 4 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Green Green Grass Series 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to previous and next links and to navigation bar at bottom of each episode article. It was only being used in one article, so I replaced it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 11 May 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:NZFC 2007-08 Position Ladder 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZFC 2007-08 Position Ladder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NZFC 2007-08 Position Ladder2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

SIngle use template, which has now been substituted into the season article, now that the season is over. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 11 May 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:NZFC 2004-05 Position Ladder 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZFC 2004-05 Position Ladder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NZFC 2004-05 Position Ladder2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NZFC 2008-09 Position Ladder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NZFC 2008-09 Position Ladder2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to tables in New Zealand Football Championship 2004–05 and New Zealand Football Championship 2008–09 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:40, 11 May 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:WNBA color cell 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WNBA color cell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WNBA color cell2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:25, 11 May 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:NBAPrimaryColor 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBAPrimaryColor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NBASecondaryColor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 11 May 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:Collapsible list expanded 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 per author approval, and I updated the documentation for {{collapsible list}} to show how to allow for the default state to be expanded as suggested. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible list expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be redundant to {{collapsible list}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it appears to be deficient documentation at "collapsible list" that fails to document the expand parameter would make this one used by someone. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't remember exactly why I created this, but it seems to be redundant now (in any case, it isn't being used).--Kotniski (talk) 08:39, 12 May 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:Class I timeline 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Class I timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - This template is clearly about Class I Railroads. Is there an adequate substitute for it that already exists as a suitable replacement? ----DanTD (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the real question is if this timeline is necessary at all. It seems too large to include in article space, and it is difficult to read. However, you are correct that we should make sure that no vital information is lost. As far as I can tell, all the information is presented in other forms in other articles (see Timeline of Class I railroads (1910–1929) for example). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:29, 18 May 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:Christian mosaic 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.

Template:Christian mosaic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is redundant to a sequence of image links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:25, 11 May 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:Chem eq 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chem eq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is redundant to standard <math> markup. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 11 May 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:Checkint 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 11 May 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:Chalk Cliffs on Rügen 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 per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chalk Cliffs on Rügen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image map. Edit history indicates this was a bit of an experiment. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I could have sworn I had done a CSD G7 on this one. Could I still do that and save everyone some time? Lithoderm 20:56, 11 May 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:MadisonCo 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 Userfy, with no prejudice against moving back to template space, once the names and locations have been finalized. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template possibly violates WP:NOR or at the very least is inaccurate and impossible to fix. Background: a feasibility study performed in 2005 recommended various possible alignments for MetroLink in Madison County IL, but no one alignment was chosen. While station locations were picked to estimate potential ridership, these potential stations are by no means set in stone. Millbrooky (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hang on Please. I just created this template because it was in the recent Moving Transit Forward Plan in St. Louis. I know what it means. It means that I just have to prove it's case. (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment This and similar templates were transcluded on various MetroLink articles prior to my putting the template up for discussion here. It seems I may have scared MetroFan2009 a bit by suggesting this template's deletion. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:46, 18 May 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:NKR 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. Since almost all relevant information has been merged into the Administrative divisions template, I do not see any reason to keep this navbox. There is no need to multiply duplicate navboxes in such contentious areas. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTOPINION, there is already a Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Promotes separatist and secessionist ideas of unrecognized entities in general and those of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in particular, creating an illusion of independent state. Brandmeister[t] 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template does promote separatism and irredentism and has no place in the articles about Azerbaijani regions under military control of Armenian forces. A village enclave of Artsvashen de-jure belonging to Armenian Republic is currently under Azerbaijani military control but does not have any "Azerbaijani Territorial Division" templates. All regions under Armenian military control which are de-jure Azerbaijani shouldn't either. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all this temp has no function, its a copy of: Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Second its misleading by representing NKR as an genuine independent state. Neftchi (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All this users (Brandmeister, Tuscumbia and Neftchi) rudely lie that this two templates are copy of each others. Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is about the districts of NKR and this, new template Template:NKR is about the cities of NKR. If they can't see the diiference it is their problems. They want to make only Azeri point of view. On their opinion in the articles about the NKR there can be only Azeri POW. They rudely revert and delete all my edits in the articles about NKR. Today in en:wiki most part of the cities in NKR are named according to the Azeri claim, while Azerbaijan don't control this Armenian teritory. And today this Azeri users disagree that the articles can include not only Azeri templates, but also NKR templates. So I'm sure that the template must be kept. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the articles on Azerbaijani regions of Lachin, Kelbajar, Zangilan, Aghdara, Khojavend, Goranboy, Shusha can't be renamed because they are de-jure parts of Azerbaijan under military control of Armenian forces, in this irredentist template, these districts and towns are indicated by the very Armenian names that the user intends to rename them in the future or mislead the reader. The template should be deleted. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is only Your own opinion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there already is an administrative division template, all this appears to do is list random cities. --Golbez (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I'm in no mood to be accused of being a POV pusher, Azeri, Armenian, or what not. I spend enough time on these articles as it is to waste my time on this sideline battle. You kids have your fun, I'm out. --Golbez (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't You see the difference between the template of administrative divisions and the template of cities? I'll take an example. [[Template:Cities and towns in Georgia (country}|This one is a template of cities]], and this one is a template of administrative divisions. What do You mean by "list of random cities?" All cities You can find in official census of NKR. It's clearly understand that the templates are different: one is used in districts, and the other one in cities. More than that, in Russian wikipedia such template is existing since August, 5, 2007. --Ліонкінг (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware there were only ten towns in the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There're some differences between the NKR and Azeri system. For example for Azeris Fizuli, Aghdam and Jabrail are cities, but for NKR they not, and another example is that Midzhnavan is city for NKR, but it's not for Azerbaijan. --Ліонкінг (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A POV copy of an existing template. Parishan (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only purpose this template serves is state propaganda, it has no other function. --Hittit (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "delete" voters are clearly and intentionally missleading everyone in claiming them to be copies:
1) The Template:NKR is linked to the article about the republic and it also cites and is lincked to 11 cities/towns in it.
2) The Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is linked to the according administrative divisions of the de-facto independent republic and 7 admin. divisions + the capital as a separate division.
3) Clearly obvious, that there are also differences in the names listed, not only in the amounts, in both of those templates as well as if the administrative division is named after the administrative center, it doesn't mean they repeat each other. I hope Templates of cuntries with similarly named capitals aren't being proposed by the engaged delete-voters.
4) No propaganda seen in templates of towns or divisions existing in the reality. But it's a question, if only virtually existing divisions are a propaganda or not.
Aregakn (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be established first what territories could be considered administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh. If that includes territories currently controlled by Armenians, then why are Aşağı Ağcakənd and non-occupied parts of NKAO listed as such? If that includes territories proclaimed by Armenians an independent state in 1991, then why are the 7 rayons included? You cannot have both, and this is why the template is misleading. Parishan (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Parishan If it was to be established first, you better had done it on the talk-page and not propose a deletion (vote for it), before you made things clear. And of course you do understand, that in the reallity (de-facto) exist the divisions mentioned in the template and it is THE information it represents and not something unexistant. Aregakn (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of this of this one is not clear, it duplicates an existing template. Grandmaster 09:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My old friend Grandmaster, I've a question to You: why in the ruwiki such template exists since 2007 and You have not done anythink to delete it!? (Or You've done and Your claim was denied?) I understand that you adhere to the policy of double standards, but I'll look forward to your answer. --Ліонкінг (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating the same wrong conclusions is not efficient. Aregakn (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reason proposed for deletion is not valid; it's not a duplication of another template. Kostja (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an accidental and totally disinterested bystander, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason so far presented for deleting this template. The template it is supposedly a duplicate of lists regions, while this one lists cities; and "promotes separatist and secessionist ideas...creating an illusion of independent state" is presumably a product of someone's imagination - the fact that we have a template listing cities in some place doesn't imply anything about the political status of that place.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is redundant to list all cities for a country / territory in the form of a template. Can you imagine what a template for Russia would look like in that case? Parishan (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you wouldn't do it for Russia, would you, you'd do it for much smaller units, which seems to be exactly what's been done in this case.--Kotniski (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that, the template lists towns renamed by Armenians not accepted by any other third sources. This motion constitutes re-writing geographical locations already accepted by the international community. This is a move to mislead the reader. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So change the names on the template; that's no argument for deleting it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple Kotniski. NKR as an entity is not recognized by a single state and Armenian forces of Armenian Republic as well as the forces of the entity itself remain in military control over this region, de-jure part of Azerbaijan. That means, by changing names within the template to their proper name but yet retaining the heading is not proper way of handling it. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any of this as an argument for deleting the template. You might consider adding alternative names in parentheses, if there are two names in use for each place.--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I still do not understand the purpose of this template. It lists the towns of a legally non-existent state, using internationally unrecognized place names. Some of them are not even controlled by separatist forces, for instance Aşağı Ağcakənd (which is listed under the name of Shaumyan). Grandmaster 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Republic exists, doesn't it? We have an article on it? It doesn't need to be a state or legally recognized for the template to be useful - we have many other templates like this, and they're quite uncontroversial. Like I say, if the towns are better recognized under other names, they can be changed or added; and if the list of towns is wrong, it can be changed as well. To an outsider, this looks like a typical politically motivated deletion nomination. (Another possibility is to combine the regions and the cities in a single template. Just whatever makes things clearer for the reader. But let's keep irrelevant political points out of this.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. The very template is politically motivated. Let me elaborate. The whole region covering former NKAO and 7 surrounding regions of Azerbaijan is under military control of Armenians (both Armenians with self-proclaimed government in "NKR" and the Armenians from Republic of Armenia since Armenian troops from the Armenian Republic cover nearly 50% of the military presence in occupied Karabakh). This regime is not recognized by the international community, nor by any international organization and in fact, many countries and international organizations have repeatedly condemned the illegal secession, military occupation and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Azerbaijanis from these territories. So, if these territories are not recognized by the international community and the proper legitimate (de-jure) names of cities and regions under occupation are subsequently recognized by the same community, how does this make it legitimate and proper to create and add this kind of templates depicting the very illegitimacy? This is like accepting the fact that a music pirate illegally downloads songs, burns a CD and call the songs whatever he or she likes, thus disregarding the legitimate owner(s) of the song(s) from whom the persmission was not received. By replacing proper names, de-jure and internally recognized by the world is re-writing the history and misleading the readers. Hope this explains. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not answer on the provocations and propoganda of Azeris, I'll just say smth about the names of cities and Shaumyan. In Azeri templates cities are named in Azeri names, so in NKR templates it is logical, that they should have NKR names. About Shaumyan. Yes, it is the only city in NKR which is out of the control of this state. But NKR claims that teritory, and what a problem? Azerbaijan don't control whole teritory of NKR, but claim their rights everywhere. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for showing the real purposes of this voting, user:Tuscumbia. That is to make Wikipedia a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikipidia is not a place to discuss these issues. It is a place to present information to the readers. It's not a place to make a propaganda of the conflict. The templates DO REPRESENT INFORMATION and what you do, is willing to delete it. And at last, to answer your arguments, not only NKR is de-facto a state, with it's own constitution, defense forces, police, president, parliament etc. for 19 years, it is also a de-jure independent. How? Because de-jure means by the law, and by that ver law, Azerbaijan became independent from the USSR, and so did NKR. If you recognise and excercise one right (law) for one, you must do it for others as well. The issue you mistakenly call the term "legal" is the recognition of the International Community.
Now I hope it's clear who is trying to present information to the reador, and who is making a propaganda and a battleground of Wiki. And these aren't surely those, that want to keep the info, but those who want to delete it. Aregakn (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with the Constitution of USSR from 1977 as well as the amendment in 1990. In addition to that you should also take a thorough look at the Constitution of Azerbaijan SSR, constitution of independent Azerbaijan and the dates the independence was petitioned, proclaimed for both Azerbaijan and the self-proclaimed "NKR". Moreover, you should also study the terms de-jure and de-facto before making a statement about legitimacy. Only after that you will be able to understand the essence of the problem. Yes, the real purpose of this voting is to get this template deleted, on elementary grounds that it does not correspond to anything legitimately established within any laws, be it a constitution, legal norms or acceptance by the international community and any efforts to misrepresent that information is re-writing history and geography Tuscumbia (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh look, another forum on Wikipedia taken over by this incessant fight between people who have absolutely no dog in this fight. You've finally found TFD; perhaps ... hm, what would be a good one. I know, VPT! You could find some technical reason to always enclose NKR in scare quotes~! and to force the system to add 'self-proclaimed' to it, or to automatically replace every instance of "Karabakh" with "KARABAKH IS AZERBAIJAN" as some of our more articulate editors like to say. Or maybe to force it to mention that Muslims, not Armenians (or vice versa!) were the ancestral peoples of Nagorno-Karabakh and they own it in perpetuity. Or something. A pox upon both your houses. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuscumbia, once again, this is not a forum to discuss these issues. It's a place for the templates to be discussed. Do not use it for other means and do not give advices to editors here. Do it on their talk-pages. Golbez|talk is pointing right as well, but Gobelz, pls not here. Aregakn (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aregakn, I never had and have an intention to discuss those issues here. The discussion above was the response to other editors including you as much as your forum-like statements were a response or expression of your opinion to other editors. We all, including you, realize those discussions belong to talk pages. Thanks Tuscumbia (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tuscumbia, I will only remind you your comments of not willing to discuss those issues with their dates:
1) "The template does promote separatism and irredentism and has no place in the articles about Azerbaijani regions under military control of Armenian forces. A village enclave of Artsvashen de-jure belonging to Armenian Republic is currently under Azerbaijani military control but does not have any "Azerbaijani Territorial Division" templates. All regions under Armenian military control which are de-jure Azerbaijani shouldn't either. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)"
2) "That's the thing. The very template is politically motivated. Let me elaborate. The whole region covering former NKAO and 7 surrounding regions of Azerbaijan is under military control of Armenians (both Armenians with self-proclaimed government in "NKR" and the Armenians from Republic of Armenia since Armenian troops from the Armenian Republic cover nearly 50% of the military presence in occupied Karabakh). This regime is not recognized by the international community, nor by any international organization and in fact, many countries and international organizations have repeatedly condemned the illegal secession, military occupation and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Azerbaijanis from these territories. So, if these territories are not recognized by the international community and the proper legitimate (de-jure) names of cities and regions under occupation are subsequently recognized by the same community, how does this make it legitimate and proper to create and add this kind of templates depicting the very illegitimacy? This is like accepting the fact that a music pirate illegally downloads songs, burns a CD and call the songs whatever he or she likes, thus disregarding the legitimate owner(s) of the song(s) from whom the persmission was not received. By replacing proper names, de-jure and internally recognized by the world is re-writing the history and misleading the readers. Hope this explains. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)"
As everybody can see those were before my 18:35, 12 May 2010 edit. I also wish to note, that I didn't mention a few paragraphs by you with the same content made again before mine. So abandon your baseless accusations, Tusc..Aregakn (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're trying to prove or disprove here, or lure me into a time-wasting discussion, my messages are an explanation of the position and elaborated messages are responses to editors discussing the issue, including you who at 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC) wrote his bulleted message. So, please do everyone a favor and take your "baseless accusations" nonsence elsewhere. Grazie.Tuscumbia (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of truth, there was no accusation rom my side but from yours: "Aregakn, I never had and have an intention to discuss those issues here. The discussion above was the response to other editors including you as much as your forum-like statements were a response or expression of your opinion to other editors." And what I wrote is to show you, that you were discussing irrelevant issues and I was asking not to, when you (accusing me) said, that it was a response to what I say, when it is obvious the opposite.
If you have anything to discuss about it, continue on my talk-page and not here. Aregakn (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, NKR template is WP:SOAP an attempt to validate a non-recognised enclave under interim foreign occupation as a pseudo-Republic in an area, which is de facto in a state of war. The more Google hits NKR has the better, simple thinking and Wikipedia is just used as a platform to build articles as if preparing legal cases anticipating for the scenario when the de-jour entity regains control. Taking the war to Wikipedia, this is just not acceptable. --Hittit (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, de facto in a state of war? The Azeri-agreed-upon Line of Control has held the peace since 1994, minus a skirmish two years ago. Perhaps you misunderstand the term de facto and really meant de jure, even though there's been an official cease fire for 16 years. And please do not accuse other editors of being propagandists; it's assuming bad faith, and really, no one who professes to support either side is innocent of that. --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT a place to discuss it. All the said is in the NKR article. this has nothing to do with templates that are there to give relevant information. Aregakn (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC) And a template cannot be a propaganda. Propaganda is an information worded in a manner to create an opinion. A template cannot and does not give any opinion. It's a link to other relative information. Get real! Aregakn (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise? In order to make some headway through this deadlock, I have integrated most, but not all, of the urban centers listed in this template to this pre-existing one: [1]. With the exception of Stepanakert and perhaps Shushi (which can be classified more as a large town), there really are no other "cities" in the NKR in the sense that Westerners understand them. The ones found in the template being proposed for deletion are urban settlements and towns, rather than cities. The current template includes the capital of the NKR, its provinces and now their corresponding capitals. I'm unsure if the other towns should be added to the template (perhaps under the title "Other Urban Settlements") but I hope this will work as a compromise. For that matter, it's disheartening to see some of the above editors to portray the NKR as a "fictional" state. The NKR has had a self-governing apparatus in place for 18 years now, has held several elections and seen peaceful transfers of power take place. To say that this state doesn't exist not only denies a basic fact but is a clearly disingenuous attempt to discredit by simply reasoning that it has no international recognition (a statement which still requires some qualification).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, that is the relevant info could be merged into Administrative divisions. The NKR template is unencyclopedically simple, looking like a rally banner: the NKR exists in a manner of Kurdistan for example, you would not find them in any reliable map. Wikipedia's maps in particular actually follow that pattern. Brandmeister[t] 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kurdistan don't control it's teritory in any state (Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria), while NKR is exist during 20 years. So don't meslead others. If You want to compare, You can compare with Taiwan for example. --Ліонкінг (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThe template is a method of grouping information, in the given case, the reader may navigate to administrive divisions that fall within this territory. The issue must be regarded from the simple point of view of grouping encyclopaedic information not from that political opinions or international law. If I want to collect information on Nagorno Karanbah, this template is useful. This is not about legitimazing political aspirations. The enclave is a reality and information concerning it should be treated like this. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 22:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template only features some of the NKR locations, for which we have Category:Cities, towns and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh. Brandmeister[t] 07:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template features not some NKR locations, but all cities. Unfo0rtunately there are no a lot of villages of the NKR in Category:Cities, towns and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh just because in the articles were no word about it. But we will broke the silence and will neutralise this one-view articles which even don't have any word about any connection with NKR or Armenians. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the template can be improved, why to delete it? Can anybody tell me which the bases are for deletion, which rules? I heard only 1 (SOAP) and it was not really relevant. Aregakn (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Separatist template, which is even don't have de-jure status --NovaSkola (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll be proposing the articles for deletion as well? What makes a template, used for navigating the articles, more 'separatist' and therefore more worthy of deletion than the articles it's helping you navigate? --Golbez (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mumbling something about de jure gives no basis on Wiki rules or any other reason for deletion of a template. U can work on it to improve it, if u wish. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 15:50, 22 May 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:Jennette McCurdy 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 as an underpopulated navbox. RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jennette McCurdy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too early for a navbox. Contains only one article. Why do so many users insist that every singer should have a navbox, no matter how small? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:17, 11 May 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_May_11&oldid=1136430875"