Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4 edit

Template:Lists of Russians 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 Keep with the strong suggestion to limit its use. Much of the initial discussion focused on the excessive use of icons, which have been subsequently removed. There was some objection to including this template in articles of individual Russians, rather than just pages containing lists. It is currently being used on around 1400 pages, which was viewed by some as excessive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Russians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template duplicated lists of Russians in the article List of Russians. Contains icons (WP:ICONDECORATION) of random notable Russian/Soviet people, the biggest of them belong to Yuri Gagarin, who in the author's opinion represents the entire Russian people. Now, the author, Greyhood (talk · contribs), trying to add this template to all Russian-related articles. The reason for which he is going to use this template for all Russian-related articles is still not clear, even for me, who's actually from Russia. 85.140.45.160 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lists in this template don't duplicate the lists of Russians in the article List of Russians (which, by the way, is not of proper quality in comparison, say, to the List of Polish people). I wonder how you haven't noticed that.
  • This template includes (or, in the case of some lists, will eventually include) only properly illustrated lists of most notable Russians. The aim of this template is obvious: to provide easy navigation between most famous Russian people. A number of users liked the idea of this template and found it useful.
  • It also provides navigation to Russia and its predecessor states.
  • I don't try to insert this template into any article about Russian person, but only into the articles about persons who are on the lists included into this template and into several general articles like Russia or Russians.
  • If you don't like Gagarin, we may insert other image, for example Millennium of Russia or some other collective representation of Russians. You are welcomed to discuss this on the template's page, and no need to do it here.
  • Small icons are not randomly chosen: I tried to take those, which look good enough in the small size and represent the idea of the corresponding list at best (a composer should look like a composer, a ballet dancer like a ballet dancer etc.)
  • Icons and images are used in templates quite often. If you don't like to see much icons on some specific page, just use the attribute state="collapsed".Greyhood (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before any votes have appeared here, I want to point out one simple and obvious thing: this template is very useful to provide navigation between the existing lists of Russians and should not be deleted in any case. But I acknowledge that it may be discussed where to put this template or how it should look like.Greyhood (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not a Pole, how could I noticed List of Polish people and how's it related to the template of Russians? We don't talk about admissibility of images in the articles, we talk about utility of icons in the template. "Words can be clearer", said WP:ICONDECORATION. I do not know what criteria you used for the icons, even if you ask me "If you don't like Gagarin, we may insert other image". And why Ivan the Terrible represents a whole era in the Russian history, but Dmitry Medvedev represents 1991–present, etc? What mean the icons in this case? Maybe an incumbent, great leader of the period or something else. I don't know.
  • You haven't understood me. I mean, you haven't noticed that the lists in this template are very much different than lists that constitute the List of Russians. Have you seen them at all? Greyhood (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ICONDECORATION is not rules, but recommendations, something like an opinion essay, which has been intended to be good but is not necessarily so. For example, is this really a good example of why do not use too many icons: this sportsperson's infobox. This is normal page, quite common type of sportspeople articles in Wikipedia and common world practice of using flag icons in relation to sports. If some few people have problems with icons of such kind, that shouldn't be a reason for most other viewers to drop the practice of icon usage. Greyhood (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ICONDECORATION is not an essay, it is a part of the Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style. For readers 20px icons of persons are not helpful, how many times I must repeat to you, that difficult to distinguish one person from another do not make these icons helpful. You just offer each time "easily" click, then look who is depicted, then push "backspace" on the keyboard, because there are no any navigation templates in the file pages (ex:File:Vladimir Putin-5 edit.jpg), etc. Of cause, it's quite simple in your opinion. --85.140.47.59 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, WP:Manual of Style is not rules, but recommendations, not necessarily quite right. In a number of cases there was consensus against what's written in MoS, like here. And then, it still isn't proven that icons are used for purely decorative purposes. Concerning clicking and back clicking - yes it is quite simple. Much simplier, for example, than using categories and not templates like this as you propose. And, after all, discerning, clicking, etc. is not necessary at all. For example, here -   Vatican City - you have to click to discern the image on the coat of arms, but not everyone does it, since the main function of small icons is distinguishing the different objects, and if one icon can be discerned different from another, that's enough.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me who is on this picture without using the cursor?  . Or? If you can, you used the cursor. Flag of Vatican is an official flag, and I can distinguish colours on it, but what criteria you used in the template? You did not tell why you used Kalashnikov or Prohorov for a whole list - Russian Inventors, you have not explained how the flag using colored bars is an equivalent for use of the same size images where nobody can distinguish even faces. "Concerning clicking and back clicking - yes it is quite simple" - You did not read what I am talking about? Repeat: there are no navigation templates in the FILE pages, your "back clicking" is not clicking, it means that I need to use "backspace" button on my keyboard.--91.78.99.126 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. The distinguishing who is there on the icon is not the main thing about this template. The icons serve to visually distinguish different lists, not to show who is on the icon. If you can't see the face of Ulanova but can see that a ballet dancer is depicted - that's enough. I used Prokhorov, and then Kalashnikov, and I'll be glad to use any better image of an inventor from that list if it follows the proposed criteria. Greyhood (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why you compare flag icons with icons of persons? It is not the same, and you even did not explain rationale of them, offering to me just select "some other". What the point of the icon, where i can't discern faces of the persons? I must discover it by silhouettes?--85.141.132.188 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Below you've said that you can discern the images. And there were no people before you that have found this to be a problem. Hardly anyone finds to be a problem discerning images of coat-of-arms which are parts of flags. Hardly anyone finds to be a problem discerning various images marking stub articles.Greyhood (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above I said that I am from Russia. Do you really think, that the Russian can not distinguish Russian historical personalities? But, even I could not distinguish Kalashnikov in "Inventors" without using the cursor, because the image was too small for it. --85.140.47.59 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, it's enough that you can distinguish that the image of Kalashnikov is different from sorrounding images. As for the image itself, initially I wanted to use another image for inventors list - File:Prohorov.jpg - more discernable and more inventor-looking. But it is non-free and shouldn't be used in the template space, so I used Kalashnikov until a better pic is found.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not understand that it was just one example. There is only a few persons that I could distinguish on the pictures without using the cursor. Next time, I'll just ignore it, let someone else play in the game "Guess who is this?":   --91.78.99.126 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you've found the solution to your problem - you look who's on the icon by clicking on it, and next time you already know who is there and have no difficulties in using this template, and no need in further clicking on and clicking back. The same with Vatican, if somebody see the flag or even the name for the first time, he just clicks on it and looks what's that.Greyhood (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also provides navigation to Russia and its predecessor states" - in {{Infobox Former Country}} we have a function that provides navigation between predecessors and successors. And why this function must be in the template of Russian notable persons? This template is not a template for navigation between countries.
  • Actually my initial intention was to show, what kind of people, from what states, are included into the lists on this template. That's why I have used country icons. See, when you place such template with only one modern Russian flag into an article about the Grand Princes of Kiev, or into the article about Peter I (who was initially Tsar and then Emperor), its a bit wrong. "This template is not a template for navigation between countries." - why can't one template combine different, but related functions? Isn't it better than creating two different templates?
  • "Isn't it better?" - it was your answer? Dear Greyhood, you reinvent the wheel. There are too many another links to origin countries of persons used in the articles (infoboxes, introduse sections, etc.) Why we need the template that have links to Russia, Soviet Union, Russian Empire, Kievan Rus'. How it will be helpful in articles of the Russian persons, that, for example, can not be related to Kievan Rus' and Soviet Union, physically? All icons, images, etc. must be helpful for readers, they should not be used only as decoration. Just look at your collapsed (!) template in the article Russia. It takes 3 times more space than others, only because of icons serve as decoration.--85.141.132.188 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't reinvent the wheel, I just propose an alternative. And in my opinion any Russian person is related to any Russian state. It's only yor opinion that icons in this template serve only as decoration. At least part of them, which follow the proposed criteria, serve for better distinguishing of the content of the corresponding lists.Greyhood (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It's only yor opinion" ?? This is not an opinion, firstly, this was a question to you: "which criteria you used for icons?". And there's still no clear answer, why Ivan the Terrible represents List of Russian leaders, Medvedev "1991–present" period, etc. More clear example: Lenin represents "1917-1991", then Medvedev "1991-present" (!). In other words, Lenin is the first leader in his era (1917-1991), Medvedev is an incumbent of his era, but still (!) represents "1991-present" perion. What criteria you used in this case? --85.140.47.59 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have written criteria here. I have written criteria in the template's documentation. Have you read them at all? As for the Ivan the Terrible, in fact this icon can be deleted completely, since there is not a full list beside it, but a redirect to other lists. Lenin was chosen because it's good image in the small size, highly associated with the historical period and easily recognized. Medvedev was chosen by the same reasons and because Putin appears as the icon for the list of the Prime Ministers.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same reasons (?): "Lenin was chosen because it's good image in the small size, highly associated with the historical period and easily recognized. Medvedev was chosen by the same reasons and because Putin appears as the icon for the list of the Prime Ministers." Why Putin for the whole list of Russian PM? Why not Pyotr Stolypin as a person for this list? You absolutely do not have any criteria for images, and used them just because you think it is acceptable. --91.78.99.126 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stolypin also would do, but I haven't seen good enough image of him - that's the main reason he wasn't chosen - and also he is obviously less known than Putin. I repeat again: any image that follows the proposed criteria can be inserted as icon for the specific list. And the images of the same quality could be interchanged from time to time, though this is not preferable. Somehow you are fixed on the idea of assigning one and the sole person to one list once and for all - but I haven't intended any such assignment. You know, we may take almost any illustrated article and argue - why these pictures were choosen to illustrate it, to present the whole content? Why not some different pictures? In such cases usually either all is left intact or new pictures of better or the same quality inserted, and no further problems.Greyhood (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat, you have not any stable criteria for use the template, so it will be used for all persons of the topic, not only notable. Because the articles named "List of Russian -//-", not "List of notable Russian -//-". List of Russians says they may be defferent by ethnic, need only a contribution in the Russian culture, so the template will be used in the articles of person that writes in Russian, born in Russia, Russians by ethnicity, etc. It is a very vague criterion.
  • I would have liked to name the lists in question in a manner of "Lists of notable...", but this is not quite common practice in Wikipedia and better to avoid discussing of who is more notable, who is less notable etc. Soon I'll add the stable criteria of the usage of this template into the template's documentation. And yes, this template may be and should be used in the articles about people of any ethnicity, but of Russian citizenship.Greyhood (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand that your template will be grow. And then it will be include Russian sportspersons, Russian military persons, etc. There are categories that allow to include thousands of the articles by the topic. Use them, instead the template of all-all-Russian-people.--85.141.132.188 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that. When there are much more lists added into this template, the icons will have to be removed. Right now there is no problem with them. Categories are obviously less navigable than templates, and lists in this template are something more than a plain listings in categories.Greyhood (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "represent the idea of the corresponding list at best...". I repeat again. No criteria, only your opinion. There is a lot of inconsistencies (Ivan the Terrible, Medvedev).--85.140.44.15 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may discuss this on the template's page. Not all pictures in this template were chosen by me and I don't hold monopoly on modifying the pictures. Some pictures could be replaced with better ones, if you find ones. Once again, there are the following clear critirea: 1)The icon should contain a Russian person from the corresponding list, preferably a well-known and recognisable person, 2)the icon should have good visibility in a small size, 3)the icon should have some attributes associated with the corresponding list (a ballet dress, a philosopher's beard, etc.) If you have many pics that follow these criteria, you may interchange them every day or every hour if you like. There is no question of consistencies or "inconsistencies" or of assignment one icon to one list once and for all.Greyhood (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? "ballet dress, a philosopher's beard, etc." Are these your criteria for?! A bearded man is associating with the Russian philosophers, that's great. It would be much easier to add simple icons of ballet dress for ballet dancers, guns for marshals, rocket for cosmonauts, but just as it is decoration without any utility for readers. Readers of Wikipedia can read. So, if they can read words "Ballet dancers", they can just click on it. No need of pictures with a ballet dress to understand that the link Ballet dancers will lead to List of ballet dancers. It is not necessary - using a "bearded man" for the link Philosophers in the template. --85.140.47.59 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so, since the reason that readers can read, do you propose to delete all images from Wikipedia, or delete all small images like stub-article icons, flags etc.? And don't ignore the obvious thing: with distinguishing image beside the words of the link it can be found easier and quicklier. These icons not about better understanding, but about the assistance in visual navigation.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --91.78.99.126 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? Somebody seriously is going to make experiments to illustrate a point?. Greyhood (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, you don't really understand what I am talking about. I'm happy for you that you can recognize the persons at 20px images, I can too. But can you be sure that readers of Wikipedia are experts in the Russian history? Not everyone can distinguish Ivan the Terrible on 20px image.--85.141.132.188 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can easily click on an image, look who is depicted there, and next time easily recognise that person. Many people will use this template twice or more.Greyhood (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a nice template. Good work. Izzedine 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template serves a function which is to distinguish between the different lists of Russians that we have. It's also nicely presented. ThemFromSpace 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The rules of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion say: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate." I believe that IP user who has started this discussion was too haste and should have considered the alternative options first. Greyhood (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the last. In my opinion, you do not take the nomination seriously, continue to add your template to new articles. This is not conducive to consensus. --91.76.110.105 (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my opinion this nomination is not serious. Me and the other editors have already pointed out that this template provides navigation between different lists of Russians. So there is simply no reason to delete it completely. There are scores of templates providing navigation between lists, like, for example, Category:Country list templates. What can be discussed that's the design and the scope of usage of this template, and as the rules state you had better started discussing it on the templates talk page, not right here.Greyhood (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Me and the other editors"? You think, that "It's a nice template. Good work." and "This template serves a function which is to distinguish between the different lists of Russians that we have. It's also nicely presented" have great significance in this case? Comment only the second. It would be really nice, if the author used his template only in "Russian Lists" space ("serves a function which is to distinguish between the different lists of Russians"), but he inserts his template to articles about countries, ethnic groups, persons, etc. And at the same time, in the template no backward links, you need all time use "backspace". In other words, the template is not performing its primary function - navigation. Think twice, do we need a navigation template just because it looks good. --85.140.47.59 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template provides navigation to the lists of famous Russians and to the predecessor states of Russia. It is useful, and it's usefullness has little to do with good looking. Inserting this template into countries (Russia and its predecessors) and ethnic groups (only Russians, btw.) is perfectly normal and out of question. Inserting it into the persons articles may be questioned, but it seems that until now there is only one person in this discussion who sees problem in that.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more polite (don't tell that only I have some problems), or you did not see that the other editors do not agree with you about inappropriate use of images. --91.78.99.126 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am very well polite. I haven't wrote that only you have a problem with icons, I was talking about different thing. "Inserting it into the persons articles may be questioned, but it seems that until now there is only one person in this discussion who sees problem in that" - only one third side comment about the scope of use of this template has appeared so far, and has appeared after I've produced the cited phrase (also that comment doesn't specify what use is improper). And if you have started speaking about politeness - why haven't you been polite enough to start this discussion first not here, but on the template's page, according to the rules? Why don't you register in Wikipedia and stop writing under different IPs?Greyhood (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not become personal. Details I have already given to the discussion page. Comment them, please.--85.140.46.135 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the template is kept, please remove or align the flags and thumbnails within it. I think they make the template look untidy. 212.84.110.64 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify your concerns (align in what way), and better on the template's talk page.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the template - I'm not sure whether it should be kept - but if it is, the icons should be removed. Per WP:ICONDECORATION, images shouldn't be used in templates for purely decorative purposes, and these ones are too small to be of much use anyway. Robofish (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Once again I want to point out that there are no good reasons to delete this template completely. The template is perfectly normal and common type, providing navigation between lists, like other list-connecting templates, for example those here. However, the design and the scope of usage of this temlate can be discussed. I've proposed to do it on the template's talk page, but of course I'll answer here too.Greyhood (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood, explain, in detail, the rationality of images and the rest on the discussion page. Because, I did not see that "inserting it into the persons articles may be questioned" according your own documentation. The name of the template is Lists of Russians, but why you push its use for countries, still is questionable. --91.78.99.126 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of people from a country has as much relation to that country as its geographic locale or a list of topics related to that country. The rationality is clear. Currently this template is inserted only into Russia and the articles about its predecessor states. This is perfectly normal, and the additional providing of navigation between these states make this template even more usable. As for the person icons - if there will be more editors here contra icons than those in support of them, I'll simply delete the icons.Greyhood (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but there does need to be some serious consideration of the formatting and usage of this template. It seems entirely valid to have a navigation box for the various lists. The icons are inappropriate per WP:MOSICON, and the navbox is being placed on articles where it is not appropriate, but those are problems that are solvable through discussion and editing. Deletion is not warranted. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep—but ONLY if the inline images are removed, and until the navbox is removed from individual bio articles, where it does not belong (please read and understand WP:Navigation templates). The only articles that should have this navbox are the ones whose links are included inside it (e.g. List of leaders of Russia, List of Russian and Soviet cosmonauts, List of Russian language novelists, etc.) As currently implemented and placed, this template is an utter disaster. But both problems can be fixed without deleting the navbox. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC) It is clear that the WP:OWNer of this template intends to place it on every Russian biographical article, and I cannot support such a blatant mis-use of a navigational template. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template can only stay if it the countries on the top are removed and it does not appear on every person's page that has some remote relation to Russia (as it is now). And if the template will grow, as some suggested, it will completely lose its purpose and will be bigger than some articles. We have category pages for that!!! Also it might intiate an issue because many earlier rulers are claimed by several different groups. It is fine to iclude them in the list of rulers, such as Russian or Ukrainian or Lithuanian etc. But it is very inappropriate to include it 'in your face' on every page. 63.240.123.12 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Countries on the top have been already removed, though the new changes may not be reflected on every page. Lists and templates obviously provide better navigation than categories. In the current form the template is rather small and is by default collapsed on every person page. It may finally grow many times it's current size and there'll be no problem. Greyhood (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your edit history you have gone so far as removing Grand Princes of Kiev from the List of Russian rulers. This and other your edits regarding early Russian rulers look very tendencious and nationalistic. If some rulers or other persons are claimed as ancestors by several different modern states, that doesn't mean we should prohibit including them into lists and templates related to all or some of those states. Greyhood (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already talked personally to few Wikipedians that work on Ukraine-related stuff and I was convinced that removing Grand Prince of Kiev was a desruptive move on my part. I agree that we should not really prohibit templates but concidering the fact that all this is already covered by See Also and Categories I do not see a need in this template, the only thing it will help with is to provoke a bunch of similar templates with other countries claiming the same people, and I know that few are already working on them. It would only confuse the average browser. One the other hand if somebody want to get more info, they can always use the Categories to dig down and figure out who is who and how they are realted to different countries 63.240.123.12 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I'd very much appreciated the templates like "Lists of Ukrainians", "Lists of Americans", "Lists of French" and so on. Categories provide only names of people and general categorisation, while lists, especially those like List of Russian explorers or List of Russian artists provide illustrations and valuable additional information.Greyhood (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Non-flag icons have been removed from the template. See Template talk:Lists of Russians. See also User:Greyhood for comparison of the old version and the new one. I hope this will bring the dispute to an end.Greyhood (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. The other problem is that this navbox is being placed on hundreds (thousands?) of individual biographic articles, in contradiction to the WP:Navigation templates guidelines. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now that the images have been removed, I think this template is acceptable. I agree with the concerns that it's being overused - it isn't helpful to put this on every Russian biographical article. But that's not a problem with the template itself, and if it were limited to navigating between the existing 'lists of Russians' articles, it would be fine. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. With a hope of finally resolving the dispute I've implemented the following compromise solution:
    • The flags, except the modern one, are removed.
    • The template has been removed from the pages of the predecessor states. Later I'll make a special template to provide a navigation between the preecessor states and the Russian Federation.
    • The template is collapsed by default. Currently it is set uncollapsed only on the pages it links to and on the Russians page.
    • I've added two images for pure decoration. However they are not inline, not of too small size and quite discernable. Again, by default they are expanded and seen only on the lists pages.
    • I think that in the current state, when the template is visibly reduced to one line, and by default collapsed, and with the title "Russian people", there is no need to remove it from person articles. Until the dispute started there had been just a pair of people who found it unappropriate in the person articles even in the unreduced state. Obviously, lists of people of the same nationality (including one or several lists of people with the same occupation) do have some relation to a person, and may be found very useful. Again, in the current visible form the template hardly can be considered doing any harm to any article. So let it be left as it is. Greyhood (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be expanded and saved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Keep if kept to being objective without getting very nationalistic (us vs them mentality). This is the first of these kinds of templates. Nationalism especially saying "Russian people" everywhere implies little "we Russians" and outsiders. It is kind of dividing nationalistic and divisive on wikipedia. If this template is used to say the suffering of Russians during World War 2, which they did, that is fine, but incluing the current russian busnissman, people, singers, leaders to the point of "ethnic Russians" that is totally something else. Nationalism, especially concerning race, dividing by race and nationality is not good for Wikipedia, whichever side does it. If this template is all about the Russians suffering during Ww2, keep, but if this is about current glorious Russians, us versus them, russians versus "ethnic Russians" and other divisive racism and others, this should be deleted instantly. It is same as creating "Bulgarian people," "Norweigien people," "Indian people" these kinds of divisive and controversial templates. I hope everyone sees my point. 174.16.237.205 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look through the lists in this template. There are hundreds of non-ethnic Russians. It's not about ethnicity, but about nationality, about living in Russia at least for some time. And this is certainly not about race - after all, the most renown Russian poet Pushkin was partially of African descent, and many famous Russians were of Asian descent. Any famous immigrants to Russia are also included into these lists.Greyhood (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limit the use of this template. It has popped up on a good number of articles that I watch, and I don't see it adding any value to them. Ethnonyms are already linked, and these articles are already categorized as 'Category:Russian somethings'. Most recently, this appeared on Theodore Kosloff-- and it doesn't add anything. I suppose it's nice that the template is minimized, but that makes it even less valuable for the reader-- it becomes a a blue line that says "Russian people". I'm also sympathetic to anonymous user 174.16.237.205's concerns about national divisiveness-- we don't really know much about how Kosloff identified himself, and it's quite possibly not as a Russian. I'd like to see this template restricted to lists of Russians Avram (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that two users above mean pretty much what I was saying. There is no real advantage in this template. There is an actual page with the list for people who want to do more serious research. Also such definitions as 'it is about nationality' and 'living in Russia at least for some time' are a very dangerous road to take. Nationality in the cource of history is a very fluid and changing term. Does it mean if I stopped in Russia on my way to China and spent few days there and I am a famous poet I will be included in this list too? I technically lived in Russia for a few days and maybe wrote a poem there. I do agree that templates like that breed resentment and division between people.63.240.123.12 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in this nationalistic or anti-nationalistic trend of discussion. In most cases nationality is already stated in the person articles and in the categories - should we prohibit national categorisation at all? All people who were born in Russia or in its predecessor states may be defined as Russians (alike the way American citizenship is defined). All people who immigrated into Russia and gained citizenship (or just lived in Russia for long and died there, in the times before the formal citizenship existed) may be defined as Russians. This rule is easily applied - for example, Alfred Nobel is not Russian, though he lived in Russia for long, but Eduard Eversmann is Russian, since he spent most of his life in Russia and died there. As for the ancient times, I remember we had an issue with you on the point whether early princes of Kievan Rus' are Russians - and in the traditional Russian history they are considered Russians. Already in the 12th century Nestor called them Rus' people in the Primary Chronicle. The ethnonym Russians derived from Rus' and almost any Russian history book calls the people of Rus' Russians. And so in the most such cases there is no problem with defining who is Russian and who is not - we always have historical ethnonyms and historical tradition. Categorisation by nationality is not a 'dangerous road to take', unless we don't want to prohibit it completely or leave scores of people without proper categorisation.Greyhood (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (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:I-83 aux edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I-83 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is only one page this template includes. ---Dough4872 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This can be recreated if another auxiliary interstate from I-83 is built, which seems unlikely to be soon. --LJ (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough articles currently to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fredddie™ 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one link does not a navbox make. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (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:Gavin and Stacey edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gavin and Stacey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template consists of only one directly related article (List of Gavin & Stacey episodes). The other links are just to sections of the main article, a tangental link to the production company, and links to actors of the series. Consensus has been established that actors should not be linked in this manner, as it places undue weight on a single role in their careers. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Discounting the actors, there are only two distinct articles linked by this navbox. Users don't need a navbox to navigate the sections within a longer article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, not enough articles relevant to this topic to justify a template navbox. GiantSnowman 00:14, 7 December 2009 (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:Ruby 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old template for characters in Chinese and Japanese, deprecated since July 2007 in favor of more specific templates for each language. Handful of remaining transclusions are in talk page discussions from 2006 and earlier. RL0919 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at the very least, it serves to dab the other templates named "ruby" like alot of other templates that also dab to other templates. And it can be used for non-Chinese non-Japanese langauges which don't have specific ruby/pronounciation key templates. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template can be modified to place one of the others by substitution, viz. {{subst:ruby|lang=ja|高橋留美子|たかはしるみこ}} would become {{ruby-ja|高橋留美子|たかはしるみこ}}. As an alternative the other template could be consolidated as sub-templates of {{ruby}}. -- allen四names 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no reason to delete, it's not hurting anything. Could be redirected or transclude another template, like suggested above. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:21, 13 December 2009 (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:Ivrit 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 Shereth 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Language marker template, deprecated since April 2007. Only three remaining transclusions, all on archive pages. RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2009 (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:Ref num 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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref num (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This old reference template has been deprecated since April 2007, and has no remaining transclusions. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to {{Ref label}} These seem to be compatible with each other and the #endnote anchor would be the same as {{Ref label}} without the optional 3rd parameter. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it has no current transclusions, a redirect is fine with me. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. When this is done, please remove it from the list of inline templates at WP:ILT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:22, 7 December 2009 (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/2009_December_4&oldid=1086089553"