Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8 edit

Template:United States squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup 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 merged. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template was created a day after Template:United States Squad 2009 Confederations Cup was. They have the same exact information, but maybe the user that created it didn't know that it was already created. Black 'n Red 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete the other template on the assumption that squad should be lower case! MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree squad should be lower case, however, there are 8 teams at the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup and 6 of the templates are labelled <country> Squad FIFA Confederations Cup. Spain is the other exception where they lower case the "squad" and omit the "FIFA". Neither of the USA templates are consistent with the others. Obviously at least one should be deleted, but they should all be named consistently--ClubOranje^T 01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No-brainer, work should just have been done instead of taking it here really. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Giant Snowman 23:51, 12 June 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:Invader Zim 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 deleted by User:Wizardman. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Invader Zim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the character articles were redirected, meaning that this template is now used only on four articles (main, episodes, characters, merchandise), all of which are sufficiently interlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:44, 8 June 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:British monarchs edit

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator --DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British monarchs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:English and British monarchs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Duplicates Template:English and British monarchs. DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)~~ There appears to be some duplication/redundancy between templates. So, I've listed them all for discussion. Should we have one template "British monarchs" which lists "Kingdom of Scotland" monarchs, "Kingdom of England" monarchs and United Kingdom monarchs? Or separate templates for each of the three? Or have two templates: one for England/Britain and one for Pictland/Scotland? DrKiernan (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I merged the templates so that it is easy to navigate, and see the continuity between English and British monarchs. I also merged it with the equivilent Scottish template (now at Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs), but another editor reverted it. I strongly think the English and British monarchs should use a common template for navigation purposes, however there should be some Scottish equivilent. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having the "English and British" and "Scottish" templates rather than "English", "Scottish" and "British" would be very unwise. The joint English & Scottish monarchies of 1707 were merged equally into the British monarchy of 1707. Thus, the Scottish monarchy is as much the predecessor of the British monarchy as the English. I say delete Template:English and British monarchs D B D 09:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that we delete Template:English and British monarchs, and move Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs to Template:Pictish monarchs with the removal of the Kings of Scots. The Scottish and English monarchs could then be added to British monarchs. DrKiernan (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest keeping the English and British list in one template, but not adding the Scottish list - whatever the legal niceties, the British state is undoubtedly a continuation of the English state far more than it is of the Scottish, and if the latter continues at all is merely as a non-sovereign region of a larger polity. This would emphasise the practical truth of what the union actually entailed, and is in any case how the information is almost invariably presented in works of reference. ðarkun coll 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same as Tharkuncoll. It's superfluous to have two templates for the English and British monarchs ... and as a Scotsman this causes me no offence (though I can't speak for others). This is the way it is treated in most sources outside wikipedia, e.g. Monarchy_(TV_series). The Pictish-Scottish template however should obviously stay, being a continuous monarchy that runs from the early Dark Ages to the early 18th century. Scotland however is not special in being absorbed into the English monarchy ... you can say the same for the rulers of Wales and Ireland, not to mention Northumbria Leinster, Deheubarth and Gwynedd, the monarchies of which were also absorbed into the English/British monarchy after the formation of the English kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I moved the Pictish and Scottish template with the British one (it was moved to "Template:Pictish, Scottish and British monarchs") I placed it on all post-1707 monarchs, as they were included in that template. If we are going to keep the Scottish and Pictish template unmerged with the British one, as seems to be the concensus, should we remove that template from the later monarchs' articles? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand this TFD. Which Templates are being considered for deletion? GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems a bit vague, I haven't put any up for deletion myself, but DrKiernan started this discussion by putting "Template:British monarchs" up for discussion. Personnally, I feel we should keep "Template:English and British monachs" and "Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs". I'm currently ambivilent about "Template:British monarchs". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the British monarchs Template. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the English and British monarchs and Pictish and Scottish monarchs Template. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create seperate English monarchs Template, Scottish monarchs Template & Pictish monarchs Template. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose GoodDay's suggestions. Suggest merge Scottish monarchs template with British monarchs, create seperate template for Picts, delete British monarchs template. Strong keep for Template:English and British monarchs". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Seriously guys, this discussion level is frivolous ... these templates have been here for years and are well thought out; you need to do better than this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would supoport keeping the English and British templates merged; to a large extent, the British monarchs serve as a continuation of the English kings and queens. Given that most people would assume that, for example, Henry VIII and James I were "British monarchs", I would suggest we merge the British template again with the Scottish template, and delete the British template as being essentially redundant. I agree this discussion is currently frivilous; what would be the best way of resolving this? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you told Henry VIII he was a "British" monarch, he would probably have assumed you were talking about his Tudor Welsh ancestors. No, Henry VIII was King of England and Ireland, but the English monarchy before 1603 has nothing to do with the Scottish monarchy, which in 1603 was one of the oldest monarchies in Europe. There is absolutely no reason for Scottish and English monarchs before 1603 to be in the same template. You might as well have the monarchs of Russia and Poland in the same template. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jannizz (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to favour a new suggestion: We retain all three templates with the following changes:

Pictish and Scottish monarchs remains as it is, and it is placed on the articles of the Pictish and Scottish monarchs up to James VI only.
English and British monarchs remains as it is, and it is placed on the articles of the English monarchs from Alfred to James I only.
The Kings of Scots and Kings of England are added to British monarchs, and it is placed on the articles of the monarchs from Charles I to Elizabeth II only.

If this is carried out then the only monarch article with more than one template will be James VI and I, which will have two templates neither of which will duplicate material in the other. Consequently, this would address my concern about duplication/redundancy, and still portray the continuity of the separate thrones in the combined throne. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the purpose of that. The monarchs from James VI to Anne are monarchs of Scotland and England and Ireland separately. Either leave it as it is with 3 separate templates, which works fine, or just merge the British and English monarchs. The suggestion you are offering would have kings like Mael Coluim I in the same template as Athelstan, just because nearly a millennium later the kingdoms merged. Well, why not the kings of Northumbria (which existed into Eadred's reign) and the kings of Strathclyde, and those of the Rhinns, of Galloway, of Gwynedd, of Powys, and so on. A British monarch is either all of those, or just the monarch from Queen Anne onwards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:13, 11 June 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:YouCleanThisUp edit

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

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 userfied per below. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky attack template, not currently in use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POINTy soapboxing, redundant to templates which assume good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an attack template or a violation of wp:point, it's a joke. It's used only on the author's userpage, it's not like she was pinning this message to the top of every article she came across. For what it's worth I think the template makes a valid point, these reference demand tags only ever seem to get more prevalent - do those numbers at Category:Wikipedia backlog ever get smaller? - which speaks little for the people going around filling the demands and rather suggests there are lots of people who enjoy drive-by tagging but are somewhat shyer about putting in the graft and actually finding the refs. There's no obvious forum for campaigning against the use of these tags, just as there was never any central command that these tags should come into existence, they just sort of happened, because that's the way things work around here. So I sympathise with the creator. Btw Chris, where is the assumption of good faith with {{unreferenced}}? Faith doesn't come into it as far as I can see, it's just a bare ultimatum: follow the rules or we add this banner. You found a source? Well done, {{refimprove}}. The creator doesn't appear to be active at the moment but I'd suggest userfying this so she can decide herself what to do with it. Flowerparty^☀ 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Flowerparty, used only as a joke on one user's userpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:55, 8 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.