Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 16



Template:Citeseer

 * 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) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Creates a link to http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu. Created in 2005, there are only six uses. When used in a citation template, it is easily replaced by the template standard parameters. When used as an external link, it is easily replaced by the full URL. The site is well used in citations as shown by Special:LinkSearch. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This should probably be merged with citation. Citeseer is one of the most important important repositories in computer science, but has had its URL changed at least once. —Ruud 21:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Ironically, it's currently broken. Just delete and use DOI's in the future. —Ruud 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite NVR

 * 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) 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Naval Vessel Register citation template; only one use in two years -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no need if there are so few uses. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Provinces of the Austrian Empire

 * 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 no consensus to merge Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Provinces of the Austrian Empire
 * Subdivisions of Austria-Hungary

Propose merging Template:Provinces of the Austrian Empire with Template:Subdivisions of Austria-Hungary.

I understand well that these templates refer to two different eras of the Hapsburg Monarchy, one 1803-1867, and the other 1867-1918. However the sub-divisions are almost identical. There isn't enough change between the two eras to justify two separate templates. Only the Roman Empire so far has two separate "Provinces of" templates on WP, and that's because the names and boundaries used in 100BC are quite different from those of 500AD. No such change occurred during the short life of the Austrian(-Hungarian) Empire. I more useful comparison might be between the House of Hapsburg's holdings in 1500 and 1918.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is big difference between the two. While Austrian Empire was more-less centralized state where all provinces had same (or similar) status, Austria-Hungary was dual monarchy that had two parts named Cisleithania and Transleithania. In the template that refer to 1867-1918 period an division between Cisleithania and Transleithania should exist, but such division cannot be used for pre-1867 period. I really do not see how this could be merged to reflect these major differences in mentioned time periods. It is historically unacceptable that Military Frontier and Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar are listed as parts of Transleithania before 1867. PANONIAN  07:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks useful. per above. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for starters, because I can't really see how you'd actually merge the content and preserve all the information. First of all, there needs to be a new template name proposed. "Subdivisions of the Habsburg Monarchy"? If so, what exactly is the time period covered, 1803-1918? Wouldn't that be a slippery slope as far as earlier periods are concerned? Then there's the issue of separation of Cisleithania and Transleithania. How would you represent this idea in a unified template, with footnotes? Wouldn't that be clumsy? I honestly can't sign off on this change before we see a modicum of how exactly a new version would look. Start a sandbox page? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Factory Guards

 * 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) 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Created and maintained mostly by a banned User:Yongle the Great and his sockpuppets. There's not point in keeping this template since it's not used in the mainspace. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 04:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not being used, created by a now indeffed editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This template links to one page!!!!!!!! Silly to start and should be deleted straight away. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.