Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 4



Template:User citizen Guernsey

 * 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 Speedy Keep. The nominator has withdrawn the deletion request and nobody has argued to delete. --  At am a  頭 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User citizen Guernsey

No such thing as guernsey citizenship Egg   Centri  c  19:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)#
 * keep Everybody is free to create a userbox for use on their personal talkpage Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Son (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - If a positively-contributing editor wants to create a userbox saying they are a citizen of Mars then what business is it of anyone else? Is it breaking policy or disrupting the project? No. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy close, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD not TFD. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close - improper nomination rationaile, improper location for discussion, no problem with the box anyway - should be kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 7 February 2012 (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:User citizen Wales

 * 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 Speedy Keep. The nominator has withdrawn the deletion request and nobody has argued to delete. --  At am a  頭 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User citizen Wales

No such thing as Welsh citizenship Egg   Centri  c  19:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Everybody is free to create a userbox for use on their personal talkpage Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment if there's no Welsh citizenship, how do you determine who is enfranchised to vote for the Welsh home rule assembly? ... obviously, one has to be a "citizen" of Wales (as defined as a British citizen with an official residence in a Welsh parliamentary district) 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. ---Son (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - If a positively-contributing editor wants to create a userbox saying they are a citizen of Mars then what business is it of anyone else? Is it breaking policy or disrupting the project? No. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment if it's Mars, then I think it fails Not A Social Club (like why we delete the lingual-level-0 boxes) 70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy close, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD not TFD. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close - improper nomination rationaile, improper location for discussion, no problem with the box anyway - should be kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 7 February 2012 (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:Artcell

 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Artcell

only links one album article and main artist article. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not enough linked articles to be useful; WP:NENAN.  Gongshow  Talk 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:27, 9 February 2012 (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:User citizen Isle of Man

 * 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 Speedy Keep. The nominator has withdrawn the deletion request and nobody has argued to delete. --  At am a  頭 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User citizen Isle of Man

There is no such thing as Manx Citizenship. Egg  Centri  c  15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This template refers to regional citizenship and is similar to the following templates:


 * Buaidh 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the statements on these templates, please do not use them, but don't deny them to other users.  Buaidh


 * What is regional citizenship? I agree that Wales and Gurnsey have normal British Citizenship... and so should probably be deleted. Also, gibraltar, and turks and caicos do have a separate form of citizenship. Isle of Man doesn't.  Egg   Centri  c  19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Everybody is free to create a userbox for use on their personal talkpage Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Son (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - If a positively-contributing editor wants to create a userbox saying they are a citizen of Mars then what business is it of anyone else? Is it breaking policy or disrupting the project? No. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy close, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD not TFD. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close - improper nomination rationaile, improper location for discussion, no problem with the box anyway - should be kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 7 February 2012 (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:Victory SC squad
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Victory SC squad

Football club navigation template with only 3 working links, 1 of which has been proposed for deletion and the remaining would not qualify for articles. Cloudz 679 14:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can anyone please tell me why this template is nominated for deletion? Very sorry from me if I've done anything wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ47 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)  (Comment copied here from section below by Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Templates exist to make navigation easier. However, the club is not professional and therefore most players are unlikely to warrant articles. With this in mind, a navigation box is unnecessary. Cloudz 679 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Week keep Template has six blue links. I think it's enough to warrant a template. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 13:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Template not currently necessary, but I am open to suggestions for modifications to make it practical. Jorgath (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (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:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1785
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aviation accidents and incidents in 1785

Seriously? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless there's a reasonable expectation that numerous other aviation accidents and incidents from 1785 are going to turn up, this template is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, the convention with these templates is to remove links that do not link to an independent article. hence, once that link is removed, there will be nothing here. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can anyone please tell me why this template is nominated for deletion? Very sorry from me if I've done anything wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ47 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because it has one entry that needs to be deleted (as it doesnt have an article) so an empty navbox does not have any value. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually a bit of confusion here. ZZ47 placed his question in the wrong section.  He is actually the creator of the template just above this one, "Victory SC squad". The 1785 aviation template was created by Michael5046. I'm going to copy ZZ47's question to the correct place so perhaps he'll get an answer there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is only one entry in the navbox. --Son (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:YOUREALLYDONTNEEDANAVBOXFOREVERYTHING. Resolute 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (and ). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to create a Template:Aviation accidents and incidents 1775–1875 - this would combine six templates, all currently with a single link.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete if it wasnt for this discussion still being open the one entry would have been removed as it doesnt relate to a stand-alone accident article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (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:Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland

Unused template which duplicates the more comprehensive Template:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. The latter template is not big, so there is no need to split it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a mystery how this template even came to the notice of the proposer. I have only just created it. It's still a work in progress. For that reason I have not even deployed it into any county articles. Given that the proposer's activies in the past few days have been to oppose most of my edits, WP:Hounding offers a reasonable explanation for its surprise appearance. To the matter in hand now. The template is concerned with the "Upper Tier" of local government. While the template "Local government in the Republic of Ireland" has a section for this upper tier, it also has sections for "Lower Tier" (with 2 sub-categories), "Regional Authorities", "Acts" and (bizarrely) "See also". It's clear that the recent additions to this template have left us with a bloated template that is cumbersome to navigate. It does not set the authorities in their proper context. One could be left with the impression, for example, that "Regional Authorities" have powers of government equivalent to "Higher Tier" councils. This is not the case. The current template, on the other hand, prevents this situation arising as all the entities it contains are on the same legal footing with equivalent powers. All are areas of local government at the level of LAU 1 per the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics of the EU's official  Eurostat body. They lie at a level immediately below that of central government itself. The same cannot be said of the  "Lower Tier", "Regional Authorities", "Acts" or "See also" entities of the other template. If this maliciously motivated proposal is defeated, I propose to delete everything from that other template except the "Lower Tier" categories and to re-name the template to "Template:Lower tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LL, WP:NPA . You are wrong about my motivation, and should in any case assume good faith. A superfluous template came to my attention, so I took it to TfD. If you have a problem with that, take it to WP:ANI.
 * Now that you have explained the purpose of the new template, The existing Local government in the Republic of Ireland is clearly laid out, and is not overly large. It sets all the local govt entities in their proper context, which is as part of a wider system of local government. I'm sorry that you think the "see also" section is bizarre, because it links to a very few important topics such as the county manager, who is a crucial part of the local govt system in Ireland.
 * You correctly note the lower tier councils are not EU-recognised statistical units .. but so what? Both templates are about local government in Ireland, not about EU statistics.  Please try to understand the distinction.
 * As to your suggestion that Local government in the Republic of Ireland misleads readers, I'm afraid that you are seriously mistaken: it clearly distinguishes between the higher and lower tier of local govt. Since the regional authorities are listed in a separate section, I have no idea why anyone would get the idea that Regional Authorities" have powers of government equivalent to county and city councils. On the other hand, this new template groups the councils in lists grouped by Regional Authority, which implies that the Regional Authorities in Ireland have some sort of higher role in local govt, which is not the case. They are low-budget co-ordinating bodies which also monitor EU funding.
 * This new template appears to be a continuation of LL's fixation on the distinction between the two tiers of local govt in Ireland, and the irrelevant fact that the areas with town councils are not separate EU statistical units. At one point LL amended all the articles on the City and Councils to describe them in their ledes as "Tier 1" authorities, which was a neologism of LL's own invention .. and last year LL even proposed removing town councillors from the councillors categories. I wonder whether this latest template is connected with the recent deletion of the LL-created Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland, which was another attempt to give undue prominence to the EU's statistical mechanisms? Both appear to have the same intent, of misleading readers into thinking that the EU has some decisive role in the structure of Irish local govt, whereas the reverse is true: the EU simply uses existing administrative units for statistical purposes.
 * If we have separate templates for the two tiers of local govt, the effect is simply to reduce the local govt context available on each article to which these templates are applied. That does not help the reader. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Assumptions, of good faith or otherwise, are only valid for as long as no evidence is produced to disprove them. The most casual examination of the proposer's close scrutiny (including the nomination of several cats & templates for deletion) of my edits in the past few days would be sufficient to convince any reasonable observer that a high degree of hounding is evident. I am, therefore, entitled to assume an absence of good faith in the proposal. The sheer volume of material above is testimony to the proposer's paranoia and represents nothing more than a shrill exercise in covering up base motivations. Ignore the fluff. Stick to the facts. Two schemas are needed for the job; 1 for the upper tier, 1 for the lower tier. There is no intersection in the sets. No town (that contains a town council) article would need a template for the county area. Similarly, no county area (that contains a county council) would need a template for sundry town council areas in the county. They are mutually exclusive. Say "No" to bloated templates; vote for economy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong: they are definitely not mutually exclusive.
 * Laurel, you seem to think that the town councils and county councils are as distinct and separate as diamonds and cheese, and consistently take the view that town councils are so completely distinct from county councils that they shouldn't be discussed in the same place. You even think that town councillors are not local councillors, even though they are elected members of a local council. The two types of council are inter-related bodies, because where a town council exists it exercises some of the functions which would otherwise be the task of by the county council, and the county council still performs other tasks.
 * As to paranoia, who is that alleged hounding? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - yet another superfluous Irish local government template. Snappy (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unused copy of Template:Local administrative units of Ireland. Both do not add anything of encyclopedic value to Template:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Polite Suggestion the above comment should be posted in its own area of Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22 Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be in such a hurry... Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

However, if you or LL or anyone else wants to use this template as the basis for a new regional authorities template, then I'm sure that the closing admin would be happy to move the template to userspace or project space, so that those interested could develop it further. If you want to work with LL on this, I wish you luck: LL's talk page in Nov 2011, before he deleted its contents is full of instances of many different editors trying to engage with LL and being greeted with hostility and personal attacks. I hope that it turns out better for you :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the deletion of this template. It looks to me that there is use for this template on the Regional government articles at the very least. DubhEire (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If its purpose was for use on the regional authorities, why is it called Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland? The RAs are not upper tier local govt areas.
 * The existing Local government in the Republic of Ireland includes the RAs, so I will attach that template to those articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly the way this template is laid out, gives a better way of navigating regional government articles and the councils therein. The local government template is too comprehensive to be primary for the regional articles and would not give the reader easy access to the councils under the regional governments. Ok the name may not suffice the use, but it is a use of the layout? Perhaps this is where LaurelLodged was coming from with this template and the other when applying them to council articles.
 * The more I think about this, the more I think there should be a sub project to cover off the efforts and progression of these related articles / categories / templates. It is clear to me there is desire from those involved to edit articles relating to government matters. Therefore I suggest a more collaborative way of moving forward should be attempted. DubhEire (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DubhEire, I think you may be right that something like this could be a good way of navigating the regional authorities. However, it's not just the name of the template that is a problem, because the creator of the template has an entirely different idea: LL wants this to be a template of city and councils, and wants to use it on those council articles to replace the existing comprehensive template.  That's entirely opposite to your approach, and as above I see no sound reason to break up the coverage of councils in this way.
 * 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.