Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28[edit]

Template:American songs[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 debate was delete Happy‑melon 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:Irish_songs and the reasons listed their — Gnevin (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/rename as it is, it's very POVish. Because its used on several dozen pages, it might be better renamed to Template:Patriotic American songs. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is named American songs but the content is reserved for patriotic American songs. There is also a corresponding category and article related to this template. I will repeat here what I wrote in the article's AFD. I feel that this is blatantly original research without any verifiability to support the contention that any of the songs mentioned are patriotic. It seems to me that editors are just adding songs that they personally feel are patriotic to the article, category or template. We have the controversial Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American) listed in the category. We have a civil rights protest song We Shall Overcome in the template. We have the war song The British Grenadiers in the article. What about songs like PT-109 or Lift Every Voice and Sing? What exactly does all these songs have in common that makes them patriotic? Whose patriotism is this? The conservatives? The liberals? The African-Americans? The KKK? The God fearing believer? The atheist? The military? The anti-war protestors? A patriotic song to one is a rebel song to another. There is no clear inclusion criteria to the article, category or template. We have folk songs, gospel songs, war songs, protest songs, even modern pop songs all arbitrarily included as patriotic songs with no consideration to context or subjectivity. Like the article, this template should simply be deleted per WP:OR. --Bardin (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a very handy organizational template. It's not really POV... every song that's listed is well-referenced as being a patriotic American song. (If there are any exceptions, then it's those songs that should be removed from the template.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on probation "American songs" is clearly over-broad, but "Patriotic music of the United States" (the current title) ought to be tenable. There are many songs that undeniably fit in the category, and it is valuable to have such a navigational aid. On the other hand, I see the border-defining problem. "We Shall Overcome" is a significant song in the history of the U.S., but it is not specifically patriotic. A number of other questionable entries are currently included here. The only solution I can see is that the definition of whether a song is "patriotic" needs to be made by a reliable source, and not by WP. I'd like to give it a chance, but if significant improvement cannot be made, I would support deletion next time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not so much concerned by the issues with the inclusion criteria (I'm not sure exactly how to define a 'patriotic American song', but most of those linked here easily qualify) as the usefulness of this template. Quite frankly, I don't think it helps users to easily navigate from one of these songs to any other; the links between them are weak at best. This would be much better presented as a category than as a template. Terraxos (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2008 (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:Xenogears[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one Xenogears article remaining, no need for template Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A navigation template that... doesn't navigate anywhere. Bin it as pointless due to there only being one article on the subject, and therefore little prospect for the template expanding (and ergo becoming more useful). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:18, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
Delete, un-needed. There are no other Xenogears-related articles, rendering a navigation bar effectively useless. If links to other articles are needed, they can be added in a "See also" section of the Xeneogears article. FusionMix 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I plan to create a Music of Xenogears article detailing the albums released for the game, but two articles would still not be enough to make a template necessary. Kariteh (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template unneeded. Also, some background info. This game is linked with Xenosaga and the template is redundant to Template:Xenosaga. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (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:Blah lblah blah[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 debate was Speedy Deleted Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a test template TN‑X-Man 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per CSD G2 (test page) and tagged as such. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:48, May 28, 2008 (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:Polish scouting ranks[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused, all linked articles were merged into one article. —— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as all articles redirect to Ranks in Polish Scouting, nor does it seem apparently that the articles will be recreated as independent. FusionMix 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most if not all of the links redirect to Ranks in Polish Scouting. Isn't used on a lot of pages, either. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:08, 29 May 2008 (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:Spain Squad 2008 UEFA Euro[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 debate was Keep Happy‑melon 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WikiProject, neither the regional event (or any other event than FIFA World Cup)) is current nor past, should be use a Template to present the squad. — Matthew_hk t c 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could these not be added to the discussion already going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 26#Football templates? – Pee Jay 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the conclusion of the closed discussion PeeJay2K3 refers to above. Catchpole (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2008 (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 box Albatros corvette[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 debate was Delete. All the templates used on List of naval ship classes in service should be substituted and deleted. I have begun the process of converting them to use a new {{Ship class list}} formatting template which I created for the occasion; there are a huge number of templates still to be replaced. As the templates are substituted, they should be tagged with {{db-g6}} or {{db-t3}} to clean up. Happy‑melon 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futile, it is an infobox for an unexistent article. Mojska ^{all you want} 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a copy-paste mistake in the link; this is fixed now and I would propose removing the tag. I must admit it's a bit disappointing to have your very first non-anonymous edit shot down one minute after it was posted. Pietrow (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmh... There is a infobox in the article, with the same information of this. That is the official MoS infobox, this is a copy of that template with another style. Sorry, I don't think it is necessary. I wait other opinions. Mojska ^{all you want} 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the infobox at the right of the main article? If so, I wasn't aware that this box can be used on List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service; my apologies. Pietrow (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template created for only two articles is futile. Mojska ^{all you want} 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I vote for delete this template. Mojska ^{all you want} 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I will leave this to more experienced people. However, I checked other templates and it is probably noteworthy that every single template on List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service is used only there. So if you would like to delete this template perhaps a complete reorder is required. Two examples: [1] and [2]. Pietrow (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2008 (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:Current rover mission[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way too narrow in scope. The only two articles that has this template should use a modified {{Current spaceflight}} tag instead. See also TfD for {{Current mars lander mission}} [3] — Kildor (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument at the TFD for Current mars lander mission --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same motivations of Kildor. Mojska ^{all you want} 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Superfluous. The lede of the article can and should state any information contained in this template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2008 (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:Romanian historical regions[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 debate was No consensus. Possibly leaning towards 'keep', but there's too much confusion, canvassing and/or rhetoric from both sides to say for certain. Happy‑melon 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -Informative template. ClaudiuLine (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC) - sock of banned user[reply]

Delete - There is no scientific verifiable source for the information presented in the template, which is just another mere irredentist invention on Wikipedia and serves basicly for desinformation of Wikipedians. Romania and all related to the term "Romanian" exists since 1871 (just for general info) — Moldopodo (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the template serves a legitimate purpose of bringing together the various regions that comprise, or used to comprise, Romania, and are, or have been, unified by a common language, culture, religion, national consciousness etc. Similar templates exist for Prussia, Ukraine and Poland and if this one isn't perfect, the answer is editing, not deletion. I also cannot help but notice a fair amount of bad faith: "just another mere irredentist invention on Wikipedia and serves basicly for desinformation of Wikipedians". This is not about "irredentism", it is about history - that some historical Romanian regions happen to be outside the boundaries of present-day Romania is true, but has no bearing on their status as historical Romanian regions. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, nor anybody else who edited this template has ever provided one single verifiable source neither for the name of the template, nor for its contents. Take Moldova, for example, it has never used Romanian language, Moldavian being official in it since 14th century and it only "lived with" Romania for about 20 years... Let's include Russia in historical German lands as it was occupied by Germans for 4 years during Second World War, or in historical Tatar lands (more years there). Once the evidence is produced for this invention called "Romanian historical lands", a discussion may be most certainly started for proper renaming and further eeventual editions. Unless it is so, it should be deleted--Moldopodo (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. For the same general info, the term "Romania" exists at least from 1816, "Romanian" at least from the XVIth-XVIIIth century. The oficial name "Romania" of the present day country was established in its first constitution, dated 1866. Enough about "general info". Now, this template deals with all regions that were part of Romania since 1866. Most of these regions were also part of the principalities of Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Terra Dobrotici etc. in medieval times. We have: Banat (1918 - present), Bessarabia (1918 - 1940; 1941 - 1944; southern part aka Budjak: also between 1866 - 1878), Bukovina (1918 - present; northen part until 1944), Crişana (1918 - present), Dobrudja (northen: 1878 - present; southern: 1913 - 1940), Hertza (1866 - 1940; 1941 - 1944), Maramureş (1918 - present), Moldova (1866 - present), Muntenia (1866 - present), Oltenia (1866 - present), Transnistria (administration between 1941 and 1943-44), Transylvania (1918 - present), Wallachia (1866 - present). To deny obvious historical facts means: serious lack of appropriate lecture, bad faith, or/and promotion of "stalinist" history, which said that "Romania is an empire of oppressed nations". This makes me sick! --Alex:Dan (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All we know about the term "Romania" are phrases: "at least", "believed", "hypothetical". Check the tiny article using basicly terms like "hypothetical" and "believed" History of Romanian language and compare it with the article on History of the Moldovan language which clearly gives references and an extensive history. All the dates you cited are fakes: Bukovina speaks Ukrainian and Moldavian, although they do indeed have about 1% of Romanians, the same applies to Moldova, which even never had anything called "Romanian", even more Transnistria and others. Like I said, this template is a mere specualtion and invention and you prove it only by your personal view statements, with no scientific encyclopedia worth background support.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Stalin is elsewhere, not here. Go find him. Wikipedia is (should be) a neutral encyclopedia, not a place for old rotten stalinist theories... --Alex:Dan (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, you only get to vote once. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant filling of the project page, Biruitorul, please obstain from this practice.--Moldopodo^talk 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify it to include only the regions in present Romania. The regions outside Romania have nothing specifically Romanian about it. Moreover, all had been under Russian, Turkish or Bulgarian rule for at least 100 years, while Romania controlled them for less than 25 years, some of them not even legally. Also, if one has doubts about the purpose of the inclusion of non-Romanian terriories in this template, he just has to look at the map proeminently featured in it. He'll instantly understand it's about some irredentist dreams of "greater Romania" (a interwar medium really opressive for the non-Romanian majorities of those regions). It's OK to have templates to help readers easily find out about the other historical regions of Romania, but there's no justification for calling territories with only a frail Romanian ethnic minority ruled by Romania for merely 20 years as such. Also, accusations of lack of education, bad faith and "stalinism" reflect the state of mind of the editors supporting the "speedy keep". I am really concerned about the ability of such people to respect the rules of objectivity on Wikipedia.Xasha (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the "Romanian-ness" of Southern Dobrogea and especially Transnistria are indeed questionable; Northern Bucovina and especially Bessarabia, less so. However, that's not the main issue here: it's that these regions were, in fact, part of Romania - a rather finite amount of territory, after all. Given that the Russian and Ottoman empires existed for centuries before Romania was formed, it's not surprising their control would last longer, but that's not especially relevant either. "Legal" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder - true, the USSR never recognised Romanian sovereignty over Bessarabia, but the Western powers either did so or didn't particularly care; what is relevant, though, is that, "legality" aside, Romanian institutions (army, railways, etc) functioned there exactly as in all other parts of the country for over two decades. And I'm sorry, the comment about "irredentist dreams" does indicate bad faith - no one here or on the template's talk page has made such assertions (I for one have repeatedly denied them). (I also question the claim that Romania was "really opressive" to non-Romanians, but that's a discussion for another venue.) Also, note that Bessarabia had a Romanian majority, and Northern Bucovina a relative Romanian majority (also irrelevant, since this is a discussion about Romanian state territories, not Romanian ethnic territories). I for one have a long record of objectivity here, and my colleague Alex:D likewise, both here and on ro.wiki. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant imagined personal view statement, not worth of any encyclopedia value and most certainly not supporting in any way your would be "argument". As for infrastructure, it owes nothing particular to Romania, as it existed before and was even more developed later, with the help of Russian Empire. Just for a quick note on infrastructure in Romania - thanks for EU funds! --Moldopodo (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could Transylvania be a "historical region" of Romania being part of the state since 1920 (Treaty of Trianon)? Isn't it misleading that the title reads "1867-present"? Squash Racket (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, because of this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Moldavian-Romanian and because this guy wants something that is impossible. By the other hand, the regions are recognized by thousands of people around the world who studied the Romanian history. As a Romanian, i have never heard such a thing. It is impossible to do that. Please keep it, please. I know that my vote is not valid, but please do not delete it. And another thing: template's name is Romanian historical regions, not Romanian regions so there are the regions that took part of Romania in the past, nt in the present. Sebi (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange and absolutely irrelevant argumentation, very strange user as well (looking at the editing history[4]), and again, no source whatsoever...--Moldopodo^talk 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per Biruitorul and AlexDan. --R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the matter is covered independently in Historical regions of Romania, Transylvania (and specifically Transylvania#Geography and ethnography), Moldavia, Wallachia and so on -- the mere existence of the latter articles should be enough to justify the template pointing to them. I suggest this vote be summarily closed and any further discussion on the topic redirected to Talk:Historical regions of Romania. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CANVASSING ALERT: Biruitorul is calling people from the Romanian Wikipedia to vote here in a very agressive fashion.[5]Xasha (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Biruitorul has notified the community of the Romanian Wikipedia that someone has proposed renaming our Wikipedia -- a most reasonable course of action IMHO. ~~Then one thing led to another and someone else pointed to this page in a different reply.~~ I take that back, I now noticed that he has indeed mentioned this page in the context (I hadn't even noticed that when I first read it). --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, nobody's perfect. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gutza, please, refrain from disrespectful comments (you said) "nobody's perfect" in my regard, like a civilised Europeanised Romanian (should you be one, I never lose the hope). There is a difference between (I said) "have a look at discussion" and (Biruitorul or rather yelled in hystery) "Dear colleagues, it's a serious thing! A Moldovanist porposed the change of name of ro.wp into mo-ro.wp I ask you to express your opinions as long as there is some time left, and if you do so, look also at another proposal of his". Saying what you say, Gutza, you support the disprespectful message of Biruitorul in my regard on ro.wikipedia.org--Moldopodo^talk 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being modest quoting so little from your own message -- my eyes were caught by this: "spread this to interested Hungarian users". --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting childish, what do you expect me to write "no, don't spread it to anyone"? Hungary, neighboring country, has surely a word here, just as any other country.--Moldopodo^talk 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, spare us the righteous outrage. I've asked Romanian editors (who naturally are interested in the subject) to express an opinion here. (On en.wiki we have this page for just the same purpose.) I did not indicate how they should vote, and I certainly did not do it in a "very aggressive" fashion. This witch-hunt is rather tiresome. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you just said: hurry up, a Moldovenist is out there with proposals of his.--Moldopodo^talk 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'd rather translate my words exactly, rather than have them distorted further. "Esteemed colleagues, the matter is serious! A Moldovenist has proposed changing the name of ro.wiki to mo-ro.wiki. Please express your opinions there while there is still time, and if you are to do that, you may as well see this [link here] proposal of his. Thank you very much." First, this was not "yelled in hystery", it was rather measured. Second, the link here was an aside - the main point of the message was to link to the meta discussion. And third, we have this page on en.wiki for just the same purpose. So really, there's nothing to see here. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moldopodo "kindly" informed Italian wikipedians of this TfD. I would vote speedy keep just for that reason... --Jaqen (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment: He just followed the example of more experienced Wikipedia editors (i.e. Biruitorul). So why not speedy delete? (Note I personally don't support this option.)Xasha (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no verifiable source for the information presented in the template. Also agree with this comment: Could Transylvania be a "historical region" of Romania being part of the state since 1920 (Treaty of Trianon)? Isn't it misleading that the title reads "1867-present"?and on, and on.. too many questions without answers and mistakes for one template----László (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a fact that all these regions have been part of Romania at various times since 1867 - or do you deny that? And after all, can't we do something like this: Banat (1918/20-) • Dobruja (Northern Dobruja (1878-) • Southern Dobruja (1913-1940)), etc? Surely clarifying, rather than deleting, is preferable. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sure looks like canvassing. multichill (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it clear what is canvassing and what is not here. As per Wikipedia definition Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. When you compare the contents of Biruitorul's and mine messages you see a huge difference. First Biruitorul refers to a user (myself), second - in the following terms and proposal of his, third he clearly gives an indication how to vote by claming that I am "Moldovenist", four - he urges users to do it quickly... Whereas all I do in my message is informing people of the discussion, period.--Moldopodo^talk 08:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually, that part of the message referred to the meta discussion. And in any case, I did not send messages to "multiple Wikipedians", only to a noticeboard, of the very kind we have here. So really, there is zero cause for complaint. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul, as per Wikipedia definition, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive - this is the exact description of the message you posted on ro.wikipedia.org. As for your name, I do not know how can one tarnish it more than you have done already. Like I said earlier, when I refer to your edits as ethno-racists it is because they are ethno-racist, and not because in fact the are "red rose" edits. You cannot continuously negate the existence of a nation, of a state of a language. If there had been a possibility to post my message in one place, where the discussions would have neen automatically notified to all Wikipedias, I would have done it. Unfortunately such program does not exist on Wikipedia. (Here is what one could think of in order to improve the neutrality and general quality of important structural Wikipedia discussions, as well as those touching different linguistic projects)--Moldopodotalk 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

comment: I've been involved in several very similar arguments with our fellow Romanian editors, who usually tried to push a Romanian bias into the articles. I had neither time nor energy to fight, but it has been pointed out several times that Romanian editors "not always able to tell" historical facts from Romanian education, which have relations to history but not always describe the same reality as we others know. (And I must confess it's most probably not their fault!) I am sure neither Moldavian nor Hungarian (as myself) editors are clear of bias in this topic, since the lands here around has been assigned and reassigned (often with bloody transactions) to several countries. I would very much like to invalidate eastern european non-professionals votes, and let non-involved outsiders and (very much preferably) professionals to decide what is correct and what is not. My opinion would be to try to keep real historical names instead of current day countries, but I am not professional either. And since this is a very heated topic (Romanians vs. surrounding nations) people going to keep canvassing, and keep denying it. --grin ✎ 08:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small region with a heated history, everybody's biased -- one might also speak about Hungarians vs. surrounding nations, Ukrainians vs. surrounding nations, Russians vs. surrounding nations and so on. The thing is, we typically don't like to attach labels indiscriminately to large groups of people, e.g. by ethnicity or citizenship. It would indeed be great if these matters were handled by professional historians, but that wouldn't really be Wikipedia any more, would it? But then again, when you get overwhelming evidence that the claim on which this entire proposal is based on is false I don't think you need a history degree to make a decision (see the original claim at the top of this section and my vote above for my rationale). --Gutza ^{T T+} 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a troll magnet which generates more heat than light. _R_ (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just an idea: what if the template also included the years when each of the regions became part of Romania? Like, Banat (1918), etc. It wouldn't make the template too large and maybe it would solve the problem. – Alensha ^talk 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comments - canvassing on bg.wiki - not sure from which of the two sides, but see - [6].

It seems he did that on a number of wikis - [7]. --Laveol ^T 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've modified the template to reflect concerns brought up by Squash Racket, Laslovarga and Alensha. Is it any better now? Biruitorul ^Talk 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more acceptable. The title is still kinda strange (Transylvania is rather a historical region of Hungary and a present region of Romania), but I don't know what title would be suitable for including all these regions at once. Squash Racket (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, since this version is trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa (thing that was tried in Romania. but was ultimately rejected by the country's Supreme Court).Xasha (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you, at long last, stop imputing sinister motives to my name? The fact is that Romania reconquered those territories during the war. That the reconquest was accomplished by an odious regime is immaterial. So no, I am not "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", and I would ask that you withdraw this inflammatory accusation. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any note that Wallachia and Dobruja were not under Romanian rule in 1916-1918, or that every part of Romania had the same relation to the Soviet Union in 1944-1947 as Bessarabia had to Romania in 1941-1944 (i.e. occupied territories). The only logical justification is the above.Xasha (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I simply forgot about that - do review WP:AGF. I again ask that you withdraw the serious accusation you have levelled, and stick to commenting "on content, not on the contributor". Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you did "forgot", why didn't you act to correct your mistake when you were informed about it?Xasha (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, because this potential problem was pointed out while under an implicit charge of fascism (vorba dulce mult aduce). Second, because templates are not meant to provide an exhaustive account, merely an overview - I suppose one could, if one wanted to, describe village by village when Romania lost and regained land in the world wars, but that would be far too excessive. And, of course, Romania occupied part of Transylvania in 1916, and part of Hungary and Serbia in 1918-20 (and Jimbolia only entered Romania in 1924), and Transnistria during WWII, and actually the Soviet occupation lasted till 1958... Look, history is messy sometimes. As long as what we have isn't blatantly inaccurate, readers can easily find out the minutiae from the relevant articles. But accusing me or what I propose as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" is not a productive method of trying to start a dialogue on the issue. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the impression you give by listing just those specific occupations of the numerous ones relevant to the template.Xasha (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't care what impression I give you - please keep it to yourself if it involves fascism, historical revisionism, rehabilitation, "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", and similar scurrilous accusations. WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA require that you avoid such interpretations, unless they're blindingly obvious, which is far from being the case here. As I said, I either simply forgot or didn't wish to delve into the minutiae; no need for sinister spin like that. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're refusal to correct your edit can only confirm my supposition.Xasha (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, see you here — eventually you will understand that I will no longer accept these types of accusations from you. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's better now. Thanks, Biru! – Alensha ^talk 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in its updated version. I consider the few problems with the template fully addressed by the notes. Dahn (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. - It is an informative template. --Olahus (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This template is quite simply a promotion for Romanian claims to areas outside of its current borders, as a cultural pan-Romanianism if there is such a thing, but the inclusion of Moldova (1866 - present) is clearly in error given Molodova has not been a part of Romania since 1940, something that many Romanians find politically unpalatable, but which has no place in Wikipedia. I also note the article Historical regions was created by User:Piotrus, a prominent Polish editor, and that the articles currently include subcategories

Austrian historical regions

Czech historical regions

German-speaking ex-regions

Hungarian historical regions

Geographical, historical and cultural regions of Italy

Former subdivisions of Pakistan

Polish historical regions

Romanian historical regions

Ukrainian historical regions

and two articles Historical regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Historical regions of Central Europe ...but defines these regions as "Historical regions are former geographic areas whose names are obsolete or have fallen out of use." Aside from the lack of source for this definition, this is clearly not true for the template under discussion. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, this template "promotes" nothing. If you want to tweak it, fine, but the self-serving purpose which you impute to it simply does not exist, and there is no cause for deletion. And please look closer: it's Moldavia, not Moldova, that has been part of Romania since 1866 - you know, Iaşi (or, if you prefer, Jassy), Botoşani, Bacău, Galaţi, Focşani, Vaslui - that sort of place. See this 1901 map - "Moldau" is within the borders of Romania; see this 21st century map - Moldavia, within the black line, is still in Romania; Moldova is not. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How funny is that Biruitorul that you have to stoop to using English and a black line on the map to force tour point of view on the unsuspecting reader. You have no idea what a historical region is. Walachia and Moldavia (in English) are the historical regions that go back to the early Medieval period at least, and not 1866. Serbia (Servia during 1866) was also a historical Romanian region, what with a population of 155,000, but not on your template. There was even a small community of Romanian speakers in Greece of about 4000, which is also not on your template. What you are instead trying to assert surreptitiously is that modern Moldova is a part of the state of Romania as it was since 1866, despite changed geo-political realities and the passage of 142 years. Even your map betrays the lack of understanding of the concept of a historical region. Populations, particularly in Europe, were rarely confined by the borders drawn along river courses the way political borders are drawn on your map. Lots of Moldovan communities were situated on the eastern bank of the Dnester, and same applies to your other borders. Some Moldovans lived far beyond even the Bug, and that also makes it inclusive into the historical region, but that is not on your template because it would invite the ire of Ukrainian editors perceiving this as a territorial claim. You call Crişana a historical region of Romania, but its not. It is a historical region of Romanian speaking population because history is a process, not a map exercise. A historical region would describe all areas of distinct settlement irrespective of claimed political borders. You are just using history as a political tool, and this has no place in Wikipedia. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't appreciate the tone of your reply. "You have no idea what a historical region is... lack of understanding of the concept of a historical region" are basically saying I'm an idiot - I urge you to rephrase or withdraw those remarks. "Force your point of view on the unsuspecting reader", "trying to assert surreptitiously", "would invite the ire of Ukrainian editors", "history is a process, not a map exercise" (?), "just using history as a political tool". Put aside the fact that I neither drew the map nor created the template - no! Quite simply, no! It's a mere template, for goodness' sake! Romania has a few regions, and they're all given here, with appropriate dates and all to make everyone happy! There is no hidden agenda! No walking on eggshells to avoid bruising the egos of Ukrainian editors - who, last I checked, were a rather hardy lot! No attempt to mislead, to insinuate, to propagandise, to cynically lead blissfully unaware readers, like a mad Pied Piper of Hamlin, into a toxic Lethe of seductive pan-Romanianism! Sometimes a template is just a template! And assume good faith, I beseech you! 2. If you want to delve into the issues more carefully, I invite you to the template talk page, but please, no assumption of agendas. Thank you. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, please you would not deny you did not say the followng (warning - extreme POV follows !!!) [8]
Yes: the "Moldovan language", the "Moldovan ethnicity" and the "Moldovan state" are all figments of the Stalinist imagination, created in order to deprive Romania of her rightful territory - and yes, Romanian is the language spoken all the way to the Dniester, Romanians are the only Romance people who inhabit the land between the Prut and the Dneister, and Romania ought to control that land, not the illegitimate entity that does so at present.--Moldopodo^talk 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. But what on earth does that have to do with the template we're discussing? It is possible, you know, to separate one's own POV from one's editing. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't be falsly shy, it has everything to do on Earth both with this discussion as well as with the one on renaming ro.wiki into mo.wiki, as well as with all articles you edit that are related to Moldova, Moldavian state, Moldavian language, Moldavian nation. Moreover, it perfectly shows that a user with such "thoughts" clearly cannot contribute constructively on Wikipedia, at least on articles related to the subject.--Moldopodo^talk 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, there are different regional concepts:

and others. The Historical regions template points to articles that are not solely historical, and the map is entirely unhistorical. The names are not hostorical, but derived from current Romanian use by your own admition. If the template creator had no hidden agenda, then suspect he/she just confused the different concepts, so I'm sorry if I made any presumptions. I would have expected more research before a template was created. I suspect other templates may be similarly in error. This is unsurprising since I had to completely rewrite the recently created stub on historical region. If it is the Romanian regions that the template is for, then they are political, based on political geography, so the template is still wrong because the template can only refer to the current borders, and the articles would neet to discuss the political border changes over time.

Mrg3105, that's more like it - thank you. The map outlines show Greater Romania - the greatest extent reached by the modern Romanian state. As for the names, the only problem area that stands out is Moldova/Moldavia/Bessarabia, but I'm sure something can be worked out. Anyway: you make some good points and if the template survives deletion, I'd be glad to discuss changes. Maybe even a change in the title would do the trick of showing what we want to show? ("Political" rather than "historical"?) Anything's on the table, really, so long as the discussion stays civil, which makes editing a far less unnerving activity. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, you said Romania has a few regions, and they're all given here, with appropriate dates and all to make everyone happy! , so just make a template "Regions of Romania" and insert there all the regions Romania has. Or is that just another plain rhetorics to divert reader's attention to a new version of argument to sabotage the voting?--Moldopodo^talk 10:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly assume good faith, will you? This is about regions Romania has, or has had in the past. (Do see the little dates in parentheses.) Biruitorul ^Talk 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case its not historical at all because "Greater Romania (Romanian: România Mare) generally refers to the territory of Romania in the years between the First and Second World Wars, the largest geographical extent of Romania up to that time and its largest peacetime extent ever". It is really a template for political geography.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a lot of this confusion is caused by the truly neutral (and quite PC) manner in which we Romanians use the concept "historical regions" when we want to emphasize that we're talking about what used to be the old Principalities. As in almost any country, there are several archetypes associated with various regions of the country; since those map well on the borders of the old Principalities (Wallachia, Transylvania, Moldavia), we talk about "historical regions" when we're talking about them collectively (e.g. imagine a talk-show on TV: "The view I have expressed has been supported throughout all of the historical regions, this is not something specific to muntenians as you make it sound.") This is a very much accepted and really a-ok manner of referring to those regions, and that's probably why a lot of Romanians find it unbelievable when the use of the same wording is being chastised here as being irredentist and so on -- there really is no such intention or agenda.

Regarding Moldavia in particular, it really is a historical region of Romania, the same as Muntenia is. The fact that history played a dirty trick and the Russians annexed half of it is irrelevant, as is the duration of the Greater Romania (I know it wasn't technically an annexation, but come on). The will of the people of Moldavia has been shown when they decided to join Wallachia, not when half of their territory was taken by force. On the other hand, today the Republic of Moldova is a sovereign state, and we fully acknowledge that today there is not enough will to merge the two countries back together; as such, nobody's making what would indeed amount to irredentist remarks such as "Moldova, pământ românesc" ("Moldova, romanian land" -- at least in the article namespace they don't, and if anybody does, those remarks must indeed be deleted). --Gutza ^{T T+} 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gutza There is no need to invent how specific the term "historical regions" is in Romania. If today you have regions, say something like clearly marked in Romnian Constitution some type of decentralisation or federalisation - then yes, do the template "Regions of Romania", if not it's useless to do what you are doing: each of your new edits brings in a newly invented justification (historical, geographical, etc, etc). Besides, your contributions, taking in consideration your status of administrator are more than biased, which is really a pity for someone who is supposed to be impartial. Please have a look at this little discussion on the talk page of User:Gutza (we will not see the rest as the continuation follows in private e-mail between Biruitorul and Gutza)[9] and talk page if User:Biruitorul - [10]--Moldopodo^talk 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so what does our exchange have to do with this template, and why it should be deleted? I'm sorry, your arguments, thin from the start, are steadily eroding. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my arguments, all I am showing is your 'faith' - I let other users decide: good or bad. I think clearly bad faith.--Moldopodo^talk 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to consult WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith, specifically the part about WP:NPA. --Gutza ^{T T+} 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to the current version? I believe the template can be kept in this form. --Illythr (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of desinformation is going around false "Great Romania" myth. Romania exist only 138 years and during this time is so much false against Moldovians, Ukrainians, Bolgarians and Hungarians.--Tomakiv (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, what on earth does this have to do with the template at hand, and second, haven't you perchance been canvassed? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sick minded idea in template includes territories neighboring Ukraine, Moldavia and Bulgaria. That what Romanians were taught during monarchist, fascist and communist regimes. Why do the whole world needs to be exposed to all this?--Tomakiv (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Er, do you see the little dates in parentheses rather clearly indicating those territories ceased to be a part of Romania in 1940? (And as an aside, they were part of Romania until 1940 (and rightfully so), which is why that was taught in schools under the monarchy; nothing "sick minded" about that.) Biruitorul ^Talk 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get back on topic? emphatic Keep. This is a perfectly valid historical/geographical topic and nothing else. Enough with all the nonsense about canvassing, irredentism, Moldovenism--talk like that is a big reason I and many others barely can stand the Wiki anymore. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure let's get back on topic, here is basically what resumes the justification for this template and many other things written by Romanian users on Romania and Moldova on Wikipedia. Those who have weak nerves, please do not click on the following diff (Biruitorul's latest pearl) attention - the diff follows: [11] !!! - --Moldopodo^talk 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything? The template says Bessarabia was part of Romania until 1940! (Which is inaccurate - 1944, you know - but whatever.) Please assume good faith. It's a perfectly innocuous template designed to show what Romania's historical regions have been; there is no "justification" beyond that. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the term is used in English language academic literature by both Romanian and non-Romanian authors, this should be pretty convincing: [12]. Wikipedia is not ment to establish terminology but merely to reflect existing one. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually more like 3 results, one of them considering Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania, one only Moldavia and Wallachia, and the third can't be viewed. So, yes, pretty much Wikipedia establishes terminology here.Xasha (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, if you realy fancy the exact search option, we should also look for "historical region of Moldavia" [13], "historical region of Moldova" [14], "historical region of Bessarabia" [15] and so on. The google.scholar search is equally interesting: [16]. I feel that it's pretty clear that academic and mainstream sources use this terminology in English. I don't really care if it's accuarte, wikipedia is about verifiabilty not truth. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This boils down to a conflict over content between a few users, there doesn't seem to be any issues that relate to the template's existence and as a social sciences student I see the value in it, pending resolution of any minor issues related to its content. Orderinchaos 02:25, 7 June 2008 (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.