Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

December 26

Template:Regions which belonged to Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon

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 support deletion, defaults to keep. JPG-GR (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regions which belonged to Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created by a non-established editor User:Saydavid (Contributions) apparently only to advertise a biased opinion that, somehow, the territories formerly under Hungarian hegemony should still be considered something else than they are at the moment. It matters not a bit that these regions may had been part of many other organizational units throughout their history. Its only the fact that they used to be part of the fin de siècle "Kingdom of Hungary" that matters (note: not of Austria-Hungary, not of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, but of the Kingdom of Hungary). The fact that, on the English Wikipedia, the names of these regions are given in Hungarian only underlines the true intentions of the author. The Tnavbar (view, edit & discuss links) don't work (deliberately?), so editors can't edit the template if they wish to, without first having to track down through Wikipedias bowels the template. Ultimately, the template is simply redundant and otherwise useless as long as it does not accompany a dedicated article. Thank you. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template collects the historical regions that were part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 11th century with interruptions until the Treaty of Trianon. If there are problems with it, it may be modified, but I don't think it should be deleted.

Talking of "established editors": the above user has less than 100 edits. Squash Racket (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat lector ↑ - The term "Kingdom of Hungary" can refer to a number of things: the medieval KoH between 1000-1541, the titular KoH of the Austrian Habsburg dynasty 1541-1867 (it was only a title; the Kingdom didn't exist de facto), the KoH as the Transleithanian (Hungarian) part of Austria-Hungary, or the interbellum KoH (named as such due to a political decision; it did not had a king or a true monarchic system.). The famous "1000-1918 Kingdom of Hungary" is a pompous phrase employed by Hungarian historiography. Anyway, even if my above statements are not correct, you should know that the borders of this kingdom ( or should I say of these kingdoms) varied over time. Hence, saying that a region from that template, say Vojvodina belongs in the template because, as Squash Racket says, the template contains all the "historical regions that were part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 11th century with interruptions until the Treaty of Trianon" is simply a laughable thing to do. Between the year 1000 and 1920, Vojvodina was Bulgarian, Byzantine, Serbian, Ottoman and Austrian for centuries, and only chance had it that late in the 19th century was included into the "Kingdom of Hungary". What's next? Templates about historical regions of Europe which used to be part of the Ottoman Empire? And written in Turkish perhaps. You can use categories to "collect" anything you want, if you have a mania for collecting. There's no need for such an atrocious template. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to prove my good faith, I can suggest a name for this category: "Historical regions of Transleithania", or "Regions of Transleithania". ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget that Austria-Hungary was a dual monarchy, so "Regions which belonged to Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon" is a correct, encyclopedic title and definitely helps the reader in finding the historical context of the given region.
The title clearly and simply reflects on the historical regions that — according to multiple reliable English references — Hungary lost with the Treaty of Trianon. Squash Racket (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the title should be "Regions which belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary inside Austro-Hungary (why omit this very important fact) between 1865-1918". And its pretty obvious that Austria-Hungary was not just a simple dual-monarchy. Hungary just had a higher status. Btw, what is the difference between the Kingdom of Hungary within this "dual monarchy", and that of the of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia or other territories which, in their turn, enjoyed a special status within the different levels of the Austro-Hungarian framework? Simply sayd, could I, insipired by your template about regions of the Kingdom of Hungary withing the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy, create a template about "Regions of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia within the Kingdom of Hungary withing Austria-Hungary"? I knows, it sounds abracadabristic, but that's how I also feel about your arguments. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of WP:Categories? ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you not to add your own comment in the middle of mine (as you did it for the second time)?? Also time to read WP:CIV.

Austria-Hungary was a simple dual monarchy with a few common policies. As far as I know Croatia only had a titular monarchy status while de facto being autonomous within Hungary, but feel free to create a new template for Croatian regions if you wish. Squash Racket (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q.E.D. And I'm sorry for making the mistake of replying in the middle of your comment. It won't happen again. As for WP:CIV, I'm not getting where you're hinting at with it. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the regions listed are historical regions, no longer existing. Many of the articles concentrate on the history of the Hungarian population in those territories. The only exception that I can find is Burgenland in Austria. I do not think the modern Austrians are offended by the inclusion of the template. Many of the others also include templates like {{Romanian historical regions}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the regions listed are historical regions, no longer existing" - How exactly does this relate to the issue? Please develop your argument. But I won't wait for your answer because, come to think of it, it's quite the opposite! Back in those days these regions did not exist per se. The only thing that existed were the official administrative divisions of the empire. So isn't it inadequate to retroactively label modern historical regions as being part of a historical entity? (and just to make it clear: despite the fact that Transylvania was deliberately bared of any regional identity in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I do not accuse anybody of an arguably hypocritical stance; I am only pointing out the ex post facto character of such a view). And what logic should we use in selecting which regions should we include in this template? Why, for example, is Muraköz included, and not (the historical region of) Burzenland? Furthermore, isn't the template redundat considering we already have the more encyclopedic HUCountiesto1918 template? And how exactly does this void my main argument, about how this template could very well be the prototype for a plethora of templates, such as "Regions which belonged to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" or "Regions which belonged to Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria" or "Regions which belonged to Kingdom of Dalmatia", etc. ? As for "many of the articles concentrate on the history of the Hungarian population in those territories" - See existing template. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template is listing only historical regions, it has nothing to do with nacionalistic , revisionist agenda. "The Tnavbar (view, edit & discuss links) don't work (deliberately?), so editors can't edit the template if they wish to" No reason for deletion, it is just a corrigible problem. "deliberately" NO COMMENT. Made by "non-established editor" that is not a remove reason, and as it was said above you have less than 100 edit too. Please note, that: User:ITSENJOYABLE's "contributions" are limited onto two articles: 1.) this request for template removal and another Hungary-related article, (2.) Transylvania. At Transylvania, he violated the 3RR rule, started an edit war, removed referenced edits, (especially Hungary related ones) reliable english sources (like Britannica), and made personal attacks. He was warned, than blocked by administrators. However he continued his "contributions". Please check: Talk:Transylvania, [1], [2]. I dont want to make personal attacks, but i think he is an anti-hungarian nacionalist...Baxter9 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Megas

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Megas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template only has two links directly related to the band, the band name and the album. The other links do not belong in the template and two links do not justify a template. Marcus Brute (talk) 00:24, 26 December 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:Spacecraftlist

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is only used on one article, to which it adds little or nothing of relevance. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:25, 26 December 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:Fushigi Yūgi

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

The result of the discussion was keep. I'm not convinced that the reason given is sufficient reason for deletion. If enough of the included articles are merged, deletion may be warranted, but at this point I am not convinced. JPG-GR (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fushigi Yūgi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template for only a few articles already well interlinked with one another. FYE is tagged for merging to FY, which will lose another link. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this navbox has just enough links to make me hesitate !voting for outright deletion, since we don't really have any sort of guidelines on how many links a navbox needs (or rather, how many articles it should interconnect) before its existence is okay. —Dino guy 1000 19:52, 26 December 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.