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).
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).
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).
Thanks, I saw this but am leaving it up to WOSlinker who wrote most of the test which was extremely useful at the time. There is very little chance of this being used again but I'm going to leave it for others to express an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2018 (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).
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).
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).
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).
Oppose - what about all the old articles that used this before the new one was created. or are you going to personally go through all and update? 46.226.49.236 (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion is to determine a consensus to eliminate the use of the templates. The templates would first go to WP:TFD/H and later replaced before actually being deleted.Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The colours are available, provided you know the "secret" matches_style=FBR argument. I might have found that in the code eventually. Would be nice to see it documented, at which point I will happily change my Oppose. Gricehead (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unless there is some automatic way to update all the articles that have this template then no way should it be deleted. A better would be if articles are to be moved to the module method of displaying then the dissemination of the information is important. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brudder Andrusha: Even the discussion is closed, and the result is delete. We will send these templates to WP:TFDH, and then orphan before actually deleting, and bots can orphan/replace after the discussion, such as PrimeBOT and SporkBot. I hope you can reconsider, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2018 (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).
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).
Note: This discussion is to determine a consensus to eliminate the use of the templates. The templates would first go to WP:TFD/H and later replaced before actually being deleted.Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Willing to restore/userfy if the contents are desired (for merging into other templates). Primefac (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Olympic champions in speed skating per gender, since the most recent templates for Mass start-winners per gender got deleted. So that every Olympic champions in speed skating have a navigational template at the bottom of the article. Best regards Migrant (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2018 (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).
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).
'Keep this is a talk page template, that summarises work that has been done. Not a tag... All the best: RichFarmbrough, 13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply] 13:08, 10 April 2018 (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).
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).
Keep. WTF, "vague"? While for various other templates the deletion nominator's reasoning is "overly specific". What, you want it to be just exactly calibrated to be in the middle of what you expect to be commonly needed. Silly. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2018 (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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Template is redundant and unnecessary, it contains the exact same information as in the article itself. It is also not used in any other article nor will it be. It has also been removed from the parent article Iron Chef Gauntlet. SanAnMan (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's pretty easy to say that the template isn't used in any other article after you removed it from another article. Anyway, I think I'm going to have to bring up WP:OSE in this case due to several other reality cooking competition series that have templates like this (and it would be different if only one entry in the template had an article). Erpertblah, blah, blah...16:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erpert: But that's the point, the template is only used in the article that the template is about in the first place. The template is about the results of Season 1 of Iron Chef Gauntlet. which is the article that it was removed from; in other words, the exact same article that the template is about. It's not that other stuff exists, it's that the template is an exact repeat of information in the article that the template is about. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (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).
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).
Unnecessarily duplicates elections already listed in {{Estonian elections}} (where the creator of the new template has repeatedly tried to remove them and has created both of the above templates in the last couple of days in attempt to justify doing so). For more background on this, see my talk page). Number5709:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep{{ESSR elections}}, I only ever edited the template {{Estonian elections}} twice[2],[3]. It seems somewhat disingenuous for the nominator to claim I "repeatedly tried to remove them", given that he added it five times:[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the nominator here[9] and here[10] regarding the current template.
The Republic of Estonia is an independent state and Soviet Estonia was a constituent part of the Soviet Union, both with very different political, economic, legal and electoral systems as well as slightly differing geographical areas. It is incongruous to lump them into the one template. Seeing that the template {{Irish elections}} focuses on the elections of the Republic of Ireland (1918 to present), with the bottom of the template having "See also" links to the elections of the Kingdom of Ireland{{Irish (Pre-1801) elections}} and elections in Ireland as part of the UK (1801-1918) {{Irish (UK) elections}}, that represented a good solution, providing reader utility in navigating to past elections while bringing clarity to the reader with links piped to the relevant topics related to the respective entities.
So the aim is give a similar treatment for the Baltic states, a template for the current republic (1918 to present) with links to templates for the 1940-1990 period (as part of the USSR) and eventually the pre-1918 period (as a part of the Russian empire), all with appropriate article links. With that in mind I created {{ESSR elections}} to work in conjunction with the original Estonian elections template[11].
As has been discussed on my talk page, the Irish example is not an appropriate comparison because Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are not the same geographic entity ({{Lithuanian elections}}or{{Moldovan elections}} are appropriate comparisons), and changes in political systems is not a valid reason to have separate templates as numerous countries have seen similar changes and gone through periods of independence and non-independence yet all the elections are on the same template (this is all in the discussion on my talk page). Including all the elections through different political systems and independence/non-independence is the standard format for such templates, not simply my preferred style (as such, I invite other editors who frequently edit these templates to comment (pinging @Aréat, Nightstallion, and SPQRobin:). Also, the above claim by Nug that "[his] aim was give a similar treatment for the Baltic states" is patently untrue; {{Soviet Estonia Elections}} was created before he was even aware of what was on the Irish template – this is a justification that he has scrambled to find in retrospect to justify his desire to remove the Soviet-era elections from the main template. In addition, this template was never deleted or restored contrary to the comments above. Number5712:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are openly canvassing three like minded associates to pile onto the discussion? Amazing. The templates {{Lithuanian elections}} and {{Moldovan elections}} perfectly illustrate what is wrong, the flags are that of the current republics and Parliamentary elections row heading pipes to Seimas and Parliament of the Republic of Moldova the respective legislative institutions of the current republics, yet incongruously include soviet era elections (all of them red linked!) (and please don't remove those flags and Parliamentary elections pipes while this discussion is on going, people need to see). That is my justification. You reverted/deleted my changes before I had a chance to complete them, so do not claim I am lying, that is a gross assumption of bad faith. But some may wonder at this apparent obsession on shoe horning soviet era elections into templates that are clearly structured around the current republics. --Nug (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am inviting editors who regularly edit the election templates to give a view on a relevant issue that they will be familiar with. You were the one that claimed this was a personal preference of mine, so if it's just me that wants the templates formatted that way, then surely you have nothing to worry about from other editors commenting? And what you said is untrue – you created the first template separating the elections before you came up with the Irish template argument, so to suggest that the aim was "giving the same treatment" is false. Your aim was simply to delete the Soviet ones from the template, and you have since developed a retrospective justification for doing so. Number5713:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you want to canvass like minded editors who have had a long association with you in editing these templates to support your case. As to your accusations about my motive, more of the same WP:BADFAITH BS. Again, The template {{Estonian elections}} as I found it [12] has the flag of the current republic and Parliamentary elections row heading piped to Riigikogu, also the legislative institution of the current republic, yet it incongruously includes soviet era elections. A separate template for Soviet elections with appropriate linking is a better approach. --Nug (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want editors who frequently edit these templates to have a say on an issue which will potentially have ramification well beyond this template, and I think that's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Given your past behaviour and the fact that you have done virtually nothing except argue about this for the last four days, no good faith is assumed I'm afraid. Number5714:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that was eight years ago, that is no justification for continued bad faith. However one result is that I do know what canvassing is when I see it. --Nug (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of your problematic editing was trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR. The edits to the templates appear to be a continuation of this behaviour, so your previous is relevant I'm afraid. Number5703:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of them. Historical reasons. Can't put together in one template the elections to independent Estonian Riigikogu and elections in occupied Estonia. Also Number 57 did not notify in Template{{Estonian elections}} that his strange edits there were to push the deletion of these templates. Klõps (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't they be put together? Elections during periods of independence and non-independence are in virtually every other countries' election template (and please don't restate the misleading Irish example). Number5714:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why every other country, that I check, it isn't so. {{Czech elections}} includes elections in Czechia and {{Slovak elections}} in Slovakia with {{Czechoslovakian elections}} covered separately. Also all the Yugoslavian countries as {{Croatian elections}} for example covers elections in Croatia excluding the Yugoslavian period. Anyway it's really OSE. I see that you have pulled out the old Russian trolls favorite "how dear You say that Baltic countries weren't part of the USSR" I'm not saying You are one, but that's the Russian nationalists main argument, always. The answer is that nobody denies that Estonia was in the Soviet Union, but it was an occupation that was not recognised by rest of the world. And Republic of Estonia existed in exile with its government-in-exile, diplomatic service and Estonian refugee communities. You just can't put together two separate entities Republic of Estonia and the other that was under the control of foreign power. It isn't a singular line of elections as You want to present it. Klõps (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising the examples of {{Czech elections}} and {{Slovak elections}}, as they prove my point quite nicely. Those templates include the elections to the legislatures of the Czech (1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1990) and Slovak (1928, 1935, 1938, 1948, 1954, 1960, 1964, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1990) parts of Czechoslovakia, whilst the Czechoslovakian template contains the national level elections, which wouldn't be appropriate on the other two (it's the same as having {{Soviet elections}} (national elections) separate the Estonian template, so there's no equivalence with having a separate template for the Estonian SSR elections). Similarly the Croatian template links to the national-level elections in Yugoslavia, but would include Croatian elections if the dates were known (as{{Montenegrin elections}} does). Number5703:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no rational sense to include Soviet elections in the {{Estonian elections}} template, they represent a completely different polity, any citizen of the Soviet Union could vote in Soviet Union's constituent republic elections only if they resided there, on the other hand only Estonian citizens can vote in Elections in Estonia regardless of where they reside. Can you not see the distinction? The template {{Soviet elections}} has a section "Regional elections", which links to articles on elections held for the Supreme Soviets of the Soviet Union's constituent republics. So if you do not like separate templates for Estonian SSR elections, then they can be placed in an expanded {{Soviet elections}} template. --Nug (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The principle should be "one country, one template", otherwise they will not fulfill their porpose, i. e. allowing the convenient navigation through the articles and the provision of an overview over all elections in the countries history. Actually, in the history of many conutries, the character of the elections has changed over time (extremely limited franchise in the European monarchies & the Latin republics of America [sic!] of the 19th century, the colonial LegCos in the 20th century, the pseudo-elections in the fashist and communist states of the 20th century and of course the wide-range of semi-free, semi-fair elections through the history. That complicated situation must be simplified of such templates are used (some historian in the German WP even criticize such templates in general, "history cannot be fitted into datasheets"). But one thing should be done, that is highlighting the fact that such elections had been soviet ones.--Antemister (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the only purpose is to allow convenient navigation, then that is achieved by having a link at the bottom as shown here. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (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).
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).
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).
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).
Keep as serving a useful function. Wikipedia might be a (relatively) open encyclopedia, but with respect to drafts the tacit convention has been to avoid interfering unless invited. – Uanfala (talk)11:49, 25 April 2018 (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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
I don't have an opinion on this at the moment (other than there would be no benefit from deleting it) but for anyone wondering why it was created, the reason is that it was used at test2wiki: in 2012 while Scribunto (the system of modules) was being developed, and before the now-standard mw was available. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (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).
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).
Delete per nom. I experimented with using this to add mixins, but all of my modules now just implement inheritance manually. If it's not used anywhere, then deleting it is the right thing to do. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪09:20, 1 May 2018 (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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Support. I would even agree with deleting because it seems it was never used. I wonder why I created it in the first place. Petr Matas19:52, 28 April 2018 (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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Done, see [1], thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
