Template:Beceni, Buzău ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This discussion was closed as no consensus, but I feel as though it should have been either relisted or closed as delete. I informed the closing admin of my plans to take this to DRV. There were a total of four editors who expressed an opinion in the debate, with three arguing for deletion and only one arguing for the template to be kept (the template's author who "voted" twice. My reading of the arguments for deletion: First, the template is orphaned, and different than all the other templates in Category:Romania municipality templates. Second, we already have a Buzău County, Romania template. Third, the additional "component villages" navigation is useless since these are all red links or redirects. I did not express an opinion in the debate, but would be happy to if given the chance. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Really? You're challenging a no-consensus close at DRV? Just wait a few months and renominate. This is not TFD round two, after all. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  And what will be different in a few months? Will a single vote from the template's author be enough to force no consensus again? This template was created back in January and is still unused. I see no harm in reopening the discussion for another week. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  Remember that these sorts of things are not polls or votes, but discussions. It does not matter whether a person !votes more than once. If all I had to do in order to close these bloody things was count !votes, then I wouldn't have had to read all of this crap, and instead just make tick marks on a sticky note to figure out which side wins. But no, I read that blasted discussion, and that's how I came up with my decision to close as no consensus. Good arguments, no overarching consensus. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• I endorse SchuminWeb's close there. I don't see any basis on which to conclude that the "delete" arguments decisively overwhelmed the "keeps".— S Marshall T/ C 21:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. WP:Relist discourages relisting debates like this that were well-participated and do not feature gross departures from policy on one side. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• relist and inform WikiProject Romania, this template goes against the wikiproject's policies and they were never informed of the debate (yes, i know WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but this is about informing, not using local consensus). By the way, we missed item 6 in the administrator instructions, which makes it harder to track the nomination history. Frietjes ( talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Perfectly reasonable close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - for one, the raw count was four plus the nominator supporting deletion, versus one (the template's creator) favoring retention. For another, the one "keep" voter didn't actually spend much time (other than at the very beginning of the discussion) addressing this specific issue. He threw a lot of mud at me, and he pontificated at length on wider issues, but said precious little about the template. Overall, those who argued for deletion had much better arguments (and all did make some argument), chiefly that the articles linked in the template don't exist except as redirects. (For the record, those redirects do exist, but naturally the template creator didn't even link to the correct redirects, not that such an exercise in futility would have benefited anyone.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

The template is orphan as it has been deleted from the article Beceni, Buzău not for other reasons.

It was created as a model for similar cases. Obviously the first model of a category is

different from other templates. In any case, it has nothing to do with the municipalities, is was created for communes.

Communes as territorial units - the lowest level of territorial units in Romania. Communes contains different villages. For most countries in the world, there are templates of territorial units which show the components of the unit or the neighboring units.

The template does not go against a decision of the Wiki:Romania project. There was a debate regarding the articles of villages in Romania. The conclusion of the discussion was that no consensus had been reached on the problem of incorporating the villages in the articles of communes and consequently articles on villages were acceptable. This is exactly the oposite of what has been done.

The entire discussion simply ignored the facts and not the slightest effort has been done top investigate the situation.

I have raised the issue of articles on villages in a discussion at Village pump. The conclusion of this should be taken into account when the deletion of the template is decided on. Afil ( talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply