The result of the discussion was merged. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The template was created a day after Template:United States Squad 2009 Confederations Cup was. They have the same exact information, but maybe the user that created it didn't know that it was already created. Black 'n Red 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was deleted by User:Wizardman. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
All of the character articles were redirected, meaning that this template is now used only on four articles (main, episodes, characters, merchandise), all of which are sufficiently interlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator -- DrKiernan ( talk) 08:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Duplicates
Template:English and British monarchs.
DrKiernan (
talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) There appears to be some duplication/redundancy between templates. So, I've listed them all for discussion. Should we have one template "British monarchs" which lists "Kingdom of Scotland" monarchs, "Kingdom of England" monarchs and United Kingdom monarchs? Or separate templates for each of the three? Or have two templates: one for England/Britain and one for Pictland/Scotland?
DrKiernan (
talk)
06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I merged the templates so that it is easy to navigate, and see the continuity between English and British monarchs. I also merged it with the equivilent Scottish template (now at Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs), but another editor reverted it. I strongly think the English and British monarchs should use a common template for navigation purposes, however there should be some Scottish equivilent. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we delete
Template:English and British monarchs, and move
Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs to
Template:Pictish monarchs with the removal of the Kings of Scots. The Scottish and English monarchs could then be added to British monarchs.
DrKiernan (
talk)
09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest keeping the English and British list in one template, but not adding the Scottish list - whatever the legal niceties, the British state is undoubtedly a continuation of the English state far more than it is of the Scottish, and if the latter continues at all is merely as a non-sovereign region of a larger polity. This would emphasise the practical truth of what the union actually entailed, and is in any case how the information is almost invariably presented in works of reference. ðarkun coll 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Same as Tharkuncoll. It's superfluous to have two templates for the English and British monarchs ... and as a Scotsman this causes me no offence (though I can't speak for others). This is the way it is treated in most sources outside wikipedia, e.g. Monarchy_(TV_series). The Pictish-Scottish template however should obviously stay, being a continuous monarchy that runs from the early Dark Ages to the early 18th century. Scotland however is not special in being absorbed into the English monarchy ... you can say the same for the rulers of Wales and Ireland, not to mention Northumbria Leinster, Deheubarth and Gwynedd, the monarchies of which were also absorbed into the English/British monarchy after the formation of the English kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment When I moved the Pictish and Scottish template with the British one (it was moved to "Template:Pictish, Scottish and British monarchs") I placed it on all post-1707 monarchs, as they were included in that template. If we are going to keep the Scottish and Pictish template unmerged with the British one, as seems to be the concensus, should we remove that template from the later monarchs' articles? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand this TFD. Which Templates are being considered for deletion? GoodDay ( talk) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment It seems a bit vague, I haven't put any up for deletion myself, but DrKiernan started this discussion by putting "Template:British monarchs" up for discussion. Personnally, I feel we should keep "Template:English and British monachs" and "Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs". I'm currently ambivilent about "Template:British monarchs". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep the British monarchs Template. GoodDay ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete the English and British monarchs and Pictish and Scottish monarchs Template. GoodDay ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Create seperate English monarchs Template, Scottish monarchs Template & Pictish monarchs Template. GoodDay ( talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose GoodDay's suggestions. Suggest merge Scottish monarchs template with British monarchs, create seperate template for Picts, delete British monarchs template. Strong keep for Template:English and British monarchs". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Jannizz ( talk) 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm beginning to favour a new suggestion: We retain all three templates with the following changes:
If this is carried out then the only monarch article with more than one template will be James VI and I, which will have two templates neither of which will duplicate material in the other. Consequently, this would address my concern about duplication/redundancy, and still portray the continuity of the separate thrones in the combined throne. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was userfied per below. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Snarky attack template, not currently in use. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merged. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The template was created a day after Template:United States Squad 2009 Confederations Cup was. They have the same exact information, but maybe the user that created it didn't know that it was already created. Black 'n Red 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was deleted by User:Wizardman. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
All of the character articles were redirected, meaning that this template is now used only on four articles (main, episodes, characters, merchandise), all of which are sufficiently interlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator -- DrKiernan ( talk) 08:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Duplicates
Template:English and British monarchs.
DrKiernan (
talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) There appears to be some duplication/redundancy between templates. So, I've listed them all for discussion. Should we have one template "British monarchs" which lists "Kingdom of Scotland" monarchs, "Kingdom of England" monarchs and United Kingdom monarchs? Or separate templates for each of the three? Or have two templates: one for England/Britain and one for Pictland/Scotland?
DrKiernan (
talk)
06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I merged the templates so that it is easy to navigate, and see the continuity between English and British monarchs. I also merged it with the equivilent Scottish template (now at Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs), but another editor reverted it. I strongly think the English and British monarchs should use a common template for navigation purposes, however there should be some Scottish equivilent. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we delete
Template:English and British monarchs, and move
Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs to
Template:Pictish monarchs with the removal of the Kings of Scots. The Scottish and English monarchs could then be added to British monarchs.
DrKiernan (
talk)
09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest keeping the English and British list in one template, but not adding the Scottish list - whatever the legal niceties, the British state is undoubtedly a continuation of the English state far more than it is of the Scottish, and if the latter continues at all is merely as a non-sovereign region of a larger polity. This would emphasise the practical truth of what the union actually entailed, and is in any case how the information is almost invariably presented in works of reference. ðarkun coll 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Same as Tharkuncoll. It's superfluous to have two templates for the English and British monarchs ... and as a Scotsman this causes me no offence (though I can't speak for others). This is the way it is treated in most sources outside wikipedia, e.g. Monarchy_(TV_series). The Pictish-Scottish template however should obviously stay, being a continuous monarchy that runs from the early Dark Ages to the early 18th century. Scotland however is not special in being absorbed into the English monarchy ... you can say the same for the rulers of Wales and Ireland, not to mention Northumbria Leinster, Deheubarth and Gwynedd, the monarchies of which were also absorbed into the English/British monarchy after the formation of the English kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment When I moved the Pictish and Scottish template with the British one (it was moved to "Template:Pictish, Scottish and British monarchs") I placed it on all post-1707 monarchs, as they were included in that template. If we are going to keep the Scottish and Pictish template unmerged with the British one, as seems to be the concensus, should we remove that template from the later monarchs' articles? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand this TFD. Which Templates are being considered for deletion? GoodDay ( talk) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment It seems a bit vague, I haven't put any up for deletion myself, but DrKiernan started this discussion by putting "Template:British monarchs" up for discussion. Personnally, I feel we should keep "Template:English and British monachs" and "Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs". I'm currently ambivilent about "Template:British monarchs". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep the British monarchs Template. GoodDay ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete the English and British monarchs and Pictish and Scottish monarchs Template. GoodDay ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Create seperate English monarchs Template, Scottish monarchs Template & Pictish monarchs Template. GoodDay ( talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose GoodDay's suggestions. Suggest merge Scottish monarchs template with British monarchs, create seperate template for Picts, delete British monarchs template. Strong keep for Template:English and British monarchs". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Jannizz ( talk) 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm beginning to favour a new suggestion: We retain all three templates with the following changes:
If this is carried out then the only monarch article with more than one template will be James VI and I, which will have two templates neither of which will duplicate material in the other. Consequently, this would address my concern about duplication/redundancy, and still portray the continuity of the separate thrones in the combined throne. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was userfied per below. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Snarky attack template, not currently in use. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)