Template:Rulers known as "the Great" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|TFD2)
Rulers known as "the Great" of page|reason=The reason for deleting this page was that there is no connection between the rulers who have appended the phrase "the Great" to their name. There is no doubt that there is generally little or no historical parallel between the rulers who have this title to their names, but the fact is that they do indeed have that title in common. And that is exactly what is the point of this template. Some rulers are generally known for "the Great" in their titles and this template serves to provide information about the wide variety of examples of this usage of this title. Furthermore it seems like a very shaky foundation to call the deletion of this template a consensus based on 5 positive votes in 7 days. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, which was unanimous. Most TFDs don't get even that many comments. DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also fixed formatting on this DRV and moved it to the correct day's log. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. So I guess what I should have done when I oppose a TFD is, instead of going the bureaucratic way, was to have just reinstated the templates manually? As that would have at least sparked the interest of the people who actually maintains the articles instead of the handful of people that frequents the TFD? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your "oppose deletion" comment, because by listing here, it is already clear that you oppose the deletion of the template. Placing additional bolded "votes" may make it appear as though your position has more support than it actually does. Please prefix additional comments with Comment. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … or don't prefix them with anything at all. Closing administrators can read, and can tell when a simple discussion contribution is just that, without any boldfaced words. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per community consensus expressed at the TFD. Erik9 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The TFD asserted that the template linked together rules that are unrelated through encyclopedic or historical rather than lexicographical means. Perhaps a disambiguation page is more suitable. (in that case the template history needs to be moved into articlespace without a redirect prior to creation to sort out attribution requirements). - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion The discussion was closed correctly, which is all we are discussing here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, reason given for overturning is not procedural or policy-related, this is not TfD round 2. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - There was clear consensus at the TfD, and I see no valid reason to overturn the deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no matter which way you can spin it, a 5-0 vote for deletion in a TfD is a consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But a lot of them did address the issue as if it were an article that they were discussing, rather than a navigation template, which is what this was, and is, used as. (The Indonesian Wikipedia even classifies its equivalent as such, even though we didn't.) I don't see any discussion in the TFD discussion of why readers should not be able to find one "the Great" from another, or why the common navigation elements of these various articles' "See also" sections, linking other "the Greats" as "See also" articles, shouldn't be put into a template in order to aid consistency and maintenance. Do you?
There's also scant evidence that the people arguing that such a connection between all these articles was original research really looked at the template itself, or indeed followed the TFD nomination, otherwise they would have followed the link at the top of the template to List of people known as The Great#"The Greats" and would be there complaining right now. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Contrary to Uncle G's comment, reading the TFD, most of the opiners clearly differentiated between the template that they were discussing and the relevant article - though many of them suggested that the article probably should also be deleted. But they didn't go so far as to nominate it themselves - but that is a common behavior pattern in AFD when an other stuff exists argument is made - nobody goes and deals with the other stuff. The TFD consensus is clear, and it seems equally clear that they knew they were opining on the deletion of a navigation template. GRBerry 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Simon Burchell says that it's "not a topic", which is unequivocally an article argument. Black Falcon says that the grouping is original research, but that would seem to have only weak application to what is, in essence, no more than a collection of ordinary "See also" links, and again be an article argument not a navigation template one. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|