Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the new settlement template are all (standardised) blue, while the old Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine was green, matching the Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This is a colour that we have decided on after many discussions over the years. Unless the settlement template can be modified to include the old green colour, then please undo the deletion decision for Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine Huldra (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Good close. Settlement infoboxes don't need to have a green colour. Number 57 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No reason to reopen I'm trying my best here to WP:AGF but based on everything I've seen and the numerous messages left on my talk page, this is a pretty clear case of someone who didn't get their way and therefor is challenging the outcome. The TFD ran its course. The decision was to merge. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously? The color issue was not raised by you or anyone once in that discussion, and in fact, "standardized" was an argument 2 editors used, which in this context means "use the standard color and not the green one". Don't try and game the system. --Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (!voted in the discussion). I too do not recall colors being discussed. The whole rationale was to use a project wide infobox and standardize - abandoned settlements exist everywhere and there is no need for separate infoboxes types. Even if there was some local long ago consensus somewhere for the color green, that would not have affected the discussion and should not affect the DRV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. Edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area are immensely contentious and difficult, and that's why I'm cautious about treating this purely as a standardisation issue. I note that, for example, the national flag of Israel is blue and white, and the national flag of Palestine is black, green and white. I don't know if this change could be politically sensitive? The nominator is invited to give us more reasoning to work with, if there's any more to say.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israel is a darker blue, although it would be trivial to add a #switch based on the value in |subdivision_name= to change the colour for |subdivision_name=[[Mandatory Palestine]]. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, thank you. I didn't know it was so simple. Why don't we do that?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mandatory Palestine used the Union Jack (as well as a very blue postal flag) which is red, white, and blue - the later being most of the flag. There were abandoned Jewish settlements as well in the Mandate. Not that color is a DRV issue - I would wonder (irony) if we want to color code settlements by ethnicity (should we color historic African American towns in the deep south)?Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at Template talk:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - it is mainly Huldra agreeing with herself it should be green - vs. challenges from other users (deviations, accessibility) Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only rationale for the infobox heading being green seems to be WP:ILIKEIT – see the comments here when a related template was first created – it wasn't done for any particular purpose. Number 57 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets just do that, make a switch for Mandatory Palestine. I think that would satisfy everyone's concerns. nableezy - 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nableezy: this really isn't the place for that discussion... Discuss it on the template's talk page. This is for deciding if the closure needs to be undone. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We discuss closes here; if a consensus to amend a close happens here, we would normally enact it. You could certainly could pop a pointer on the template's talk page, that's a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Discussing it here and not on the talk page of the actual template, without even notifying watchers of that template that a change is going to happen to it, is very much how we do not do things here. Also, since the op has now started a discussion there, and that one is the 3rd one happening at the same time, this WP:TALKFORK should stop. The scope of this discussion is if the actual closure was correct or not - and since it was open for 17 days (much more than the minimum) had 6 editors commenting with only 1 opposing and an involved closure, there is no reason to revert it. Any change to the actual style of the template now has to be discussed at the template's talk page. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • User:S Marshall: this is now being discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Colour_change. Incidentally, I did not find it helpful when editors just wrote something like "take this up at the correct venue", without giving a link to the correct venue. For people who are totally ignorant about templates (like me), it is not easy to find, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not looked closely, but if I'm understanding correctly, this merge resulted in a color change some might find controversial without directly discussing that in much detail. If that's correct, a technical solution which keeps the colors the same but does the merger seems optimal. Sorry, wanted to give my 2 cents but not sure I'll have time to put into this to be sure I'm understanding correctly. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: there are whole academic books written about the blue vs green issue, take "Petersen, Andrew, 2018, Bones of Contention: Muslim Shrines in Palestine" gives a good introduction, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I just read Wikipedia's articles on Blue in Judaism and Green in Islam. That gave me enough context to understand how a change from green to blue could be controversial when applied to a template in the I-P topic area.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colour in and of itself isn't a reason to overturn the deletion discussion, but if we can change the colour of the new template, I agree we should do so. Thank you S Marshall for taking up this viewpoint on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 01:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Hague (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hague was Ontario's first female reeve, and the first female member of Metropolitan Toronto's executive council making her one of the most powerful politicians, and perhaps the most powerful female politician, in Metro Toronto in the 1950s. Deletion occurred after minimal discussion, that was not unanimous, and was premised on a misunderstanding of what Metropolitan Toronto was and the false assumption that Metro and Metropolitan Toronto council were less significant than the current amalgamated city of Toronto. They were not. Metro Council was an upper tier municipal government and its executive council was even more so. Hague was accordingly a significant local figure in Canada's largest municipality. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Plenty of participation at a 5-1 vote from experienced AfDers, I see no reason to overturn or relist this. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete as reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and relist - the nomination is reasonable but the other delete comments are variations on WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM. Since AfD is not a vote, I do not see sufficient consensus to delete at this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's sad that we don't have articles on topics like this. I view it as a failure of our inclusion guidelines. I suspect with enough work a short and reliable biography could be assembled. I hate to see history like this removed from Wikipedia. That said, the close reflected the discussion and the discussion appears to reflect our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as presented. This appears to be a re-argument of the deletion, rather than of whether either the closer was in error or there is new information. The closer does not appear to have been in error. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]