Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6

Template:Universities in Canada

Provincial templates for Universities already exist. A national one is not required, and is extremely large. Delete — GreenJoe 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar templates exist for other countries (such as the UK and Ireland) with templates for its subdivisions (e.g. Template:Scottish Universities, England, Wales). The UK template is even larger (see Template:Universities in the United Kingdom) than the template for Canada. If this template is deleted then so must all templates like it. Tolivero (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to create it. See WP:WAX. GreenJoe 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is very useful and informative. I recommend keeping it. It is smaller than other templates of lists of universities and as stated by the creator other countries have national lists. Bmpower (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great templete, it is very informative and is not "extremely large". In fact, I think that each of the Provincial templates for Universities should be deleted. Why have 10 separate templates when all the information in neatly and voncisely

displayed in this one. 82.41.24.85 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free official document

Another "possibly non-free" image copyright tag (see also #Template:Non-free diagnostic below). Seems to be mostly used for a dozen old passport covers, most of which are asserted to be in the public domain. It might make sense to turn this into a non-copyright restriction tag similar to Template:Trademark or Commons:Template:Personality rights, essentially just retaining the current paragraph about "Additional legal restrictions outside of copyright law", but I'd like some more opinions on this. At least it shouldn't be kept as is, since currently bots are tagging any images marked with it for deletion due to a missing non-free use rationale. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to restriction tag. He obviously copied it from the Currency template, noting it says "In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself" (emphasis my own). ViperSnake151 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mexico City Borough

Unused, does not do anything the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} or {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area of Mexico

Unused, does not do anything the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} or {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euromarks

Not a useful navbox. Europe has tens of thousands of notable landmarks, and more than 100 World Heritage sites. Even if bloated to the point of ridiculousness, the selection in this navbox will always be arbitrary and indiscriminate. Also, Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. For a useful navbox of landmarks, compare Template:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom. Sandstein 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free diagnostic

A "non-free image copyright tag" only used on two images (Image:C5-C6-herniation.jpg and Image:LumbarDiscHerniation.jpg), neither of which is actually claimed to be non-free. The designation of this template as a non-free image copyright tag may be in error (it was originally created simply as Template:Diagnostic), but even if this is corrected, the general purpose of this template still seems questionable to me. For background, this template was created in July 2007 by Sfan00 IMG, and seems to be related to this discussion (see user contribs). I'd like to nominate this template in order to seek consensus as to whether it makes sense to retain it and, if so, how it should be properly phrased and categorized. At least it shouldn't be kept as is, since currently bots are tagging any images marked with it for deletion due to a missing non-free use rationale. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Selected Article/Image/List templates

Template:Indian selected article

Template:Indian selected picture

Template:PGoISA

Template:PGoISL

Templates use a star-shaped image that mimics the bronze star symbolising featured content. An earlier version of these templates was deleted in March 2006, and the topic was also discussed at Portal talk:India/Selected articles here, where it was agreed not to be appropriate. The star in this template and the FA star are difficult to distinguish when used on pages due to size and similarity of colouring. Risker (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change 1st one like other three plus change icon I think only the first one is objectionable as it puts a small star on top-right corner and this star can be easily confused with FA star. My proposal is to change the 1st one like any of the other three. Basically, these templates look fine on talk pages. And there are many more like them under Category:Article_talk_header_templates. GDibyendu (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Completely removing these templates does not sound reasonable. Particularly, when other portals are using such templates on talk pages of non-featured articles. Check Talk:Jack the Ripper, it shows that it was a "showcase article" for London Portal (this portal maintains its own DYKs also it seems, though I didn't check deeply). And this article was never FA, not even GA. I think for India Portal, we should change the icon also to avoid confusion, it should not be a star. GDibyendu (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Delete Agreed as per User:Thunderboltz's comment below. GDibyendu (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, there was a previous delete discussion, talk page consensus not to use them, and they aren't in widespread use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete all under Category:Article_talk_header_templates. GDibyendu (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The only two community-endorsed content-reviewing processes currently in existence are the Featured Content group and the Good Articles process, and a much-publicised poll on the usage of icons to indicate the latter status has resulted in the rejection of the proposal due to a lack of consensus. I imagine that opposition would be considerably greater against a process which is limited by the bounds of a single WikiProject, especially considering the similarity of the icon with that of featured content. This icon not only can easily confuse most of the users of this encyclopaedia into thinking of any page transcluding it as having featured content, but through this confusion it has the potential of negatively affecting public perception of the featured-content high standards, something hurtful to one of the most important institutions of Wikipedia and therefore undoubtedly unacceptable. Waltham, The Duke of 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely misleading, and per previous deletion discussion. This particular template was deleted as a fork in March 2006. Kafka Liz (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally believe we either delete all stars or icons on pages or none. There is absolutely no reason I can think of why a wiki should privilege certain forms of selection over others. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured articles are selected through a process endorsed by the community, and many editors participate in the selection; a significant percentage of the candidates fail and the rest are rightly deemed the very best that the encyclopaedia could offer to our readers. Why should we not distinguish these? It makes little sense to me to compare this process to a selection by a WikiProject, which severely limits both the article topics and the range of reviewers. Waltham, The Duke of 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - *Shrug* There are enough objections to the FA process and criteria for me to think that monopolies aren't the way to go - even if such monopolies on opinion were the wiki-way. Frankly, I look forward to a time when selection and review are carried out by different criteria, some general, some specific to article area, some focusing on style and others on content and sourcing, and the reader is given the choice of knowing which. This seems like a reasonable step in that direction. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Replace Image and Move : I suggest replacing the image with another one and moving the templates to the article talk pages -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I Agree to thunderboltz. The parameter portal=yes is good enough . I propose to delete the First 2 templates . What about the last 2 ? They point to another portal right ? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Image and move to Talk page: As long as this is on the Talk pages and not on the article page, I think we should be ok. Talk:Jack the Ripper is a good case in point. --Madhu (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Delete - As per User:Thunderboltz's comments below. --Madhu (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that idea, provided that the template is on the talk page only and the image selected didn't resemble any of our current article assessment images; a photographic image such as the one on Talk:Jack the Ripper would be suitable, I think. Risker (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Madhu (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree that they are confusing. Besides, these templates are no longer necessary as {{WP India}} now contains provisions for tagging selected pictures and articles with the portal-picture=yes and portal=yes parameters.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be addressed on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as well. I'm not against moving the template to the talk pages but we need to make sure that there is a reasonable process for selecting articles. I notice one candidate article waiting in the selected article list and that's been there, unlooked at, since 8th April. I'd propose deleting the templates if there is no active selected article process. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1

No longer used, offers no benefit to the standard {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox Settlement}} templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, can't see any value. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jaakobou.

New York City subdivision infobox templates

These look like forgotten orphans. All the appropriate articles use {{Infobox Settlement}} instead. Once deleted, the Category:New York City subdivision infobox templates will be empty and can be deleted too. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, no need for them. DigitalC (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]