Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was G7 by J.delanoy , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quality Control

Template:Quality Control (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template with no encyclopaedic value — ratarsed (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This template was made just a few days ago, and the same user is working on some quality control related articles in their sandbox. They likely have a plan for it. -- Ned Scott 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was working on it, and intended to keep it in my sandbox until it was complete, but accidently saved the page. Feel free to delete it. Thanks. Raploichkin (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Raploichkin[reply]
G7 per author's request above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nobel icon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Primarily by similitude to Manual of Style (flags), namely: it has no 'appropriate' use given that, in a eventual list with several prizes listed, it is unlikely that the icon would help, because readers will most likely not distinguish this from other medals/icons; it is, thus, mostly decorative, an 'inappropriate' use. NPOV is a second reason, because we either give undue weight to this (important as it is) prize, or we don't, by adding more such icons, and end up with a multitude of mostly decorative an unhelpful (as explained previously) set of icons. The actual deletion will be pending for a while, so to give time to remove the template use from articles, which I'll tackle on soon - Nabla (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobel icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete (nominator) I believe the template violates template criterion #4 in that it does not connote a neutral point of view when posted on a recipient's article, flamboyantly promoting one accolade over a plethora of others. [For this TfD, I suggest that comments and voting be centered around whether or not the template violates NPOV.] — Eustress (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Inclusion of Nobel medal icons in the infoboxes gives undue weight to the award. It also invites uncontrolled proliferation of similar icons for other awards. I cringe at the thought of icons for Emmy awards, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Espy award, Purple Heart, Heisman Trophy, Employee of the month, ... --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Undue weight to Nobel prizes over other worthy awards, and using logos and icons like this undermines our mission as a text-based encyclopedia for adults. --John (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete detracts from real content. --BozMo talk 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary, non-standard, and a bad precedent. It's also not at all clear what it means until you click on it. Zaian (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong delete - I have raised concerns on many other talk page regarding the use of this. Without any text surrounding it on politician's pages it looks like to Wikipedia endorsement. Completely unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia and was a bad idea in the first place. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nobel icon was primarily intended for scientist infoboxes, where it is very useful for scanning down the list of advisers, students, and influences and seeing at a glance who else was a Nobel. Its use in other contexts is upto the consensus of local editors and is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.Bletchley (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I said at Template talk:Nobel icon - I don't see what it adds to the infobox, I don't see why the Nobel Prize in particular should be illustrated in infoboxes (and I certainly don't want to see a proliferation of such images so some notable figures have a whole slew of little images), and I don't think it's a particularly recognizable image in and of itself, especially at that small size. --Stormie (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd rather see how the discussion on the template talk page goes. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the best rationale you have for keeping the template, I think you would be better off sticking with "Neutral" or just plain old "Comment". « Diligent Terrier (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I support keeping to defer to the other discussion. Jumping to TfD while there's such an active discussion on the talk page seems a bit unnecessary, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, it's very unlikely that admins delete a page per a talk page discussion, especially when it's a template that is included in multiple articles. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don't think this template is biased in anyway; if the subject earned a Nobel Prize, then this shows it in a little pictorial form. How is it biased, when they won the award? It's not an opinion. They were chosen because they did something wonderful or amazing, and earned it. Though, I will encourage some modifications to clarify any confusions (which are fairly evident if you don't know what the medal means). Maybe a link to an explanation of what it means. Leonard^(Bloom) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: The above editor changed his support to delete below. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument is that it's biased to include an icon for the Nobel Prize but not, say, the Fields Medal or the Grammy. Polemarchus (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will be fun with and and in one article. Very clear visual clues how important people are that get these icons, and why. Or not. Can you tell the difference and recognize the icons? Kusma (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clubjuggle. The Nobels aren't the only important awards in the world - do we really want little medals and statuettes appearing in every other infobox? Polemarchus (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This appears to miss the point. Little statuettes etc would need to be used justifiably. The justification for the Nobel icons in the Scientist Infobox is to see at a glance which students, influences, and advisers also have a Nobel. Killing this template because of possible misuse in other contexts is not justifiable. Just because people misuse flag icons doesn't mean that we delete all flags from wikipedia. The correct approach is we write a flag policy. Likewise, it would be much more constructive to write a Nobel icon use policy, rather than deleting it. Bletchley (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, some of us did write a flags policy, and you might equally say that many of the arguments that went into developing the guideline also apply here. Like flags, if used incorrectly, icons like this one can militate against readability, overemphasize a particular aspect of a person's biography, and, like flags, we should therefore pretty much only use them in large tables and lists. In isolation in an infobox they are at best eye candy, and at worst confusing clutter. Categories can be used to group people who have won this prize, and we would have a hard job if we kept this in arguing in the future against the folk who will want to do the same for Oscars, Emmys, Pullitzers and so on. No need for decorative clutter like this marring the simplicity of an infobox; our readers can read, and text works just fine. --John (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Bletchly, I'm not concerned about "possible misuse in other contexts", I'm concerned about exactly the same use of other medals in similar contexts. I've read the arguments in favour of adding the Nobel icon to scientists' infoboxes, and all your arguments apply equally well to dozens of other awards. For example, if it's useful to include icons in scientists' infoboxes "to see at a glance which students, influences, and advisers also have a Nobel", then surely it's equally useful to include icons in movie infoboxes to show at a glance which of the cast and crew have won Oscars? (And Césars, Emmys and Golden Globes?)

And if you're going to add Nobel icons to scientists' infoboxes, surely we should also add icons for the Fields Medal, the Clarke Medal, the Royal Medal, the Linnean Medal, the AMA Scientific Achievement Award, and even the Templeton Prize? I think it's absurd to stick medals beside the names of hundreds of scientists but not, say, Charles Darwin or Michael Faraday, just because some editors seem to think Nobel prizes are the only ones worth noting.

You keep saying that the Nobel icon is justified and the use of other icons would not be justified but you haven't explained why you think this is so. I've yet to hear any reason why we should keep this particular icon but not allow editors to create similar icons for hundreds of other notable awards. Polemarchus (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I changed to delete per Polemarchus (and other arguments above that say the same as Polemarchus). Leonard^(Bloom) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think it's helpful and I don't buy the NPOV argument. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image may be subject to Nobel Foundation trademarks. I suggest that using it in multiple articles like this might contravene WP:NFC. Another and more urgent reason to cease using it this way. --John (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really a problem. WP:NFC is about copyright law. In contrast, trademarks aren't usually a problem for wikipedia, because we don't use them in a way that might suggest the trademark owner was the source, guarantor or authoriser of any product or service we might be offering. Jheald (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless, and in fact I'd say it's a welcome splash of colour on a usually rather dour infobox. Particularly for scientists, I think it is definitely useful. In physics, chemistry, medicine there simply is no other award as big as the Nobel prize, and I don't think it's at all a bad thing to highlight the winners in this way. To most readers looking for Wikipedia-level bios of scientists, a Nobel prize may well be the most significant thing about them, so it's no bad thing to make the award stand out. Jheald (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nobel prizes are the most prestigious honors anyone can earn in the relevant fields; it doesn't violate NPOV to give them top billing, because the weight is due. I see no reason to oppose having a similar icon for the Fields medal, or other accolades that are at the top of a certain area as human achievement. -- SCZenz (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "undue weight" here is that of recognising Nobel Prize in this way, while not recognising other top honours - the Victoria Cross, platinum selling albums, heavyweight champion, sporting world record, Olympic gold medal, Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, topping the Forbes list, etc etc. A precedent of allowing this icon would make it very hard to draw a line, and a proliferation of icons would be a Bad Thing, unless we want Wikipedia to look like Facebook. Removing Nobel icons would be in line with the precedent of discouraging flag icons in text. The Nobel icon is an especially poor visual tool, because it is basically unrecognisable unless you have seen it before and clicked on it, unlike a flag or an Oscar. Zaian (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Nobel prize is more significant than all of those. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to whom? --John (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "undue weight" argument is a red herring, then, because NPOV is a policy about how to write an article, not how to balance between separate articles. Unless you're worried about the biographies of people who have won Nobel Prizes and the Olympics? Your argument about the proliferation of icons is legitimate, given what I said, as are arguments that the icons make pages look worse (although I disagree in both cases). However, I think "NPOV" and "undue weight" are being invoked by you and others as buzzwords in a context where the policies aren't applicable. -- SCZenz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's a red herring; maybe "undue weight" is the wrong term for the argument though. I think the argument is that icons in infoboxes are undesirable, and recognising this icon because Nobel Prizes are special might be the start of a slippery slope. The counter arguments to this are either that other icons are fine as well (a legitimate argument, although I disagree), or that only Nobel icons are acceptable and that no precedent is being set, because Nobel Prizes are more notable than anything else that might inspire an infobox icon. Zaian (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this icon plays a useful role in making navboxes more informative in physics, chemistry, and medicine, like Jheald says. I doubt that's the case for politicians, though. --Itub (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clutter, just like flags. Makes ugly infoboxes uglier. Kusma (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Zaian that the icon is basically unrecognizable and thus provides little information. This is even worse if the main intention for the template is to be put behind names in the advisors, students, etc. fields in the infoboxes (see Bletchley's remark). It's just not clear what the icon represents in that situation. Plus I think it's ugly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nobel Prize is a very big deal and has been given to very few persons in history for particularly extraordinary achievements. The template does not give the Nobel Prize "special distinction," the world gives the Nobel Prize "special distinction." The template is small and tasteful. I love color and visual information. I say let the templates multiply! M stone (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not so concerned about NPOV. I am concerned about clutter when the significance of the image is not clear and the words "Nobel Prize" are already there and much clearer. They do not help. --Bduke (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question whether tho use the image in infoboxes should be determined by the manual of style. Deleting the template doesn't prevent the image from being used directly. Most of the comments in this discussion are about whether to use the image, not about the template. It would be more productive to solve that MoS question first, before worrying about the template itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion here is more likely to come to a definitive answer than at MoS talk, though. It saves time to debate this here, then note the result at the MoS. Kusma (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that the MoS discussion needs to be more broad than this particular icon. It would need to discuss similar awards, flags, etc. Anyway, I think I've said enough, so I'm going to drop this off my watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Wikipedia must maintain objectivity. Note, how many deletes do we need for the icon to be deleted??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone111111 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was saying... this discussion is only for the template, not for the icon itself. The use of an icon to represent the Nobel Prize is a manual of style issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Nobel prize is extremely significant (it's like the Fields Medal for the sciences, et. al.) and displaying it does not show undue weight. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't care much one way or the other, so I am not going to vote. But so far, many of the delete arguments say that emphasizing the Nobel prize over other awards gives it WP:UNDUE weight. I think there must be some confusion over the precise meaning of the WP:UNDUE weight policy. The Nobel prize is the most prestigious award in the sciences and literature. Emphasizing it over other awards is the opposite of undue weight: it is placing appropriate weight on the award. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A considerable group of people do not agree with the way Nobel prizes are awarded. For example Nassim Nicholas Taleb launches strong arguments against it in The Black Swan. Plenty also thought Al Gore shouldn't have won. It's clearly POV (partly because it's such a 'big deal') and should be removed. Andeggs (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, the Nobels aren't perfect (where's Mark Twain's Nobel, eh?) and represent a certain POV, but in this case POV is not an issue since the template is just a factual indicator that the subject of the article is a Nobel winner. It doesn't promote anything since the Nobels are already the world's most prestigious award, and the kind of thing readers (especially casual readers who aren't WP junkies and vote in deletion arguments) expect to see. In short it's the perfect thing for an infobox, which is intended to present short, quickly accessible data, and a Nobel prize is a thing they expect to see. Gamaliel (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The image is not recognizable at such a small size, and this template encourages the proliferation of useless images and templates across articles. Honestly, had it not been labeled "nobel icon" on my talk page, I would have guessed that the image denoted someone who had won an Olympic gold medal, or something. It adds nothing. Ral315 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Srrong keep. There are two arguments for deletion; Diligent Terrier's claim the the Peace Prize may be used to pres4ent a point of view. I am not convinced by this; but the way to deal with it is to argue on the various pages where it might be abused, not here. The opther is the worry that this may be followed by icons for the Fields Medal or the Oscar; this is again, the wrong forum. If they are created, put them up for TfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per nom. Garion96 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now I will acknowledge that Carl's procedural points are probably valid, and this may need to be taken up elsewhere later, but the discussion is happening here and now, and much weight from this discussion will be brought to bear if and when it is addressed elsewhere. Anyway, as I have said from my first edit summary attempting to delete this, use of this icon demonstrates POV, despite the best intentions of its promoters, because it elevates this award to some special status. Not acceptable. It also invites clutter, as—in an attempt to deny the POV nature of this—some infoboxes will become littered with these icons (Rita Moreno, anyone?) One editor said that he only cares about science, not entertainment, but once the genie is out, it's hard to stop. So this must stop now. That's what I think. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above icons are not there as a joke. They illustrate that it becomes much easier to count up the numbers of "keeps" and "deletes." Simple psychophysics 101 tells us that we need such visual inputs for processing information. When used tastefully, icons provide the wikipedia with great visual impact. Bletchley (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke or no joke, I removed them. We don't decide a consensus solely on counting. In case someone is interested, see here for how it looked. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and how. As implemented, this is a small gold coin that resides in a biography's infobox either next to a biography's subject name or within an awards section. In the former it's confusing, misleading, and (if understood) POV; in the latter it's clutter, in a device with the purpose of being the clean, quick reference, easily understood factoid summary. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, primarily on aesthetic grounds. I am not too concerned about the NPOV aspect (in sciences the Nobel Prize is the most prestigious award). However, the icon is not easily identifiable with the Nobel Prize, so when given at the top of an infobox, next to the person's name it can actually be confusing. Also, the icon is too large, so that it looks distracting when placed next to the name of the award. E.g. in the current version of Niels Bohr, where there are in fact two such icons, one next to Bohr's name and another next to the name of Max Delbrück. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Nobel Prize is the undisputed top award in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, economics...as said above, giving it its own icon in certain infoboxes is giving it the correct weight. It also makes the infoboxes more navigable, and allows one to easily gauge the importance of a scientist by seeing how many of his students won Nobels. Furthermore, if we decide that the Nobel isn't that important and that is a criteria for deletion, why do we have an article on every Nobel prize winner? EagleFalconn (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people use this template to mis-gauge the importance of some scientists, that's another reason for deletion. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-NPOV. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It makes it look like Wikipedia endorses the individual in some way. I don't think it is very condusive to a neutral point of view. Useight (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:NPOV--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To small to really tell what it means, and anything larger would disrupt the clean look of the info box. Also, as stated above by various editors, it could lead one to believe the individual is somehow endorsed or favored. -[[Ryan]] ^{(my desk)} 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there's no reason why it can't be mentioned further down in the infobox. When I first saw it I didn't have a clue what it was. Non-Wikipedian wikipedia readers will think it's an award by Wikipedia. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Templates for other relevant prizes can also be added to infoboxes, so that NPOV is respected. -- Vision Thing -- 18:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But can you imagine how cluttered some infoboxes would look, once we make up little icons for "other relevant prizes"? An infobox is supposed to be a box for info, ie text, not little decorative icons. --John (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - The present Nobel icons do look tasteful. To me, they are a useful visual cue when I am browsing. Arguments to do with other hypothetical future icons are not appropriate here. This is not the correct forum for second guessing what may or may not happen in the future. That is upto future TfD's to handle. For now it is better to stay focessed on this issue and to me the icon looks very handsome, uncluttered, and useful.BhangraGirl (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess it is a matter of individual judgement, but in terms of cluttering, the icon already looks too big and distracting to me (look at Niels Bohr where there are two of them). On the other hand, I don't think that it helps to identify the award either. One of the places where the icon has been used is at the top of an infobox, next to the person's name (some of the edits to Nelson Mandela placed it there, such as this one[1]). When placed there, I don't think too many people will understand what its meaning is as the image is too small for definitive identification. Nsk92 (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT CONSENSUS DELETE-23 VS. KEEP-13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone111111 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the same thing as a majority vote. Please see WP:VOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: If the argument is that Nobel icons have to be deleted because field medals/victoria cross/whatever don't have icon, then make icons for those as well. Such icons are useful and informative. The only thing I would change is I would make a smaller version for supervisors, influences etc... that is comparable to text height and use omly the "big" version on top of the infobox to indicate that this page is about a Nobel laureate. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't buy the POV argument at all. So by the fact that templates don't exist for other awards, this template is POV? The solution then is to create templates for the other awards. The only real issue I have with the template is that it could be designed a little better, to make usage more standardized, something like {{Nobel icon|Physics|1909}} instead of "{{Nobel icon}} [[Nobel Prize for Physics]] (1909)" But that is an issue to be solved by editing, not deletion. But the idea that a 20 pixel icon is "flamboyant" is just ridiculous. Mr.Z-man 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I edit a lot of physics articles and read a lot of physics books, and this whole thing makes me think of Albert Einstein. There are people who like to replace mentions of "the theory of relativity" in physics articles with "Albert Einstein's theory of relativity" and who add a photograph of Einstein to any article about a subject he happens to have worked on at some point in his life. I don't get it. For heaven's sake, the guy is famous enough already; he's the last person to need this kind of special attention. The Nobel Prize seems to be like that. For some reason, because it's so famous, people seem to think it's important to call attention to it even more. I don't think so. We don't need a picture of the Nobel medal in every article about someone who was awarded a Nobel. I'm not sure awards like the Nobel should even be mentioned in the infobox, unless the person is famous primarily for winning the award (which would mean, presumably, that they didn't do anything to deserve it). I guess what I'm saying is, "Delete – POV". -- BenRG (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REGROUP (nominator): TfD protocol states, "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." I appreciate everyone's votes, as it is apparent that there are objections to the template's deletion. However, the comments and rationales have been varied and tangential towards any effort to establish a rough consensus (and thank you to Clubjuggle for helping to explain what consensus is not). As nominated, I believe the template violates template criterion #4 in that it does not connote a neutral point of view. If the rough consensus agrees that a violation exists, this alone would be enough to merit deletion because it would not be in accordance with established Wikipedia guidelines; hence, why I suggested (and still suggest) that comments address this issue. Below I have complied what I consider to be the strongest arguments for and against the deletion as pertains to this TfD's nomination.

In favor of deletion

Inclusion of Nobel medal icons in the infoboxes gives undue weight to the award.... --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Without any text surrounding it on politician's pages it looks like to Wikipedia endorsement. Completely unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia... « Diligent Terrier (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia must maintain objectivity. Someone111111 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A considerable group of people do not agree with the way Nobel prizes are awarded.... It's clearly POV (partly because it's such a 'big deal') and should be removed. Andeggs (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion

Nobel prizes are the most prestigious honors anyone can earn in the relevant fields; it doesn't violate NPOV to give them top billing, because the weight is due.... -- SCZenz (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template does not give the Nobel Prize "special distinction," the world gives the Nobel Prize "special distinction." M stone (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the Nobels aren't perfect...and represent a certain POV, but in this case POV is not an issue since the template is just a factual indicator that the subject of the article is a Nobel winner. It doesn't promote anything since the Nobels are already the world's most prestigious award, and the kind of thing readers...expect to see. In short it's the perfect thing for an infobox, which is intended to present short, quickly accessible data, and a Nobel prize is a thing they expect to see. Gamaliel (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage more discussion regarding points such as these; then, if people change their minds, they should strike-through and change their "vote". Heck, I would even suggest that all votes/comments regarding anything other than those pertaining to NPOV be so stricken, but I don't feel in a place to do so. Anyway, hope this makes sense and will help the discussion progress. --Eustress (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that limiting the discussion to WP:NPOV misses some important points. Specifically, the concern I raised in my !vote about WP:CRUFT is already starting to rear its ugly head in the "solve the NPOV issue by creating icons from other awards" suggestions. User:Kusma's example in his comment is right on the mark in that such a "solution" will result in a messy proliferation of icons, none of which are particularly useful (and I would argue that an unrecognizable icon is a useless icon. Can you tell the difference between a Nobel medal and a Fields medal, or for that matter, an Olympic gold medal at 30 pixels? I know I can't. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start worrying when I hear about actual problematic cases of famous physicists and chemists who also received Olympic gold medals (or even a Fields medal). The problem with using a slippery slope argument is that it needs to be clear that one is actually on a slope, as opposed to a valley or a plateau... --Itub (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is, and encourages, cruft. It is POV because it implies the fields of endeavour that may be awarded Nobel prizes are somehow more worthy of note, violating WP:NPOV. Additionally, some Nobel prize winners have their prizes for achievements unrelated or only tangentially related to their main claim to notability, making inclusion of this in their infobox inappropriate - I am thinking of Winston Churchill as I write this, but I'm certain there are others. Another issue is that some win the prize as an individual, some as part of a group; this would need to be clarified by the icon, adding even more cruft. Further some organisations have won or jointly won Nobel prizes, expanding the cruft --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other deletionists said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CityRailSydney/West_Line_stations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRailSydney/West_Line_stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not used (or used on one article that is to be deleted as per Past main AfD). Non-existent line and stations. — Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in which this template is used was listed on AFD today. Consensus has not yet been reached. Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CityRailSydney/West_Line

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRailSydney/West_Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not used (or used on one article that is to be deleted as per Past main AfD). Non-existent line and stations. — Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in which this template is used was listed on AFD today. Consensus has not yet been reached. Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.