< June 5	June 7 >

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nodb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The ((underconstruction)) and ((hangon)) tags is perceived to be the way to tell an admin to "wait". This is redundant to both of those. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - besides Peter's points, the wording on a template that a reviewing admin should contact the article creator before deleting implies a policy or guidelines that doesn't exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I understand the sentimet, but this doesn't fit with our deletion policy Fritzpoll (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit torn on this. Often times, the construction tag and hangon tag are routinely ignored. This seems, on the surface, to be a way to say "Stop, let me finish!" in a new way. I won't explicitly "support" this new template, but I wont' explicitly reject it either, as I feel it is a good faith attempt at finding a new way to stop the epidemic of tagging 1-minute-old aritcles for speedy deletion, before they even have a chance to breathe. All that to say, a "deleting admin", or a "new page patroller" really should be attempting to contact the article creator. As far as policy, I don't think there is one, and believe me, I've deleted the obvious without warning or talkpage myself. I would say though that this template could be a good way, if revised a bit, to avoid WP:BITE (I know it isn't a policy, but still, it's a good idea...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with what you're saying, Keep, and certainly I've seen a fair few bitey tags over the past weeks. Not sure this template helps though - most of the tagged articles are by new authors who don't even use ((underconstruction)) - in which case, how will they know to use this tag? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the discussion here, why hasn't the creator of this template, or the template itself, been notified of this discussion? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he has - there's a TfD notice on his talkpage from PeterSYmonds Fritzpoll (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete duplicates ((hangon))... an admin should basically treat ((hangon)) like this tag in most cases. This tag discourages the useful discussion of the hangon tag (i.e. explaining how the improvements will be made rather than just making empty promises) --Rividian (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only established users who know about the speedy delete criteria, know they can create draft articles in userspace, know about the "show preview" function and know about the ((underconstruction)) template are going to know about this template which would seem to make it unnecessary. Guest9999 (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears redundant to underconstruct and hangon. — _Maggot^Syn 13:40, 7 June 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.

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 keep, nomination effectively withdrawn and no "delete" opinions.  Sandstein  23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creationism2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is both superfluous and illogical. The "other religious views" section does not include Christianity, implying that the entire "types of creationism" section deals with Christian views, which is incorrect. The "types of creationism" articles are not religion-specific, and explicitly present information from Jewish, Islamic, and other religious views on creationism. Irregardless, there is already a more logical creationism template in existance: Template:Creationism. Maintaining two templates on the same topic is not advisable, especially when they have contradictory organizational structures. — Neelix (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I didn't even know there were two templates. The first one has consensus, and, I believe is the most widely used one on Wikipedia (correct me if I'm wrong, since I can't prove it). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope - Creationis2 is used is about 30 45 articles (quick count, I may have made a mistake) while this one is used in about 10. Guettarda (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Disagreement over one subheader in a template isn't a rationale for deletion. And the section is appropriate - creationism is overwhelmingly a US Protestant phenomenon - hence the existence of the existence of articles specifically dealing with things like Islamic creationism. As for the existence of two templates - they serve different purposes (this one is a "part of the series in..." template, while the other is a footer), and at present, this one is far more widely used. I really don't see the problem. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ditto. --Peter Farago (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the risk of being accused of editing a controversial article and taking place in a poll, both of which I said I would not do (in my defense, I believe that this is just about a minor formatting matter so surely I am permitted to respond here). I think that having more than one template lets authors be more flexible. I also think that this template being considered here is far more attractive than the other and is widely used in its own right. --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As evidenced by Neelix' contribs (see User_talk:Vanished user for a particularly notable instance), Neelix has notified a very large number of people of this nomination. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd say it's appropriate to notify all involved editors in an XfD. I wish more people would do it. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right. It wasn't clear immediately how he/she had determined who to notify, and since its occasionally a touchy topic I thought I'd point it out and ask Neelix what the basis was. Neelix has replied on my page that he notified all previous editors of the template per instructions to notify interested editors, so I've removed the ((notavote)) template. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edit conflict completely messed me up here. Let me state why I changed my mind. I didn't review Template:Creationism before voting, which was my mistake. Then I reviewed it, and I realized it has a different purpose than Template:Creationism2, which organizes the different creationist articles for quick review. The original template is more of a see also, mostly used at the bottom of the article. This should be kept. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 2005 discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005#Template:Creationism2. GRBerry 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator - In what way is creationism "overwhelmingly a US Protestant phenomenon"? That argument could be made for intelligent design, but creationism is an ancient concept that has been integral to many world religions. To suggest that American Protestants have more claim to the concept than other groups seems like POV. This template makes this assumption, which is why it cannot remain as it is; it should either be deleted or reformatted. Neelix (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The template is useful. People can argue what is on it or how it is phrased without deleting it. Just as a point of order, the term "creationism" is associated with evolution denial explicitly. What Neelix is attempting to reference to is creation (theology) or creation myths. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there's an argument for moving theistic evolution into the "other views" subsection, though as it is it covers the various forms of Christianity and other theistic religions that aren't "anti-evolution" in the meaning that's been attached to Creationism since 1929. That issue can be discussed on the template talk page. This useful template has a different position in the article and different use from Template:Creationism, which is also useful where appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thank you for the explanation, ScienceApologist. I think that this definition of "creationism" should be more explicit in the lede of the creationism article so that others will not make the same mistake I did, but in the mean time, it makes sense to keep the template if it is not inherently biased towards any particular group or view. Neelix (talk) 22:02, 6 June 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.

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 keep Happy‑melon 11:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universities in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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]

Keep 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]

Keep. 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 is neatly and concisely displayed in this one. 82.41.24.85 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — 82.41.24.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, I don't see an issue with retaining a national master category. Not everyone cares about looking them up/associating between them based on Canadian provinces. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template is not a "master category". Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A template for national universities is useful in Canada because we don't have too many here. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considerably preferable to province-specific templates. Risker (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment It's really poor wiki form to remove all transclusions of a template while it's under discussion. Please refrain from doing that again. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm unclear on why this is necessary; no article on Wikipedia will ever need to have both this and a provincial template on it simultaneously. And the ones in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland don't need country-specific and UK-universal templates at the same time, either. It's pure WP:TCREEP. Delete as unnecessary duplication of existing template schemata. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't we get rid of the provincial ones then? This one is much more useful and can replace all the provincial ones. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it more useful? Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for one thing, the provincial ones were silly on the lists of universities by province, since they essentially repeated the content of the list. Some provinces/territories have only a few post secondary institutions, all of which would likely be referred to in the article, so there was little to be added by including a province/territory-specific template. Risker (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This is a useful template. I say keep it and delete the provincial University templates. Dbalderzak (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the provincial templates are as large as I would go, beyond that the templates become large and the similarities between the schools, that you are trying to capture by grouping them, become less. I'm assuming, for instance, that a school in British Columbia may have more in common with one in Washington to the south, than with one in Quebec within the same country. Reasoning that the national template should be kept because the provincial ones don't look good on list pages does not make sense to me because there is no compulsion for there to be a template on any page.

(As a side note, I would consider the United Kingdom a deletion candidate, but not necessarily the Scottish one for the same reasons) Hippo (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a reply, a University in BC would have much more in common with one in Quebec than one in Washington. This is due to the public education system in Canada. DigitalC (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, I probably shouldn't have introduced comparisions with the U.S., what I really meant was in a geographically vast country such as Canada is there a sufficient connection between the schools to capture in a template, or is a just a grouping on a country for that reason alone. People mentioned Scottish universities and they are distinct compared to English ones because degrees make four years to obtain in instead of three. Hence, the UK template is also limited in usefulness That's the sort of reasoning I'd like to see. The provinces should be fine because you would expect them to interact because of they proximity (though that may be an over simplification for Canada). Hippo (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with modification: The template should be modified so that different provinces can be hidden, and as such won't be as large. Otherwise, it is a perfectly valid template. DigitalC (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a preference necessarily, but isn't that skirting the issue. With autocollapsing boxes you can just put all of them on the page if you really want to and get the same effect. Hippo (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DigitalC (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The provincial templates work just fine. And this temp only includes PUBLIC universities and colleges. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:31, 18 June 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.

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 move to ((Official document)) and convert to a restriction template. Happy‑melon 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free official document (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
• Delete. I'm confused by its purpose. Maybe something like Commons:Template:Personality rights could work, but the wording would need to be much clearer and very different to this. Hippo (talk) 01:26, 11 June 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.

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. Maxim_(talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mexico City Borough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Delete per nom. --Ptcamn (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 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.

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 Maxim_(talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 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.

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euromarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

• Delete, for all the reasons given by nominator: far too broad scope means inclusion in this template will always be arbitrary and POV. Terraxos (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. By the definition in landmark, this template could list half the buildings in Europe. Hippo (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The definition of the template is probably the modern definition, this. -Sneaky Oviraptor18 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)— Sneaky Oviraptor18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not aware of the definition of landmark ever changing, and you just linked back to the same article. Anyway, from Wiktionary:\

1. a recognizable natural or man-made feature used for navigation
   • Anyone have any weird landmarks they often remember seeing along roads in the olden days? — [1]
2. a notable building or place with historical, cultural, or geographical significance
   • Putting together a list of landmarks for Bangalore was not the easiest task." — [2]
3. a major or important item, denoting a change of direction or marking a beginning or an end
   • He called the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the recent elections in Afghanistan landmark events in the history of liberty. — [3]

Beyond construction in the last few decades, I imagine it would be hard to a part of Europe that doesn't have historical, cultural, or geographical significance to some person or party. Hippo (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say definition 2. -Nomingia (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, keep. -Nomingia (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The inclusion criteria of this template is too vague (if there is any at all). There are thousands of articles that can possibly be added to this template. And there is absolutely no help at all to determine what landmarks that are the most notable to go into this list. This template will certainly be a victim of future edit warring if it gets a more widespread use. And it is not NPOV. There are 50 countries of Europe and it is likely that there will be at least one landmark for each country added to this template. It means that this template will have 50 sub-groups/rows, and will be ridiculously huge. Also consider Template:Rome landmarks. It consists of some 50 articles. Should all these also be included to Template:Euromarks? It is impossible to manage a proper use of this template. Please delete! --Kildor (talk) 08:13, 23 June 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.

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 Maxim_(talk) 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free diagnostic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

Delete To narrowly defined for the non-free criteria. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom, and I wonder if there aren't more issues than just copyright when considering potentially sensitive subjects such as medical images. Hippo (talk) 01:19, 11 June 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.

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 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Merge into the appropriate Wikiproject's talk page header template (((WP India)) I presume). Hippo (talk) 01:21, 11 June 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.

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.
• Delete. per the above. Hippo (talk) 01:23, 11 June 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.

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox New York City borough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Infobox New York City Manhattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Infobox New York City Queens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Infobox New York City Staten Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
• Delete. redundant. Hippo (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are unused and using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 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.