Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 March 28)
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28, 2006 edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tennessee-politician-photo edit

Template:Tennessee-politician-photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. We really don't need a special class of "fair use" for photographs of politicians from Tennessee. --Carnildo 05:16, 29 March 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G10 edit

Template:G10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is really an irrelevant template that does little more than take up space. Ardenn 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alright, well first off, I would have appreciated the courtesy of having tried to resolve this with me (the creator) beforehand. That being said, I disagree it's irrelevant. The G10 is the Canadian equivalent to the Ivy League in the US, this template provides Users with a quick and easy access point for seeing which other universities belong to the group. pm_shef 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you verify that it is of that importance? I disagree with you on that. Ardenn 03:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm Yes. It is the organization bringing together the top schools in Canada. How is that not important. -- pm_shef 05:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no proof the organization actually exists. Ardenn 05:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, there is, See the AfD for this topic for evidence taken from university websites. pm_shef 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per pm_shef, notability established. Silensor 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't mind seeing this as a table in a list article maybe, but how is this template a better access point than a bullet list or table? This template is large, and far too specialized; the G-10 will always be the G-10, and if it ever changes, it won't be the G-10 anymore, which means the template would have to be changed. A template, as a general rule, applies to a very large number of articles, as evidenced by those listed on Template messages in article space. Furthermore, as this is "the Ivy League of Canada", note that Ivy League has no such templates. MSJapan 05:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The G10 does exist. As far as its irrelevance, it is just as "irrelevant" as the aforementioned Ivy League template or the provincial university templates. Although, it would be nice if this template weren't so garish and large... Darkcore 06:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates fair use policy. Besides that, the "G10" is not a formal organisation; thus, it is inappropriate to group these universities as if it were.--cj | talk 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable, useful --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rename {{Group of Ten (Canadian universities)}} to match rename at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G10 (Canadian universities) -- I'm from Michigan, and I've heard of them! Makes me wonder who is this Canadian named Ardenn, why s/he thinks Old Four was a hoax, and exactly what university s/he attended? (And when the Big10 here in the states added 1, they kept the name.) -- William Allen Simpson 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per W.A.S. There's plenty of precedent {{Big Ten Conference}}, {{Atlantic Coast Conference}}, {{Big East Conference}}, etc. Maybe this isn't a formal organization, but it is recognized. --Durin 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete accordingly based on the fate of the G10 article itself. If G10 merits an article, the template is useful; if G10 does not, the template is not. --BDD 02:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. i'm not sure why the formal status of the organization should be an issue, provided it's a significant meme, which it is. --He:ah? 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major Canadian schools are important -- Tawker 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ditto Tawker, and others, above. This is relevant, notable and certainly worthy of a template, as much as the Ivy League. Nhprman UserLists 20:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. heqs 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if keep is decided, please reformat to fit on one line Usgnus 18:55, 6 April 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all Circeus 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Chernivtsi, Template:Infobox Rivne, Template:Infobox Khmelnytskyi, etc edit

Template:Infobox Chernivtsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use templates. Should be subst'ed and deleted. bogdan 19:34, 28 March 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User copyright edit

Template:User copyright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive and inflammatory userbox which seeks to subvert inviolable (and legally mandated) policy on copyright. Created by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs), one of Wikipedia's most-blocked editors. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a single delete vote other than nom, can this be speedied? --He:ah? 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, let's get this over with. -Tjss 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All here seem to agree that this should be kept - so please speedy this one. CharonX 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. - Mike (talk)  22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FIFTH'd!—thegreentrilby 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not every user who posts it wants to Wikipedia to rum amok with bannable copyright infringement. It's simply an opinion. Like you have stated, it's legally mandated and Wikipedia's official policy towards the copyright infringement policy won't change because someone has a silly little box on their userpage. Calicore 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is a good reminder against Wikilawyerism. Asterion 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it may be divisive it is within the purvue of creating the encyclopedia and not outside issues like religion or politics. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does not seek to subvert policy, it provides an interpretation of it. The page on Meta that expands on the sentiment has been there for over four years. Selina is not blocked indefinitely and to claim that the fact that something was by her is a reason to delete is an unwarranted ad hominem. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above. In addition, if divisive, then some of the WikiProjects are devisive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There does not seem to be any subversion that is created by this template. --Andy123(talk) 20:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyone has the right to expression of the belief, including concerning laws in force. Nikolay Kolpakov 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fair comment Boddah 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Samuel Blanning; this is clearly advocating an interpretation of policy and does not suggest the overthrow of copyright or any such nonsense Passdoubt | Talk 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ardenn 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with everything mentioned above by those who vote to keep. Even if the template is deleted, I could spend a few minutes and make my own userbox that says the exact same thing, the "divisiveness" and "subversion" won't go away, 5 minutes of my time will and that's all. Plus, let's get this over with because the message alerting me to the template's possible deletion is messing up my formatting on my userpage. Gatherton 05:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Leave templates alone. You couldn't get away with this kind of rampant censorship on an article, why should you be allowed to do it in userspace? Down with the censors, up with userboxes! Joey 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - invalid nomination. JzG apparently doesn't understand what does the box actually express. Also, judging content by it's creator (re: "Created by Mistress Selina Kyle") is just short of being considered a personal attack. Misza13 T C 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep per above --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above Mike McGregor (Can) 20:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sam Blanning, Passdoubt, Misza13 and everyone else... Heqs 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This paranoia does exist; In fact, I think it's just been demonstrated. Wikipedia has wide latitude given US fair use policy;those users that axe legitimately used copyrighted material create more pain for Wikipedia than we will probably ever see in a court of law. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone else's opinions summing it up quite nicely. - seinman 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone heard of freespeach on ones userpages here? Mike Beckham 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as per everything above. --He:ah? 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, trying to censor something disagreeing with copyright, in order to protect copyright? Hmm... --Falcon9x5 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is a great template --circuitloss 16:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Coolgamer 16:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep, it is important that user boxes can reflect an opinion. User pages are not strictly part of the encyclopedia. Benjaminstewart05 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems unanimous (J.reed  19:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Alexwcovington stated the case perfectly. -Masonpatriot 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Yet another Wikipedian who is on a silly extramism crusade. Wikipedia is not baised. Wikipedia is like the UN...it is neutral from the world. -Dynamo_ace Talk
  • Speedy Keep This template is not offensive to anyone, so I see no reason to remove it - claiming it "seeks to subvert inviolable policy on copyright" is nonsense, as statements like "I see the reasons for copyright, but let's not go overboard" would have to be removed too. CharonX 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The comment "one of Wikipedia's most-blocked editors" may or may not be true, however I fail to see it's relevance here. Did you wish to express "Mistress Selina Kyle created this and thus, as she was often blocked, this must be a bad template" JzG? If so, please state this clearly. And someone please speedy this this already. CharonX 13:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep.—thegreentrilby 02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Samuel Blanning and Misza13. --All in 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Where is our right of free speech and opinion here? Szhaider 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech" (from "What Wikipedia is Not" official policy page. Nhprman 20:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per all the above. Gateman1997 01:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do people have nothing better to do? --Username132 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KeepDwnsjane2 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --  Boris Malagurski ₪ 09:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepAs above. Do people really have the time to worry about such a small thing. And frankly who cares? Crampy20 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep That is the obvious choice. Heck, the nominator's personal attack itself makes this nomination a complete joke. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Bertilvidet 10:16, 4 April 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all Circeus 16:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian University edit

Template:Infobox Australian University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is depreciated and replaced by the more encompassing and uniform Template:Infobox University. Has been depopulated CHANLORD [T]/[C]   03:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These items should also be removed under the same criteria listed above. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Agree: Australian Universities have differences that can be allowed for in a standardised template. Less effort needed to revise templates for what is a very static area anyway. Ansell 12:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: Functionality of the templates fork have been duplicated in the new template --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional agree delete the one that have none linling to it (ive been trying to prune these templates) but leave the ones with only one for now because we need something to take their place. Let me work on it. American Patriot 1776 20:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIxed them, Agree now American Patriot 1776 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the templates and their talk pages (if there's any). If the decision is that any one of them is no longer necessary to be kept, move it them out of the template namespace, and redirect it them to template:infobox University. — Instantnood 21:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • What purpose does that have. What is the significance to the pages currently? Their purpose is completely fulfilled in the updated infobox university, which nullfies their purpose for existence. Their purpose was to allow for anomalies between countries. The anomalies are now taken care of. Ansell 22:24, 1 April 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was no clear consensu: keep Circeus 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various nav templates edit

The following templates are not necessary navigational tools, because categories will serve equally well for their purpose. They have been fully depopulated. Ingoolemo talk 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This has not been properly listed, but I would support their deletion after being fixed --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Templates can be pretty useful for subjects such as these, but these should probably be combined, as "Aircraft of the former USSR" or the like; the Soviet Union had a complicated system of design bureaux and factories, rather than single integrated manufacturers, that would suggest listing them all together. ProhibitOnions 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think they are a very handy navigation tool. Categories would fulfill a purpose but I doubt it would be the same as these. Ansell 22:31, 1 April 2006 (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 page.

Template:Vermont State Colleges edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. There's no point keeping the redirect, because it's no longer being used. I've performed a history merge, so just keeping the new template {{Public colleges and universities in Vermont}} will be sufficient. Will do further cleanup on this. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vermont State Colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  1. Obsolete because I merged that template into {{Public colleges and universities in Vermont}}. JB82 01:02, 28 March 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_28&oldid=1142563961"