Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 1



Template:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy see also

 * 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 Delete

This template is no longer used by any article. Bonewah (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not used = useless (almost all the time). Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - 'see also' sections shouldn't be templates. Robofish (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:wig-icus

 * 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 Delete

Linked once, for a quotation of dubious importance. Quote is not even notable in for the article its intended for.


 * Delete: as well as the issues raised by nom, the existence, let alone the reliability, of the source the quote is referenced to is under question. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - now not used anywhere, and presumably never will be. Robofish (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Infobox user 2

 * 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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)



Not used, redundant with Infobox user, no significant difference with the original one. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge to Infobox user. Simply south (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Nearest tube

 * 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.

This discussion was closed as no consensus by Erik9, a non-administrator, on 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC). In accordance with WP:DPR, I, an administrator, am overturning this closure and reclosing as delete. This is because the deletion arguments relate to policy and other strong arguments, whereas of the three keep arguments, one is per another user who has changed to delete, and another falls down under the WP:ITSUSEFUL essay, which is quite persuasive. Therefore, deletion is where the consensus lies here. I am not deleting the template right away in order to allow a grace period of a day or two for people to subst the templates into articles where it would be appropriate and avoid ugly redlinks. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)



This template isn't conductive to writing good prose. In the worst case, it encourages guidebook-style prose where the aim is to impart landmarks in a bullet-style fashion - tube stations, where they need to be mentioned, should be elaborated on in the article body as normal, not shunted into a bulleted list. The icon itself is pointless embellishment. While this could be revamped into a simple sentence with better flow and no bullet or icon, that leaves it rather pointless - we don't have templates for other common sentences used in article bodies. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep In long articles it highlights the underground (and any other transport information) information. I disagree that the icon is pointless as it is an extremely well known symbol and aids quick navigation. PRL42 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that address the concerns raised, namely that it encourages articles to be written as travel guides and that there is no proven need to "highlight" the transport information? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the 'no travel guide' information I would revise to Delete. PRL42 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite either delete this because it encourages the creation of hundreds of similar templates for cities across the world, or rebuild it as template:nearest rapid transit and generalize it for any subway system. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per PRL42. Bazj (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This is potentially very misleading – the peculiar setup of the London rail system means that "nearest station" can be very misleading (for much of South London the nearest tube station will be some miles away, and the rivers can make things very confusing – Kew Gardens station, for example, is less than a mile from Syon House, but anyone trying to walk it would find a large wet obstacle in the way). Additionally, it's not useful as for much (if not most) of London the nearest station isn't technically a tube station but part of London Overground, London Rail or the Docklands Light Railway; everything shown in either orange, blue-and-white or black-and-white on the London Transport map isn't considered part of the tube. "Weak" delete because I'm prepared to be convinced there's a use for this if someone can demonstrate it, but I think a single Wikipedia-wide "nearest station" template would be far more useful. –  iride scent  18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Should the discussion be enlarged and relisted to also cover Nearest Over, Nearest station, Nearest DLR? Seems little point in having 4 separate discussions. Bazj (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd only keep Nearest station, and subst-and-delete the other three. Agree with bringing Nearest Over and Nearest DLR into the scope of this discussion, though. –  iride scent  15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not convinced this adds useful information, and it can be confusing or unhelpful, as iridescent says above. Robofish (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Important - This template, if anything, discourages pages being written as tourist guides as it does not need there to be a section on transport links necessarily. It is a quick visual aid that adds great ease of use and has great value as it enables users to quickly find out information regarding the location of a place within Greater London. It would be a great shame should it be deleted as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia. George5210 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * here is where it was originally proposed. Simply south (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The template would be very useful for Wikitravel, but isn't suitable for an encyclopedia as all it does is add trivia to articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - but I do take on board that the four (?) templates do much the same thing. As far as I remember, they were introduced to bring some consistency and better presentation to lists that were appearing in articles in any case. I would suggest that if kept, we move to a discussion at P:LT on unifying the templates and what should be in them (for instance adding line identification). The templates were introduced to aid standardisation and brevity within travel sections; not to appear where either a better prose section existed, or where a 'nearest tube' was inappropriate. Kbthompson (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I took a look at about a dozen (random) articles that used the template, and none of them used it in a way that does not violate Manual of Style (icons). The icon in the template serves no appropriate use and is only for decoration. Also, we are not writing a travel guide, so we must be careful to include information in an appropriate format. The text should be custom-written to indicate both the nearest tube station, and also any other relevant, transport-related information. As is, the templates encourge on-line paragraphs and lists instead of proper prose, and is an invitation to lazy writers. Arsenikk (talk)  20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete May be useful for wikitravel, not for wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: useful information, even on an encyclopedia -- Double  M   13:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:European Poker Player of the Year Award Winners

 * 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 Delete

There is no European POTY given out by CardPlayer, this just seems to be a template linking to the highest ranking European in the previous POTY races of CardPlayer. –– Lid(Talk) 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - assuming nom is correct, no grounds for a template here. Robofish (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Cycle Collstrop

 * 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 Delete

Another defunct cycling team. Nosleep break my slumber 00:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Greater Los Angeles Area

 * 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 keep Erik9 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting this template for deletion because it simply should not exist. The template should revolve around the MSA of LA which would be LA-OC. I would also say that the Greater LA template is missing alot of cities in its area, mainly from the Inland Empire (CA) Metropolitan Area. Now I created a verion in which all the cities would be included but it is now an option for deletion, the template is/was: Template:Southern California. Now the Inland Empire (CA) metro (which is a MSA) has its own template while the LA-OC metro (Is a MSA) does not, there for there should be a template that focuses on the LA-OC metro instead of the Combined region. Another reason for the deletion is the US Censes and Wikipedia, both go by MSA instead of a Combined Metro. I strongly feel the deletion should be made because it is mising alot of info (unlike my version) and if not deleted it should be mainly focused on the LA/OC metro since the IE metro, which currently is included in this template, all ready has its own template. The two templates should just be joined by a related templates thing like the one in the Greater Los Angeles. A better template for the Greater Los Ageles area was the one I created which divided the 2 metropolitan areas in the region which is Template:Southern California. Thank-You itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or trim. No need to have every town listed, when they are already on the county pages. - SimonP (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I trimmed it down a bit here:. Amerique dialectics  23:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The structure is consistent with Template:Chicagoland and Template:New_York_metropolitan_area that also take the multi-county combined statistical area as the unit of analysis. Amerique dialectics 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete To many cities missing, too long. Delet or make it into the LA/OC Metro (LA/OC is alot smaller/shorter!) itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Amerique it still is missing bodies of water from the IE I still think it would be better off focusing in the LA/OC Metro rather than a combined metro (smaller and more facts about the area). The template makes it feel like the IE should not be there. I would agree a "KEEP" only if this template becomes LA/OC Metro, IE has its own template, no need for a combination. Also if the page includes cities of more than 100,000 people in Greater LA area then wheres Victorville? The template won't be correct because its still missing alot of cities (mainly in the IE) and if they were included that will just make it long again. I still go for two diffrent templates rather than one large one. After all they are diffrent metropolitan areas. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: bodies of water sitll missing from the IE, and the IE is not a subregion its a metropolitan area, the IE has subregion. The SB Valley is a subregion IEso its not to be called a GLA subregion and still 100K+ cities missing. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If we make it into the LA/OC are we also going to have LA/IE and OC/IE templates? Why are we completely omitting IE cities that DO form part of the LA metropolitan statistical region? As Amerique says, the template is consistent with other multi-county templates . Just keep it simple as SimonP suggests. We just have to reach a consensus on what a major city is based on population. I would suggest anything over 100,000 pop.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: All im saying is why one large one when we can have 2 seperate ones, with more detail? Already have IE template, all we need is LA. No need for combination. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, I understand your drive for simplification, however I don't think this template is horribly large. Dabackgammonator (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The GLAA is unique given the unusual size and shape of some counties in that area, as a result of which the Combined Statistical Area includes areas far beyond the Los Angeles commutershed. The desert regions are a notable example of this. If a consensus on that boundary can be determined, this template serves a unique role that the county templates cannot fulfill.--Samhuddy (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Size and Shape is no reason to keep a template. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arguments against this template seem to go in opposite ways:  the template is not comprehensive/detailed enough, or it is too long.  I think you can have different levels of templates:  a big area one that only lists the bigger cities, and more detailed ones that each list every little hamlet in a smaller area.  The more detailed hamlet template is used on articles about the hamlets that appear on only that one template.  The big area template can be used on the biggest cities.  This is like arguing against having a big area map of the greater LA area.  It doesn't have every detail that can appear in smaller area detailed maps, but we still want to use the big area map (and template) in some articles. doncram (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ok I see what you guys mean, I think I see it more clearly now. I would like to say I will still creat a LA/OC template with more detail of the LA area, since the IE metro has one I will like to create one for LA/OC. I would also like to say that Southland is a better name for the template because most residents in the IE, like my self, dont consider our selfs to be in GLA (just saying) Thankyou! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: a contrast with SF Bay Area shows what this can be. I dislike the differentiation based on "Major cities", which is pure POV. Use something objective such as population (like the Bay Area one does), and perhaps extend it beyond incorporated cities to include East Los Angeles, California (but on that I'll admit bias). However, is that failing and the geographic limit (the Bay Area takes in Solano and Sonoma, so why shouldn't the LA one take in Orange and the Inland Empire?) question sufficient reason to delete this? One minor thing is that where should this template be added? On every article about something in Greater LA or only on the things linked from it? But that's not a TLD question - it will clog lots of articles that have both the County template and this one if indeed that getting the county one means you surely get the metro area one as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:GeorgiaTechPRImage

 * 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 Delete

Misleading and redundant. This is a copyright template, allegedly codifying Georgia Tech's image policy and it prohibits use "for product endorsement or other advertising purposes," which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA or GFDL and thus with violates Wikipedia's free content policy. It is misleading, giving the impression that images tagged as such do not have to follow the NFCC limitations. Even if used correctly, it is redundant to standard Non-free copyright tags.Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The images covered by this template are non-free, and should be labeled as such. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.