The Duke of Waltham (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:{{lt|Infobox Administrative Division 1}} |
:{{lt|Infobox Administrative Division 1}} |
||
No longer used, offers no benefit to the standard {{tlx|Geobox}} or {{tlx|Infobox Settlement}} templates. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
No longer used, offers no benefit to the standard {{tlx|Geobox}} or {{tlx|Infobox Settlement}} templates. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Administrative_Division_1 unused], can't see any value. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 10:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== New York City subdivision infobox templates ==== |
==== New York City subdivision infobox templates ==== |
Revision as of 10:18, 6 June 2008
June 6
Indian Selected Article/Image/List templates
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1
- Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1 ( | 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)
- Delete - unused, can't see any value. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
New York City subdivision infobox templates
- Template:Infobox New York City borough ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Infobox New York City Manhattan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Infobox New York City Queens ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Infobox New York City Staten Island ( | 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)