Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 25

< July 24	July 26 >

July 25 edit

Template:British songs 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, POV template and per precedents of Irish and American songs templateGarion96 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:Irish_songs and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_28#Template:American_songs . Is inherently WP:NPOV with no way to fix (previous nom) . — Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently PoV, and dang huge to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nominator obviously has a problem with this template, but IMHO under 2 months is too soon to nominate it again, suggesting bad faith on the part of Gnevin - it was a "no consensus" last time. The other templates he has cited as precedents have been similarly two-sided debates - in the case of the Irish songs template, he even appears to have somehow overuled the "no consensus" result. It's probably best if it waits at least a few more months and for a nomination from another user. Bob talk 09:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Accusing someone of bad faith is hardly WP:AGF is it now but I'll assume you've a good faith reason for that comment. The Irish template was renominated and deleted when Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_patriotic_songs got deleted. Waiting will not change the WP:POV nature of this template or shall we all prove a point and start adding the likes of Say Hello to the Provos,A Nation Once Again,Boys of the Old Brigade,The Sash or Come Out Ye Black And Tans? Gnevin (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - and I'd like to see and participate in the expansion and improvement of current, similar templates and the creation of more templates in this ilk. FusionWarrior (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume you've found a non WP:OR,WP:SYN and WP:NPOV which includes WP:Cite and WP:V way to define Patriotic music then ? Care too share it so i can change my vote to keep when i see it ? Gnevin (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes I have. A very brief venture into the British Library catalogue was helpful in providing publications on the matter, as well as some publications available at Google Scholar. I'm willing to find sources for British patriotic songs, and to remove any from the template which are not mentioned. I will also get rid of the songs which are devoted to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Are you and the rest of the Delete camp prepared to compromise? FusionWarrior (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very much POV and I don't see a way to make it NPOV. I agree, UK has its patriotic songs, but it is too much of a controversial and politically-inclined subject to keep this. The patriotic songs themselves definitely deserve some mention of patriotism in their respective articles, but pooling them together in a template to be stricken and re-added by editors whose views don't conform is far from a good idea. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this template is important and classes as a good directory even if it is POV Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it POV, but it is also OR. I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources for patriotism. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reasoning as last time: it's too arbitrary a subject for a template, with no clear inclusion criteria; it's prone to provoking arguments over what counts as a 'patriotic British song', showing the inherent POV issues with the template; and it's not very useful for navigational purposes anyway. Terraxos (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that it is not useful: in fact an unregistered user recently cited the template to a user at the Reference Desk section looking for a British patriotic song. FusionWarrior (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that very discussion highlights the issues with this template as their is on going discuss as to what is a British Patriotic song Gnevin (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks to have been easily settled. The song in question isn't related to the United Kingdom anyway, and only used for the England rugby team - it would not qualify for the template. I'm going to press ahead with improvements to the box in the absence of any consensus. FusionWarrior (talk) 13:23, 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:OpenAustralia 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OpenAustralia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

as per this discussion template was created to facilitate the spamming of Wikipedia by representative of the site contrary to WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Gnan garra 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note: Official governments sites for Hansard in each state as well as the Federal government are at Australian Hansard,Victoria, Australia Hansard,Australia Capital Territory, Australia, Hansard,Northern Territory, Australia Hansard,South Australia, Australia Hansard,Queensland, Australia Hansard,Tasmania, Australia Hansard,Western Australia, Australia,New South Wales, Australia Hansard

Keep: the official sites are notoriously difficult to use. A broad majority of commenters on the OpenAustralia.org spam thread agree that the OpenAustralia links are useful. Moreover, I disagree with Gnangarra's claim that “the template was created to facilitate the spamming of Wikipedia”. From my reading, the template was created to ensure consistent and proper linking from Wikipedia to OpenAustralia. There have been five contributors to the template. MLandauer, the alleged spammer, is not one of them. Garthrk (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yep - the template was my idea (and I'm the one who originally raised the spam question), and was implemented mainly by Moondyne. It seemed silly to have these hand coded links all over the place. -- Mark Chovain 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the COI is necessarily relevant here, as there are quite a number of editors that think the links are a good idea (if someone were to revert them solely for being COI, someone else without a COI would put them back in). Your copyright claims are unfounded, as we are linking it, not incorporating it. These conform perfectly with WP:EL - the links do a really good job of augmenting the articles. If you think we can do just as well by linking to Hansard, then I'd like to know who would be maintaining the links. -- Mark Chovain 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to quote WP:EL Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors, but copyright is a concern about the site and whether we should even be using it as a source not about this template who's purpose was to facilitate spamming links to OpenAustralia.org a site which only started on 16th June 2008. Gnan garra 09:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In hindsight someone other than the SPA should have added the template into the articles: I did think about suggesting that at the time the issue was first discussed a couple of days ago, but was too caught up in something else at the time. But I believe the site is good and adds a useful link for Wikipedia readers. The OpenAustralia pages appear to be ad-free and non-partisan, and they link back to Wikipedia. I imagine it could be a useful resource for a researcher. I think that copyright is a non-issue for the reason Chovain said: "we are linking it, not incorporating it". Moondyne 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename for the same reasons as given by Chovain: even though the links were added the wrong way, they add useful extra information so are useful WP:External Links, and quite a few regular WP editors have expressed support for them. They access Hansard, but in a far more user-friendly format. Comment My only concern is the name. I'd prefer it to be renamed to something like "AustHansard", so that we are not locked into using OpenAustralia.org; and if and when a better resource comes along we can link to that instead by simply altering the template. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree pretty much with Moondyne's expressed views - yes, there are some issues with COI with the site owner adding them, but I think the site itself is in line with our own goals as a project - it's not a source of opinion or a blog or anything else, and I think the "blatant copyright violation" is *way* overstated (it appears the site may comply with Australian copyright law, but not GFDL/CC, and plenty of other pages - for example just about every Obama site we have linked - have similar issues.). Orderinchaos 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have issues with the co-owner of the site adding the links himself, but i don't see any reason to delete this template. The template is helpful for the editors of these political pages who may wish to use the site as an EL themselves. Sarah 12:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the template was intended to be useful to editors it would be constructed to enable use as an inline citation, its not it was constructed to spam articles solely because a representative of the site is trying to advertise that site. Gnan garra 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful template. Bob talk 13:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
its definitely useful for spamming the site. Gnan garra 00:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - right now I want to provide a cite to Senator Bernardi see this edit and several preceding edits to the page - the site only deals with reps so I can't use it for what I want in this case but it was the source I thought of to solve the problem.--Matilda ^talk 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was because of the spamming congratulations you've be spammed. On that edit interesting that you need to search Hansard, if it was controversial then there would be at least one media article on it. Without a source to attribute the fact its controversial it'd be original research. Gnan garra 01:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re NOR - Quite [1] and [2] If on the other hand he was in the reps and had spoken on the subject in parliament the website would have been useful to link to and this template would have facilitated that linking as a ref - there is no reason why it can't be part of an inline cite that I can see. I am one of those terrible people who may respond to spam if I can see it might actually be useful. --Matilda ^talk 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or speedy delete {{imdb}} and {{rotten-tomatoes}}. Not one of the most useful nominations I've seen. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:15, 29 July 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:ViennaCrossSection 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ViennaCrossSection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This applies both to this item, and the entries below, except the USC links, which are now dead. Under links normally to be avoided, #1 is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", and #13 is "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." Neither one of these applies. For #1 - these are links to images where no internal substitute is available. For #13 - I can only assume that this is a typo on your part, and you must have meant a different criteria, because the relationship between the article and the links should be self-evident. To test this, click here, and pick several at random, and see if they relate directly to the article in question. If you did mean #13, please provide an example. These links are clearly not promotional, unless you think I'm trying to promote the Medical University of Vienna, University of Iowa, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University of California, Davis, University of Michigan, Boston University, University of Kansas, and University of Oklahoma. --Arcadian (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact mean 13. Criterion 13 has typically been used to distinguish between the cases where the target of the EL is significant to the subject of the article (Britney Spears' official website: acceptable) and cases when the subject of the article is significant to the EL but not the other way around (Any of the thousands of Britney Spears fan sites: normally to be avoided). As for criteria 1, the deep links to images appears to be a tail run around WP:NFCC. The images are not free and are certainly replaceable (in many cases there are already better images in the article), so we deep link them rather than finding a free alternative.

While I am not withdrawing my nomination for deletion, do you agree that the links should be removed from articles in which a free image already exists? --Selket ^Talk 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your non-free argument. There is nothing inherently unfree about deep-linking. WP:NFCC has nothing to do with images not hosted on the project. --- RockMFR 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles were of Featured Article quality they would contain free images that would replace these images that are present only as external links. Many already do contain replacement images. Look at [Vomer]] it has six external links all containing information that is redundant with what is already in the article. The thing is there are just so many anatomy sites (probably every med school in the world will have one at some point) that it's just inviting link farming. We could go through each article and remove all of the redundant ones, but this seemed like a better way to have the discussion. Here's another example from Vomer: the link to this image. The image is functionally identical to Image:Gray854.png, which is already in the article. So what purpose does it serve other than for the sake of having an external link? --Selket ^Talk 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Selket's reasoning under WP:EL is very -- limited, not to say wrong. Even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with this than without this. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this serves an important purpose. Since Selket objects, then I invite him to solve the real problem by acquiring the needed images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Challenge accepted. I will withdraw my TfD for all of these templates (except for the USC one) provided no one objects in principle to my removing links from individual articles where either (1) an equal quality or better picture exists in the article, (2) a free alternative exists that I will upload to commons and link into the article, or (3) I can replace with my own illustration that I place in the article. Of course I'm not looking for carte blanch, and any individual deletion can be challenged at the article through the normal edit/revert/discuss process. --Selket ^Talk 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I object. You said, "I stopped deleting them once I had the idea to TfD the template." Now you're saying that you'll stop the TfD, as long as no one objects to you deleting the links. You removed image links when no image existed in the article, and removed images that were important complements to what was in the article. I share many of your goals, and I'm very supportive of the efforts to improve the illustration of our articles. (Per your Vomer example -- look and see who uploaded Gray854.png in the first place, and who added it to the page.) But I don't think you understand why multiple histology images are better than any single image, I don't think you understand the legal obstacles involved in obtaining photographs of human cadavers, and I don't think you understand Wikipedia:External links.--Arcadian (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm now proposing to remove links only when an equal or higher quality image exists in the article. Under this standard the osteoid link would stay as would the link I deleted from Axon because the free image I added does not truly replace it. You are correct that I don't understand why multiple redundant histology images improve an article. If the images show different things (and are therefore non-redundant) it should be explained in the article what makes them different (such as normal and diseased, sliced differently, stained differently, etc.). This enables non-histologists to learn more about the subject and therefore improves the article. I do appreciate the challenge of finding free images -- regardless of the subject. I don't think that histology images are especially hard. Compare to the difficulty in obtaining free pictures of recently deceased celebrities. For example, has anyone contacted the maintainers of any of these sites to see if they will CC-BY their images? Another place to look is PLoS, which has CC-BYed all of their articles. As for your "First you said ... Now you're saying..." argument, I'm not aware of any rule that prevents me from changing my mind, particularly if I'm trying to find a compromise. In fact, I think it's encouraged. --Selket ^Talk 00:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Arcadian is right about the value of multiple images. Please, add images. Additional images are highly desirable. But multiple images are much better than a single image. In certain cases, even a dozen images of the "same thing" (if it has particularly diverse forms) is not too many. I suggest withdrawing all the TfDs (except USC) and doing whatever you can to add images -- but not deleting the existing links unless/until you're certain that the content in the removed link won't be missed. You might even, as a show of good faith/ostentatious cooperation/whatever you want to call it, suggest on talk pages that in light of the images you have newly added, that this or that link is no longer justifiable, and leave it to someone else to delete the link for you. (I'm willing to be a "third opinion" on any given article, and you can always ask for more opinions at WT:MED.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. --Selket ^Talk 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. --Selket ^Talk 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The links seem to pass WP:EL, so the template seems valid. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 27 July 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:IowaHistologyInteractive 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IowaHistologyInteractive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 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:SUNYAnatomyLabs 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SUNYAnatomyLabs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 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:UCDavisOrganology 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UCDavisOrganology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. --Selket ^Talk 01:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 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:SUNYAnatomyImage 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SUNYAnatomyImage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deep link to non-free image. A free replacement should be found, and in many cases is already present in the article. Selket ^Talk 01:25, 25 July 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:SUNYAnatomyFigs 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SUNYAnatomyFigs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 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:UMichAtlas 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UMichAtlas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 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:BUHistology 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BUHistology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deep link to non-free image (with small caption). Should be replaced with a free image. Selket ^Talk 01:13, 25 July 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:KansasHistology 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KansasHistology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deep link to non-free image (with small caption). Should be replaced with a free image. Selket ^Talk 01:12, 25 July 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:OklahomaHistology 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Selket ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OklahomaHistology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is a deep-link to a non-free image database. Many images are already replaced (often with better ones) in the article. Others should be replaced with free images. Selket ^Talk 01:06, 25 July 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:USCHistology 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCHistology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is an external link to a site that requires a login. Selket ^Talk 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete. per {{BUHistology}}, {{GeorgiaPhysiology}}, {{UCDavisOrganology}} etc. All those templates are useful as references. We cite articles published in scientific magazines that require login, we cite books made out of paper that cannot be read by a mouse click, so why can't we use this? The site linked is a reliable source anyway. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Journal articles, while not available to everyone on the Internet are available to a large number Wikipedia editors and can be obtained from the library otherwise. This site is only available to USC students. The other three templates you name link to pages that are publicly available. --'Selket ^Talk 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case I'm changing my vote. Sorry, I thought it's just some sort of paid subscription thingy. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete External link to a site that most Wikipedia readers can't even view. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:35, 30 July 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.