Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 3 May 2007 (22nd is complete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Current discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2024 May 30

May 2

Template:Video game list

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 speedy delete per CSD criterion G7. Harryboyles 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this list initially as a video game version of the TV episode list template. Since creating it I've found that there's no need for the template and it also encourages using non-free images without critical analysis. I am in the process of removing it from the 2 minor articles it was used in. — ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Speedy delete, if possible, since requested by creator.) --myselfalso 03:43, 3 May 2007 (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:Smithsonian

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 // Pilotguy hold short 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images coming from the Smithsonian Institution are not inherently ok according to our Non-free content criteria. This could be a source-tag, but not a licensing tag.. Abu badali (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it. As far as I know there is nothing special that we'd say in a source tag... and it's certantly not a valid license tag. --Gmaxwell 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smithsonian is not the copyright owner of any of the objects it holds afaik. This is a source tag masquerading as a copyright tag. Delete it. --Iamunknown 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is possible that someone donated them not only his works but also his copyright. But the tag is ill-advised either way. My (old) arguments are at Template talk:Smithsonian. Delete. Lupo 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to source tag so there is one unified way to find all Smithsonian images, should Smithsonian policy change. Currently where the Smithsonian buys collections they are buying the copyright. Donated images can be donated with the copyright or without depending on which contract you sign, I donated the copyright on images sent to NASM. There largest collection at the Smithsonian was made by the WPA and as government employees, those images are public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is not acceptable as a fair use tag, but I agree that it is useful, especially in the general clean-up as a source tag. As such, we should convert and not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physchim62 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • It isn't a source tag and not a license tag; it is a fair use tag. It's a "this-is-certainly fair use" tag — read the talk page. Just clarifying that aspect since people seem confused as to what it is supposed to be saying, though it is fairly clearly written. --24.147.86.187 19:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thats what it's trying to be.. but it's completely and totally invalid as such.. there is absolutely nothing about taking an image from the Smithsonian which makes it much more likely to be a valid claim of fair use than 'because I said so'. --Gmaxwell 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious if anyone who thinks the template should be a source template has designed a proposal. I'd like to see one and would hope that the closing admin only consider conversion if an adequate one is developed. --Iamunknown 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as source tag it's not specific enough anyway. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or remake to source tag. Alex Spade 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to source tag.--PericlesofAthens 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to source tag. Nowimnthing 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source tag wouldn't be possible as, according to the Smithsonian Institute, they don't hold copyright on everything on their site. Terms and conditions reads: "Copyrights and other proprietary rights in the content on this website may also be owned by individuals and entities other than, and in addition to, the Smithsonian Institution.". This tag should be redirected to {{No_copyright_holder}} --Abu badali (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would there be a way to seperate the images taken by the staff of the smithsonian which seem to be fair use and the images taken by non staff which they may or may not hold the copyright on? Nowimnthing 01:51, 12 May 2007 (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:H2o

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H2o (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

orphaned – should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_6#Template:H2O since {{H2O}} was an identical template — Crashintome4196 18:02, 2 May 2007 (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:Montana State Highways

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Montana State Highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to browse boxes and categories provided on the pages the template would be used for. Precedent set by deletion of other similar templates for other state highway systems. —Scott5114↗ 06:41, 2 May 2007 (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:NJ-AtlanticCountyFreeholders

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJ-AtlanticCountyFreeholders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All related articles have been deleted for notability concerns. Template is (save for a relic page in user space) orphaned. — Caknuck 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Now that consensus has been overturned and the articles deleted, there's little point in keeping the associated template. Alansohn 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete red-linked articles are deleted, soon to be unused. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --myselfalso 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vishwin60. aido2002 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Phoenix 22:31, 9 May 2007 (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:Theocracy

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template needs to go for several reasons. 1) The template is obscure. Is is about "theocracy" or "religion in governement"? The latter is quite a broad topic that can be interpreted quite openly. 2) The template doesn't serve a meaningful purpose. It is a random collection of entries ranging from safely theocratic to some that are quite controversial. It doesn't help the reader in any way. 3) Finally not one entry in the template is based on a reliable source calling the idea "theocratic" or an example of "religion in government", except the obvious ones.— Bless sins 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quoting this post by Bless sins: "Theocracy can be defined as "government by or subject to religious institutions" (from Theocracy). In that case I don't see a contradiction between "Theocracy" or "Religion in government". Only after his attempts to list Israel as a theocracy failed, the same user decided that the template is not useful. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True those were my intial views. Later, however, I saw the confusion created. Your bad faith (that this proposal has something to do with Israel) is disgusting.Bless sins 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template was set up by User:Patchouli, who was banned for abusive editing and sockpuppetry. From its inception the template's primary purpose has been to push POV. Since Patchouli's banishment it's morphed into a capture the flag game between Team Islam and Team Zion. More importantly, the template is overcategorization on steroids. It's close to worthless for the average user and has no legitimate raison d'etre. A micro-subject like this needs no template. Majoreditor 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the debate on the template talk page, this seems to be the most logical route to take. --myselfalso 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a particularly useless template, and something of a trolling-magnet. Hornplease 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can specifically stated what this template is about and what not, and what kind of links should be included on it. Now it's just confusing! C mon 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like another one of User:Patchouli useless POV pushing templates.--Gerash77 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like many templates, this one is hardly useful. The POV-pushing and other disputes that come with it make it quite undesirable, so as with User:Patchouli it is time to say "goodbye." The Behnam 04:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly entirely for Gerash77's reasoning. --Phoenix 22:33, 9 May 2007 (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:BarnstormersCoach

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 —METS501 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template lists the two managers of a three year old non-affiliated minor league baseball team. Only one of the managers has an article linked. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). Michael Greiner 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When creating a template, one should ask themself, "Is a template really needed to link to one other article?" Of course, the answer is "No." Caknuck 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote change, see below. Keep. Even though it links to only one article, the Houston Texans of the National Football League have only had 2 coaches. --myselfalso 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they don't have a separate template, it is a part of the general Houston Texans template. There is no comparison between the two. Michael Greiner 03:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Also, none of the other teams in that league have a similar template. Delete. --myselfalso 03:48, 3 May 2007 (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.

May 1

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not linked anywhere and I do not see the usefullness of it so it should be speedily deleted — Jorfer 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, the project it links to was just re-activated today after a long hiatus. This meets no speedy deletion criteria. Nardman1 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. By the way, a lack of links is not immediate grounds for speedy deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above, but the project should stay more active in the future. Jmlk17 06:20, 2 May 2007 (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:OurStory

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Outside opinion wanted on external links, nominating for deletion as nonencyclopedic/unreliable self-promotional/spam link — DreamGuy 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Consensus was reached that link placement should be considered on a case-by-case basis at talk pages, rendering a mass-use template unnecessary. –Pomte 06:03, 3 May 2007 (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:Nights series

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. —freak(talk) 02:44, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nights series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Navigational template for two video games, one of which has not even been released. Not useful. — Pagrashtak 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Pagrashtak. - Cyrus XIII 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a template isn't needed for a decade old video game, and one currently "in production". Jmlk17 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better served by a "See also" header. Caknuck 07:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all the various reason. --Guess Who 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --dannycas 23:54, 7 May 2007 (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:24 Series Regulars

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24 Series Regulars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is totally redundant as there are already several existing templates for past and present characters. —T smitts 19:25, 1 May 2007 (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:Infobox South African Alternatives

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox South African Alternatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This infobox was created for use in articles that fall within the scope of WikiProject on South African Alternatives, an inactive project that has been nominated for deletion here. It is currently unused, seemingly incomplete, and redundant to Template:South Africa topics. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Template is redundant, unused, and soon to be completely lacking in any chance to be used. Jmlk17 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. –Pomte 03:50, 7 May 2007 (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:Infobox Politician (Alternative)

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unneeded, Template:Infobox Politician does its job.— Philip Stevens 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redundant duplication. --Dweller 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created this template because I disliked a certain aspect of infobox politician. That infobox has since been changed in an acceptable way, and I'm ok with deleting this. However, please note the following in dealing with similar situations in the future:
  • It is not a duplication and actually differs significantly from infobox politician.
  • It was used until the person nominating this for deletion removed it from the page it was being used on.
  • Corresponding directly with the creator of a template to determine why it was created and why it may be needed, before nominating it for deletion, seems like the right thing to do.

Harrykirk 16:51, 1 May 2007 (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:Db-invalid

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 userfied and deleted by creator. I'll still keep it in my page development archive in case I have some use for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) While well-intended, I think this is a bad idea. This template is used to indicate other templates are invalid, by redirecting those templates to this one. I think that instead, we should delete those invalid templates (and indeed we generally do). >Radiant< 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It looks to me that the user who created this recreated the recently deleted {{Db-product}}, {{Db-list}}, and {{db-hoax}} and made them all redirects to this template. I say Delete all --After Midnight 0001 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - if no one knows that these templates existed, that's less harm than having them existing and confusing people. GracenotesT § 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agreed, delete and salt the invalid reasons templates. Look forward to seeing them at TfD soon. --Dweller 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ugh, well-intended, but an obvious issue-creating template. Jmlk17 06:25, 2 May 2007 (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:AVFC-infobox

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. —freak(talk) 02:42, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Template:AVFC-infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template contains an instance of {{Infobox football club}} pertaining to Aston Villa, currently used in articles Aston Villa F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. statistics. However the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it - not least because it includes a fair use image, inclusion of which should be minimal under Wikipedia rules, and inclusion of FU images in templates is forbidden by policy. This template should only be used in one page and thus it is a waste to have it, not to mention a bad precedent (it could lead to hundreds of similar templates created for other football clubs). Therefore delete and revert to using {{Infobox football club}} in the main Aston Villa F.C. article Qwghlm 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary infobox. --Dweller 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having this is wrong in every way. Punkmorten 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Applies, with fair use in each case, to two current pages and a future, planned age splitting of the history of the club. The claim that "the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it" is unsubstantiated. The policy referred to is not cited, but if there is such a policy, a better solution would be to replace the image with a free one. Better still would be to fix the policy to apply to situations like this one. The "precedence" claim is "Slippery slope" and thus false logic. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited and linked to the fair use policy already. The two most relevant parts are:
"8. The material must' contribute significantly to the article."
"9. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates"
No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article (and the burden of proof is on the editor who proposes adding it), nor the history article for that matter, and in any case it should not be included in the template under #9. And I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template.
Quite apart from the fair use reasons, the infobox should not be replicated freely over any page to do with a club; infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects and not every topic to do with them. That's not policy, it's just mere common sense. I'd quite happily admit my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead? Qwghlm 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article" It provides a visual clue to the subject of the article, as it does on the club's main article.
"I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template" - I donlt say that iot should,.
"infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects" all of the pages discussed are directly about Aston Villa.
"my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead?" It has none.
Andy Mabbett 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on Give or take the image it seems a good idea to have an AV-specific template to put on all AV related articles (which has to be updated just the once rather than once per AV-page). If other FC pages follow suit, does it matter? (The fair use image should be used just once, in the crest section of the main article, which looks a bit odd with no crests in sight. Apparently a new crest is imminent anyway.) -- roundhouse 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no objection to a navbox at the bottom of the article, like {{Arsenal F.C.}} or {{Manchester United}}. But my main objections are the misuse of a fair use image and the misuse of the {{football club infobox}} at the top of articles that are not about clubs in general. Qwghlm 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neither use is a misuse, you should be content, then. Andy Mabbett 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, basically a copy of {{Football club infobox}}, and therefore surplus to requirements. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"basically a copy of {{Football club infobox}}" : No it is not. Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks just that way to me, a glance at the source code will show it it just a transclusion of said infobox. It is superfluous. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a glance at the source code will show it it just a transclusion of said infobox." Poppycock. Where, in the latter, is the AVFC logo? Andy Mabbett 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please pigsonthewing, have a look. It begins with {{Infobox Football club |. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name, as I have told you many times, is Andy Mabbett. I don't need to look, having created it, to know that it uses {{Infobox Football club}}. That does not make it just a transclusion of that template. Would you like someone to explain the difference? Andy Mabbett 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" these pages do not even exist yet" which pages do not exist yet? Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"to two current pages and a future, planned [p]age splitting of the history of the club" - a quote from you Pigsonthewing. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a quote from you". Indeed. Which pages - your plural - do not exist yet? My name, as you well know, is Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett 21:52, 3 May 2007 (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:Universal Press Syndicate

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal Press Syndicate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ridiculously bloated template, should use a category instead, see comments proposing deletion on template's talk page. The template also creates a subtle (probably not intentional) spamming effect by splatting an enormous, obtrusive box festooned with names of Universal Press Syndicate products across dozens of articles. 75.62.7.22 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom... and the different topic areas included could easily be split out in any case into more managable templates. --Dweller 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is this intentional spamming? I can see splitting the template into two, UPS comics and UPS columns, but this template is helpful for fans people to discover new comics, and for Wikipedians to discover comics that need articles. -- Zanimum 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I'd made it clear that I don't consider the spamming effect to be intentional. It's just a side effect of having a template so large that it dwarfs a lot of the articles it's transcluded in, blasting the reader with the names of all those products. Splitting to smaller templates would be an improvement though I'd still prefer using a category. As for helping fans discover new comics, maybe I'm a bit POV on the issue, but I don't think we're here for that. 75.62.7.22 06:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Zanimum, but template looks like crap right now with all the deadlinks. Jmlk17 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful navigation template. I agree that it should be split into {{Universal Press comics}} and {{Universal Press columns}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:28, 2 May 2007 (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:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

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. Splitting it up is still an option, but for now there's nothing really wrong with the template which would call for deletion. —METS501 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The permission must be cleary given, otherwise it's still non-free image (red mark of copyright). The day before yesterday the {{Kremlin.ru}} (which has got permission for free using, but hasn't got permission for derivative works) was deleted exactly in this maner without discussion. Also, for example, CC-BY-ND permits free use without derivative works, but we delete speedy images with it as CSD I3. — Alex Spade 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this template is authorized, I ask for undeletion of {{Kremlin.ru}} for reload of its images from commons to en-wiki. Alex Spade 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are dissatisfied with the deletion of your template, there are other avenues of redress that can be explored. Bringing it up here makes this nomination look like a WP:POINT issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. Alex Spade 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be used for any purpose" is free enough for me. deleting a tag outright isn't the way to resolve copyright questions, it's just going to make things worse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's abou derivative works? Repeat: CC-BY-ND - allowed free use, but not der.works and we delete images with them. This is unfair and inconsequent.Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modify, and possibly rename, into something that says "copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose provided attribution is given to the original creator and/or it is shared under the terms", the two copyroght holder rights we do not find restrictive. Daniel Case 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - something similar is seen on Commons Booksworm Talk to me! 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not similar, let's compare them:
      Commons: derivative work and commercial use must be allowed.
      En-wiki: must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives
    • This is large difference. First template cleary demand of permission for der.works, second is not. The Kremlin.ru not allowed cleary commercial use and der.works, and was deleted from commons - it's all right. But it not include evident restriction - so it can be use at en-wiki. Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the template should at least be revised to indicate that modification and derivative works must be allowed (otherwise Wikipedia does not consider the image to be free). I mentioned this on the template talk page, but nothing was ever done about it. —Bkell (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, good for miscellaneous type licenses. Nardman1 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template can be used correctly or incorrectly, just like any other license tag. I see no reason to delete it. Improper use should be handled on a case-by-case basis.Pagrashtak 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I will change the license (condition of using) of not my image, for example from GFDL to PD, who will be I? The bad user. If I will do it more times? The vandal. Somebody changed condition without notification of all authors. Who is he? A good man? A very good man? Alex Spade 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked the current and the original, and they have the same text. If you're concerned that someone changed the license, please provide an exact diff. Pagrashtak 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For this template [1], for its "brother" [2] Alex Spade 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've got to be kidding. The first link is the addition of a note that basically says "Please list this image for deletion if it violates Wikipedia policy", and the second is a clarification that preserves the intent, made less than 24 hours after the tag's creation. Pagrashtak 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For second , you are right, I was mistaken. Thanks for comment. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For first. You ask to show, when meaning the license was changed, I have shown. Initially only free use was allowed, after must not include terms had appeared. Compare en-wiki-template with commons-template. As I said early, there is large difference between them. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pagrashtak above. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This can be misused, but it isn't necessarily. And it would be really annoying to have a bunch of seperate templates for each restriction someone decides to give. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also support conversion to other templates if it is feasible. For example, this image has a provided that "the photographer is credited" clause, which is fine. But that specific example could easily be converted to a separate template. -- RM 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but notify people first and let them go through the list and salvage anything that can be salvaged. For the case RM mentions, people can use {{attribution}}. I'm not aware of any other terms that one may add to restrict usage of his photo other than attribution so there shouldn't be any need for this. This specific template is more prone to abuse as it isn't even a specific license, it's just one each user can make up themselves. Anything using this license should be either own work by the user or have an OTRS permission and can only have attribution as a term. I'm willing to bet that over 50% of the uses of this template are illegitimate in one of the aforementioned ways.

Conclusion: This template simply encourages people to add terms that we consider to be unfree which would in turn cause the pictures to be deleted. If somebody doesn't want to use CC-BY for some reason, they can use {{attribution}} so there's no need to keep this license. Alternatively, I'd be willing to compromise with slowly deprecating this tag (ie. subst'ing all uses of it, adding a category so we can track the images and deleting the template). Yonatan talk 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, I've added a note to the template to use Attribution when appropriate. I also speedied an orphan using this tag improperly and listed a few at IFD. I'm sure there are many more, if someone wants to go through them. Pagrashtak 14:37, 8 May 2007 (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:CopyrightedFreeUse-User

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What are exactly possibilities of this license tags?
  1. Is it nevertheless variant of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} (initial version, free use only, see above) or {{Attribution}} (last version, free use and modification)?
  2. Why the text of license had been change from FreeUse-variant to Attribution-variant? Many images were loaded before text change, under another conditions, did all authors receive the information about changing of conditions, did all of them they cleary agree with chaging?

I offer two decisions

  1. If change is correct and appropriate, we can just redirect it to Template:Attribution, which can used as {{Attribution|User:Login}}
  2. If change is incorrect, we must revise template text for early edition, and perhaps delete template as subvariant of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, which is discussed above.

Alex Spade 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's already deprecated. Deleting it and replacing it without the consent of the uploaders will just make the license situation even more confused. The text doesn't seem to have undergone any changes in meaning since april 2005, within a day of its creation. Plus, this one doesn't require attribution, so replacing it with attribution would be misleading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure, that every single author know about changing of permission? Alex Spade 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one doesn't require attribution - yes, but {{attribution}} can be placed also without attribution (as {{{1}}}-parameter) and many images with {{attribution}} haven't got {{{1}}}-parameter. Alex Spade 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People falsely declare stuff as gfdl-self all the time. We aren't going to delete that template because of that. Neither would we delete this one because of that. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • of course we aren't going to delete gfdl-self because of that. gfdl-self makes clear which license it is supposed to be, and should gfdl for some reason not be free (which is not the case), then we could go ahead and delete all pictures with it. However, with this template being permitted, we have no way to easily identify the pictures with a certain license. We don't have any space problems, so we should create a single tag for each reason, and not re-use generic tags for various, completely different reasons. --rtc 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for historical purposes, especially because some images are still tagged with it. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand this nomination; this is different from Attribution. What does the nominator propose to do with the images that use this tag? We cannot redirect to Attribution or make any significant revisions to the text. Pagrashtak 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The my main question: is change of license text legitimate? Alex Spade 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The prev.phrase haven't initial significance at this disscussion Alex Spade 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pagrashtak above, with an extra helping of "huh?" added in. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are fewer than 300 current usages of this template seen through "What Links Here". I don't see how it is being abused, however, substituting it would solve the abuse problem if there was one, as the template can't be used for new images. -- RM 02:32, 3 May 2007 (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.

April 30

Template:Ko

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be both deprecated and currently unused. {{Lang}} does the job far more efficiently anyway. — Grutness...wha? 23:05, 30 April 2007 (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:PD-WWII-in-Color

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 ^demon[omg plz] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-WWII-in-Color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another template that currently acts as an image copyright tag but is not qualified to do so; indeed, the first paragraph of http://www.ww2incolor.com/site-faq.html indicates that, "Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners (....) (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions)" (see the URL for the rest of the paragraph). Well, unfortunately we are distributing and copying them and, by labeling and categorising them as "public domain", indicating that they are free to use for commercial reuse and derivative works. They are clearly not, and this is clearly a non-license. I thus recommend that the template be deleted and that a small bit of text indicating the source (ww2incolor.com) and a dated {{no license}} tag is placed in the former template. --Iamunknown 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Same as PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really serving a purpose at this time, as well as per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - somewhat superfluous; as per nom as well. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, interesting, was created in 2005. --Phoenix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WWII in Color seems to have gotten less selective in the copyright department over the years. --Carnildo 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Many images can be attributed to Military Personnel and so on Booksworm Talk to me! 15:56, 1 May 2007 (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:PD-USGov-NARA

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 Retag then delete ^demon[omg plz] 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-NARA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not all NARA images are public domain. Images tagged with this should be marked with {{NARA-image}} and given an appropriate license tag. See also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Iamunknown 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the "vast majority" language is not acceptable for sourcing. Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unneeded and unnecessary. JṃŁЌ17 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per commons-del-req. Alex Spade 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We shouldn't confuse source with license tags, especially when there is not a 1:1 correlation. - cohesion 23:26, 5 May 2007 (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:NHLteamabbr

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, with the nominator implicitly withdrawing by declaring a keep vote. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A useless template. There is no need for this, and I have yet to see it in practical use. — JṃŁЌ17 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I have found much more use for this template. I would even now vote for a keep myself. JṃŁЌ17 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as template creator. It is used as an index for the series of articles listing NHL player names. i.e.: List of NHL players: A. Allows someone to easily understand what each team abbreviation is. Resolute 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful in player lists. -- JamesTeterenko 14:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used for player lists to clarify teams. --Djsasso 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It helps less familiar readers. GoodDay 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Resolute's reasons above. --Pparazorback 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yet to see it in practical use? One would think checking "What links here" would be a good stop before nominating a template for deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be fair, it was only linked to three of the player articles when he nominated it. I subsequently added the template to the other four articles that I have converted to chart form afterward. Resolute 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the fairness. JṃŁЌ17 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, shucks. My apologies. I see that now by looking at the histories, thanks. --Phoenix (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2007 (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:New Jersey Devils current roster

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Jersey Devils current roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is already in use with {{New Jersey Devils Roster}}, and the latter follows the usual format. — JṃŁЌ17 08:40, 30 April 2007 (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:The Wotch

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wotch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used on one article; the two other links in the template now redirect back to that article. Sean Curtin 02:24, 30 April 2007 (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:LittleEinsteinsEpisodes

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the links to individual episodes have been redirected back to the main list. — HokieRNB 13:30, 30 April 2007 (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.

April 29

Template:SBS tag

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. Picaroon (Talk) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SBS tag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Insignificant text to warrant a template (it would be easy to manually add to articles), unused, delete. Iamunknown 23:17, 29 April 2007 (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:Appears in:DB

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. In addition to not being of any practical use, these templates include fair use images which are being actively misused. I encourage all those who recommended keeping them to review Wikipedia:Fair use to understand why the images are inappropriate. Picaroon (Talk) 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Appears in:DB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB, DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB, DBZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB, DBZ, DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBGT, DB Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBZ, DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBZ, DB Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These various templates are included in the various articles of Dragon Ball Z characters. While they're a good idea in theory, to a non-fan of the show, merely seeing an image of something does not describe what shows/movie they appeared in. When clicking on them, they do not link to the article, rather they link to the actual image itself, which does not adequately explain what it's about. ^demon[omg plz] 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What? there is nothing wrong with this. the templates tell which kind of Dragon Ball media the said charecter appears in. there is no reason to delete this. DBZROCKS 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of them are in use in multiple pages. -凶 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the templates. All someone needs to do is go to the top of the many articles where it shows and/or explains what the templates are and what it means nexts to the character that appears on the articles. Heat P 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: I personally feel that these pictures help make it easier for inexperienced readers to know which series that character appeared in. -Adv193 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need to get rid of a useful template. It's used, and could easily extend elsewhere. Jmlk17 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You don't need a whole template for something like this. If you want to list which Dragon Ball shows a character is in, then list them in the infobox with a normal link. It's nothing major or anything, just a needless use of templates. You can do this exact same thing without a template, just as tons of other articles do. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to the keepers, don't take offense or anything to this. If anything, this is a minor housekeeping task. KISS for the infobox links. There is no need to get defensive. We just don't use a whole template for a single icon, we just bypass the template and use the icon directly. It's a minor technical issue, and the images don't have to actually go away. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was impressed by this intuitive way to label characters, especially for the ones who are only described in sections of lists witout infoboxes; see List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball for an example. The top of such lists mentions the icons, and can be expanded with a legend for what each mean. The images can be made to link to the series they represent. The links in infoboxes can put the series name to the right of the image like {{flag}}. So a small option for headings, and a text option for infoboxes. I think this system is redeemable and can be kept pending improvements. –Pomte 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So just use the image directly instead of the template. The only thing in the template is the image, so there's really no need. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to mention that even in that example article, listing (in text with a link) which series the character appears in would be better than the icon. It's also being done in the subheader currently, which should be changed. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think a better place than the subheader is to the right, either under the thumbnail or within the caption. Listing the series with full text links vertically would create whitespace between character sections, and listing horizontally is harder to read. Easier to read if text is added so the image can be used foremost for identification. If these templates have to be subst'd in the end, then sure, but it'd be less intuitive and harder to maintain for something so widely used. –Pomte 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Or inline with the text, such as "X is a character in.." As far as maintenance goes, well that's no different than any other image out there, and you'd only run into a problem if you were changing file formats for the image, else you'd just update the one image. I don't really feel strongly about this, though, so whatever's cool with me. -- Ned Scott 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Pomte & Ned Scott - Though each picture helps differentiate whether the character appeared in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT or the Dragon Ball movies or all of them, a template markup (like the flag one) would serve better and I believe wouldn't ruin the /* (section name) */ link when you try to go to it. Understandable? ~I'm anonymous
  • Keep They are useful imho Helios 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, definitively delete:
  • As fair use images in the template namespace. These other ones are not that useful, in my humble opinion; remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a multimedia extravaganza. While infoboxes and the like aren't that bad of an idea, this is inline and a bit too unencyclopedic (and remember WP:SELF: on some mirrors, people will either not have the images at all, or have no idea what the hell those little icons are). I also agree that they're sort ofcrufty; I have no idea what they mean, and finding out what they mean would probably take longer than extracting information from the text. This all adds up to delete all for me. GracenotesT § 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, as they use fair use images in the template namespace and such a template without images is useless. Many had been mistagged as "public domain" images (based on the misguided assumption that if one creates his own imitation of a logo, it qualifies as public domain) but I have properly tagged them and CSD'd the ones currently at Commons. Anyway, as I said, they have fair use images (big no-no) and an equivalent template that doesn't employ fair use images is completely useless. Axem Titanium 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if I would call them all fair use images, but the DBZ one definitely is. The others are very simplistic, and while they are being used to mimic the real thing, it's just a circle with a star in the middle. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All These templates are highly needed. One can just look at it and see basics about the characters (and other). There is nothing wrong with the templates. SSJ 5 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above comments--$UIT 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is an important template. It gives the reader the information of which part of Dragon Ball the charecter in question appears in. Also how can you link movie charecters to the article if they appear in multiple movies? Of course we could link the GT DB and DBZ templates to their respective articles. The information provided by the templates is important. It is not cruft or Fanon or speculation. The template is just a neat why of showing which of the 3 dragon Balls the charecter appears in and if they appear in a Dragon Ball movie. the templates themselves don't take up much room and are very good at getting their information across. Deleting this template is just like deleting good information out of the articles. DBZROCKS 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we deleting good information out of articles? The information is already there, in the text. GracenotesT § 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe one article with a colored table ({{yes}} and {{no}}) could replace this conceptually? GracenotesT § 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But why replace? Why scroll down a list to find out if someone is in Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball Z when currentally it is right there? The template is only doing good and helping wikipedia. DBZROCKS 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... looking over it, the article text almost completely lacks an out-of-universe perspective. GracenotesT § 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? DBZROCKS 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball for an example. It's affected by in-universe-ness a bit. GracenotesT § 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether a character is in a certain series or whatever should be stated in the text. We do not need a ugly, convoluted system for this, especially when text is a much simpler and more reader-friendly alternative. ' 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment convoluted? its a simple picture people. Its there because it is quick reference. Someone shouldn't have to dig into the article to find such simple information. Just like the Manga names and the Romanji. Its not worth merging it into the article because it is much eaiser and much more convienient to just put it on the nifty little table we have. I am almost sure that people reading the articles would apriciate it just being there. I mean which sounds better:
Son Goku appears in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. or
A template that says the same thing with 1/3 of the space fits onto the table and has a nifty graphic to boost. The table on the articles is there to give facts that are in the article but give a reader quick info that would be a pain to dredge up by going through the article. Why was this put up for deletion? in response to Demon's comment, linking the image to the Dragon Ball Z GT article would be a waste. The articles don't explain what role every charecter had in the series that is what the article for the charecter the template is on is for. how is a one to four little images on a table a ugly and convoulted system, in fact how is it easier to look up something in the text than to glance at a table that tells you the same thing but is faster and easier to find, its right at the top of the page with a sign that says apears in: how is that harder to see than looking in a long article of text? hope I didn't offend anyone with this I like to think of all non vandalising/non Sockpuppetting/non other kind of evil Wikipedians as my friends :) DBZROCKS 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nifty graphic, yes, but may be fair use. If the images are meant to be recognizable as logos (quote: "quick identification" below), then fair use can't happen. If they're not meant to recognized as logos, then the system is original research. GracenotesT § 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All If you're going to foolishly delete these, you might as well delete all the country flag icons as well. They serve the same purpose for quick identification. Evan1975 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But they aren't fair use images, are they? The images in our DB templates are.--$UIT 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some canvassing occurred here. While perhaps in good faith, this does muddy the waters a bit. GracenotesT § 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah, this is complicated. There are 9 keeps, 5 of which comes from members of the wikiproject. There are 5 deletes. There has been no response to the issue of fair use. Relisting might be good for this, but I'm not going to do it, since I was quite involved in the debate. GracenotesT § 02:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All These are good for quick reference if you're like myself using DBZ as a research project. I can quickly find out all the info on the said item, without trawling through the text! As well as that it looks upgly to write it out in full and takes up more space. Quick identifiable icons work wonders and are better for people whom struggle with large volumes of text. I know that I struggle with large volumes of text because of bad eye sight and the icons are a godsent!UltimateDingbat 11:42, 06 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about... fair use... Gracenotes faints from exhaustion 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You should stop editing in Super Saiyan mode to replenish any lost energy. I have retracted my keep position. At first I had only checked the simple circle image with the star, which has since been tagged as a copyright violation. I don't know the specifics with images like this and Image:Azumanga.svg, but it's best to be on the safe side. A solution is to replace these logos with generic images of plain, colored text ("DB", "DBZ", "DBGT", and "DB" with a free movie icon), like in userboxes. –Pomte 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I would be happy with linked text instead of images. If the articles are edited to comply with WP:WAF, then I don't think a template is needed anymore (a mini-infobox might even work). Of color I am dubious, but this seems like a good compromise if implemented correctly... sigh, energy. << Super Saiyan debate mode off >>. GracenotesT § 16:42, 7 May 2007 (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:Sxc-warning

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 ^demon[omg plz] 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sxc-warning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not needed anymore. Images tagged with this template have been deleted or retagged after listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. This nomination also includes Category:Unfree SXC licensed images. — Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I was browsing through the templates when I was new and the template text educated me about images from this host. Nardman1 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, should an unused template &category be kept to educate users about (often) not free enough images of a certain website? Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can find better ways to educate people. For example, if we adopt common's multiple upload pages we can put SXC as a dropdown option for images from other sites.. and have it bring up a regular deletion notice. ;) Perhaps we should start directing people to the commons bad sources page at Commons:Commons:Bad_sources? --Gmaxwell 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading my comment, to be clear, my question was meant rhetorically. :) The template should not be kept for educating editors. An en.wikipedia version of the Commons bad sources might be practical yes. Garion96 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2007 (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:3-digit ZIP Codes

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 {{3-digit ZIP Codes}}, {{ZIP Code Lists}} and {{2-digit prefixes for 5-digit ZIP codes}}. Default to keep for {{Three-digit ZIP Code table}} as it is an integral element of ZIP Code prefixes, which was not nominated for deletion. Should be considered together if deletion is thought warranted. WjBscribe 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3-digit ZIP Codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:ZIP Code Lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Three-digit ZIP Code table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2-digit prefixes for 5-digit ZIP codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a cross-namespace nomination. Discuss it here, please. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:06, 29 April 2007 (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:/doc

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, move notice into place, and protect, which I have already done. ^demon[omg plz] 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This may seem like an odd request, but when users mistakenly substitute template:stub or template:GFDL, and lord knows how many other templates, they end up transcluding Template:/doc. Someone spammed it recently and got transcluded on a half dozen articles and image pages. I blanked it temporarily to prevent the spam from showing up, but it'd be nice to have that template deleted and/or locked with nothing outside of a noinclude. Not sure which of those two is the better alternative MrZaiustalk 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace the current contents with a warning for template developers that they need to fix their doc transclusion. That way the templates will tend to get fixed. It should definitely be protected no matter what else is done with it - that's a big freaking spamhole we have there. Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • make a permanently protected deleted page. Nardman1 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make an informative permanently protected deleted page saying something like, "If you are looking at this page, you may not be aware of the Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern." --Iamunknown 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect No need for this crap to happen again now is there? Jmlk17 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect - question: "protect" means to prevent others from re-creating it, correct? ~I'm anonymous
  • If this template existed with any content, it would kind of defeat the point of the /doc subpage. So either keep blank and protected or delete and add to Wikipedia:Protected titles GracenotesT § 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. Mike Dillon 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protect and replace with <noinclude>'d helpful info for users who search Template:/doc thinking it will reveal what {{/doc}} contains when they encounter it. –Pomte 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a proposed template at Template:/doc/Proposed that the closing administrator may wish to consider history merging with Template:/doc or, if not, to delete it. --Iamunknown 00:06, 8 May 2007 (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:National Anthems of ...

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. Garion96 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Anthems of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of Oceania and the Pacific Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of South America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merged into a single Template:National Anthems. — Guilherme (t/c) 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely keep. We already have such a world national anthem template, which quite large, so is used in the List of national anthems of the world article; the individual continent templates are used for the various national anthem pages to keep the templates focused on particular geographic regions. This CFD is unnecessary at best, and disruptive at worst. Please try to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive, not destructive manner. The fact that the individual proposing the deletion did not even check to see that such a world template already exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld shows that s/he has not actually considered this issue carefully. Badagnani 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Badagnani; a very usable template. Jmlk17 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree, a very useful template. Who'd want to get rid of it?Inkan1969 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify, it's not just a single template under consideration but each of the continent/geographical region templates, as well as the original "global" template. The "global" template was judged too large to put on each of the pages for the individual anthems, so if, for example, the anthem is for a European nation that page gets the Europe anthem template. The huge "global" template appears only on the National anthem and List of national anthems pages. IMO this has worked well so far. The template User:Guilherme Paula has created duplicates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld , which has already existed for some time. Badagnani 09:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See Wikipedia:Guidelines for "(Continent/region) topic" templates and the talk pages of those templates for numerous examples that show why this is done. –Pomte 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Sorry, I didn't see Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld. So, delete my duplicated Template:National Anthems. — Guilherme (t/c) 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful and coherent templates. Man vyi 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful templates and having them all in one will be unnessesary and will clutter up the article footer space. —dima/talk/ 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call this TFD disruptive, but because a single national template would just be too large, since not only we have anthems of nations, but of those that are not nations or have some kind of special status. That would be too large to maintain, so it is a good idea to split them up by region. keep. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is. A template with over 192 countries on it would be exhaustive! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should we file a TfD for the huge {{National Anthems}}? NikoSilver 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - it's standard to list certain things (human rights, flags, capital punishment, religion) by continent. Biruitorul 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and a good idea would be to add a hidden <show> at the bottom of each template that opens the list of anthems of the rest of the world. --Andersmusician 05:41, 5 May 2007 (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:DHC

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 ^demon[omg plz] 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info already covered much better in {{de Havilland Canada}}. — - Emt147 Burninate! 02:26, 29 April 2007 (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:Infobox European Union

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 speedy close as delete per below, since template no longer in use. David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No more necessary! I had modified[[3]] Template:Infobox Country to be more flexible. Now, supports other_symbol, other_symbol_type, membership, membership_links and capital_type. — Guilherme (t/c) 01:39, 29 April 2007 (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:Virginia Tech massacre 1

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. Picaroon (Talk) 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia Tech massacre 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A navigational template for the incident already exists. -Phoenix 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Template:Virginia Tech massacre is the already existing template. Carcharoth 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves a slightly different function, but not enough to keep it. Carcharoth 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. Much better templates out there. Jmlk17 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Focus work on one template. –Pomte 09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not necessarily against this layout, but I'd rather see a discussion take place at Template talk:Virginia Tech massacre, and if agreement is found modify that template to a different layout. --StuffOfInterest 12:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above Booksworm Talk to me! 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although personally I prefer this layout to the other one (it looks ugly, imo), forking it is not the right way to do things, discuss a format changes on the main one. ^demon[omg plz] 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~I'm anonymous
  • Delete but expand the other one slightly by adding links to more people Nyttend`
    • Has been discussed sufficiently on the talk page for that template. Looks like most people think it's fine how it is. --Phoenix (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2007 (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.

April 28

Template:Sections of the Lima Metropolitan 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sections of the Lima Metropolitan Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The "Lima" template (template:Lima) already covers all links here.— Andersmusician 23:36, 28 April 2007 (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:Infobox Sakshama

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in only one article presently nominated for AfD; if the article does survive, this could easily be replaced with the standard corp/org infobox, as this is essentially a duplicate, provides no additional parameters, and no evidence of needing other parameters has been given. --Kinu t/c 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Phoenix 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not in use; soon won't be needed whatsoever. Jmlk17 06:33, 29 April 2007 (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:Chrono Cross

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrono Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should be deleted because it's redundant with Template:Chrono series. — Kariteh 14:34, 28 April 2007 (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:Chrono Trigger

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

Template:Chrono Trigger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should be deleted because it's redundant with Template:Chrono series. — Kariteh 14:32, 28 April 2007 (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 Ultimate Encyclopedia" templates

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 Withdrawn, templates now part of a bigger discussion at MfD here. VegaDark 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Isles Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:British Isles Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Administrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Birding Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Birding Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia California Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia California Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Featured Website (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Presidents Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Presidents Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Star Wars Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Star Wars Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Virginia Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All of these templates were apparently created for use on another Wiki. This should therefore be on that Wiki, not here. All should be deleted or at least userfied. VegaDark 02:03, 28 April 2007 (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.

April 27

(moon) templates

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. Picaroon (Talk) 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(moon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:(Moon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be an unused template intended to make it easier to link to a page ending with (moon). It isn't any easier than just using a Pipe trick. (Moon) is a redirect to (moon). -- kenb215 talk 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator -- kenb215 talk 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial play apparently // FrankB 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and unneeded. Jmlk17 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's useless and orphaned. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- useless template. Eaomatrix 12:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful, because it decreases the risk of a typo always present with a pipe trick. For example, one could write [[Hyrokkin (moon)|Hrokkin]] without noticing the typo in the apparent part. Urhixidur 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a pipe trick. A pipe trick, as shown in the link, is typing this [[Hyrokkin (moon)|]], which creates this Hyrokkin. -- kenb215 talk 15:32, 30 April 2007 (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.

Several unnecessary "copyright" templates

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. Picaroon (Talk) 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright 2005 Joan Cartwright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Moose Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Open source (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:© AS projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates are not entirely similar, but they are all unnecessary, formerly used in only a couple of instances (but then substituted by me) and, in general, seem to be made out of mistaken assumptions regarding image use policy. I'll be nominating more in batches as I go through User:Kotepho/reports/templates used in ns:6, but the index is currently too large to realistically go through and deal with all of the templates in one run. --Iamunknown 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all mistakes, or misinformed creation. - cohesion 03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Junk templates. Jmlk17 07:11, 28 April 2007 (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:User no GFDL

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 Speedy Delete by David Gerard as "a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion review discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 27#Template:User_no_GFDL - David Gerard 11:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User no GFDL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dunno where to start, but it just simply shouldn't exist on Wikipedia - we cannot give away a free encyclopedia built on fair use images. Anyway, it may encourage users to use fair use images where a free image would be more appropriate - most users seem to think fair use to represent a living person is fine, we must not reinforce this idea, and it could feasibly encourage edit wars, who constitutes a better fair use image, so in that respect it's too ambiguous. We need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia only uses fair use images when a free image cannot be used, created or can exist. Deletion of this userbox is a step in the right direction. -- Nick t 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kill it with a stick - this is grossly inappropriate and a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy. It's as inappropriate as "Wikipedians against Neutral Point Of View". Or "Wikipedians against Wikipedia". Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation - David Gerard 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have been zapped on sight. It abuses the resources of a free encyclopedia to agitate against the encyclopedia's founding principles. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop -- Goodness, it's just a userbox, it won't harm you. The prior "no consensus" hasn't changed, and certainly two comments here aren't enough to indicate it has. I've userfied the box at {{User:Jenolen/Userboxes/User no GFDL}}. Or did you mean to take this action: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL to deletion review? Because the result of the debate was no consensus... Jenolen speak it! 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting! -- I tried to follow what seemed to be the most common theme of the previous deletion debate - "Keep and Userfy" -- but this box was deemed "an attack on the Foundation" -- and deleted from my user space. Some ideas, I guess, are really dangerous, although the idea that a poor quality GFDL image should be prefered to a professional quality fair use image is, thankfully, a minority viewpoint. Jenolen 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remember that "fair use" in this case means "non-free". One of the elements of the fair use defense is that no alternative image exists. It's hard to argue that you're not infringing someone's copyright massively if you put their property onto a top-ten website when you had access to an alternative. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the idea that a poor quality GFDL image should be prefered to a professional quality fair use image" is a Foundation viewpoint. It's policy and the way things are here. I'm a staunch fan of fair use as appropriate - talking about things requires quoting them, and that applies to images as well as text - but your viewpoint is completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, implicitly and explicitly. This is mission-statement level stuff - David Gerard 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill advocacy templates (like this one). Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:35, 27 April 2007 (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:BaixSegura

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. Neither of the two commenters seem to have arguments beyond the fact that this is the Valencian equivalent of the Spanish name. Redirects from other languages are fine for articles but not every helpful for templates. Picaroon (Talk) 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan redirected to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. — SueHay 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirection. I hadn't even noticed that it was a seperate template. The predominant language in this region is Castillian Spanish, not Valencian, so the main title of the template shoulc be an approximation to the Spanish name. Redirects are, of course, welcome! Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't state that very clearly. I didn't redirect the template myself. You redirected Template:BaixSegura to Template:Vega Baja del Segura back on 27 June 2006. I'm merely suggesting that the unused template be deleted so that it stops appearing on template maintenance lists. Since this was all quite some time ago, you might've forgotten that you also redirected Template:ElBaixSegura to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. I didn't know there was a language issue over this, I'm just trying to clean up lists of templates with red links. --SueHay 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're having trouble running your bot, program it better, don't delete perfectly good redirects. Nardman1 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep redirect per language issues. Nardman1 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a redirect discussion. The Template:BaixSegura was previously redirected to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. This is a discussion about whether or not to delete the unused Template:BaixSegura. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that. --SueHay 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of "keep redirect" (per current status) wasn't I plain about? I'm pretty sure my vote (or opinion if you will) is clear enough. I say keep the template, with the redirect. Simple, no? Nardman1 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep it if nothing links to it? I don't understand. Only Template:Vega Baja del Segura is in use now. --SueHay 03:58, 1 May 2007 (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:Canadian federal election, 2005/on-n

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. Picaroon (Talk) 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian federal election, 2005/on-n (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphan template. Template:Canadian federal election, 2006/on-n used instead. — SueHay 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Phoenix 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 01:08, 30 April 2007 (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:MathSymbols

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template not used. Written in HTML. — SueHay 04:04, 27 April 2007 (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:Brugg

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. Picaroon (Talk) 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan template. Template in use is Template:Municipalities of the district of Brugg — SueHay 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Malevious, for making clear what I didn't make clear. --SueHay 03:19, 30 April 2007 (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:Military-Insignia (2nd nomination)

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 Keeping, with changes, per the discussion below, this template should be refactored (which I just finished doing) to indicate that a more appropriate copyright tag needs to be used. In addition, I have created Category:Military Insignia images needing copyright status check, which will reside within Category:Images_requiring_maintenance ^demon[omg plz] 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military-Insignia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a previous no consensus debate about this template I am bringing it here again. This template doesn't appear to reflect international copyright law - it vaguely asserts that military symbols of rank are exempt from copyright. Nobody has been able to produce anything to that effect. Military symbols in certain countries may not be protected by copyright - but it's certainly not a blanket exemption. I would propose that we deprecate this template (indicating that images uploaded after 30 April 2007 will be speedy deleted) and migrate the existing images to a either a non-free template (i.e. something like non-free-military-insignia) under fair use or appropraite nation PD templates. Megapixie 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite and repurpose (preferred choice), or, delete deprecate. I agree that the current text appears to be completely at odds with reality, and something should be done about this ASAP. But I don't necessarily think that deleting the template is the best solution. I would suggest, instead, repurposing this as a maintenance template. Rewrite the text completely, to explain what the situation actually is (US Gov't insignia are PD, most other countries' insignia are not, but some may have lapsed copyrights, etc.), and to suggest some cleanup strategies (might need a separate page for that). Have the template put the images in a "copyright uncertain" category (I assume we have one like that), and unleash the cleanup crews and wikignomes. Xtifr tälk 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further reflection, I think deletion would be a very bad idea, since it would leave a bunch of images in limbo. If the "what links here" page ever becomes empty, then we can discuss deletion. Xtifr tälk 09:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Xtifr - the only additional comments I have are that insignia (especially unit citations) may actually be also trademarks, which don't always have an expiration date. Another important note is that commons (and probably other wikis) has it too: commons:Template:Military Insignia. one the other hand thay also have commons:Template:Insignia which seems to say the same as this discussion. DGtal 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megapixie, you're making a second deletion proposal three days after the first one was rejected? What's the purpose with having these debates at all if people simply repropose them when they don't like the result? Is it even in conformity with deletion policy to make a new proposal three days after the last one was rejected? Valentinian T / C 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't personally interpret WP:DEL otherwise than renominations should happen after a "reasonable amount of time" has passed. Do we have any precedent on what such a time frame is? Valentinian T / C 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It depends heavily on the circumstances. Re-nominating after a no-consensus close usually has a much lower threshold. It also depends on whether people are actually having a discussion, or simply trying to out-shout each other. I just saw a case where a no-consensus was re-opened the next day, and many of the participants came back, and nobody objected, because they all wanted to find a consensus and believed they could. It's rare, but it happens. Basically, the more it looks like you're trying to game the system by re-nominating till you get the result you want, the more likely you are to be shut down. In this case, Megapixel isn't even asking for deletion, he's asking for the template to be deprecated, which is a whole new question. Xtifr tälk 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace template on all pages with other, more appropriate tags, and only renominate for deletion once the template is not used. Until then, Keep. --Qyd 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult situation. We should not have a blanket template for insignia, because the copyright situation is too complex. However, I don't think that we should be taking hasty action either. Should be deleted, but not yet. A WP:RFC might be more appropriate in the meantime, and affected WikiProjects should be asked to propose replacements. Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • RFC has been done already. (See links in previous nomination.) —xyzzyn 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While all US insignia fall under the PD flag for works of the US goverment, This May differ from Country to country, While there may not be an expression of Copyright ownership in other countries, this is mostly for 1. To Stop Illegal production of the Insignia as wearing them is against the law in a lot of countries. 2. Using them for Commercial purposes. 3. Other forces using the particular insignia. This Template doesn't reflect what international copright law? Insignia are not Copyright in the United States, with particular regulations for their use, European Union Copyright law is extrememly Vague although being reviewed, and in some parts of Asia Copyright Law is almost non existant. Queens Copyright states that the information may be used as long as it doens't bring the forces into disrepute (Britain and Commonwealth Countries this was discussed in the previous nomination). AND I AGREE just because there was no consensus last time, doesn't mean you keep putting it up here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stabilo boss (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Unlike last time, Megapixel is not asking for the article to be deleted; he's suggesting that it be deprecated. Which was actually suggested by one of the people who opined keep at the last discussion. Furthermore, this is a complex issue, and the last debate had almost as many different opinions as participants. If this were a simple thumbs-up/down question, then I would tend to agree about the speed of the relisting, but it's not, and I think the topic warrants further discussion. Although this may be the wrong forum, and I don't envy the person who'll attempt to close this. :) Xtifr tälk 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at least deprecate. The template still contains no sane reasoning for any particular copyright status. On the matter of procedure, ‘no consensus’ means exactly what it says; apparently Megapixie feels that consensus can be achieved and the standard means for achieving consensus is a discussion in the relvant forum, which is what’s happening. —xyzzyn 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I believe this is precisely and exactly correct as worded; Military rank insignia are not subject to copyright laws. Period. NO AMBIGUITY. Someone is confusing use of (as in wearing) with display of Insignia in general (Note the disclaimer on the bottom of that article.) It is improper and illegal to drive a car marked Police if one is not employed as one, that does not make it improper, illegal, nor protected by copyright to display what symbols one carries, and the prohibition on copyrighting such makes tons of sense under various international conventions, beginning with the Geneva convention. Combatants must be able to identify the personel and ranks of their adversaries or face international condemnation for mistreatment of persons of rank. Taking the point made in the first link (RFC) about one side providing them to the other, how many copies would one provide?... They are not copyrighted simply because they need to be copied. Lastly, can't you guys find something serious and important to worry about? The worst that will happen if some government takes umbrage is they will send a letter, and THEN and ONLY THEN should all this man-power be put into worrying about it. Bet you if you checked the local library most encyclopedia's have color plates showing tons of these inconsequential artifacts. Granted the designs are copyrighted and the uses are constrained both nationally and internationally, but this when all is said and done is a huge amount of effort discussing an image of an artifact. Can you copyright a building, a bridge, or a shirt? Worry about something worth your time. This is a tempest in a teapot! (IMHO, it's AGF to have this re-nominated so soon, and shame on anyone supporting that too!) // FrankB 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your first claim, that these are not subject to copyright: it was clearly established at the RFC discussion that Canadian insignia are subject to Crown copyright, administered by the Dept. Of National Defence . Unless you can provide a reliable source to trump the existing evidence and prove your claim, I think we have to dismiss it as sheer speculation, and not a justification for violating fundamental Wikipedia policy. Worse, you then attack the policy ("the worst that will happen ... is they will send a letter... and ONLY THEN should ... [we] worry about it"). Believe it or not, some of us actually care about the goals of this project. Some of us also prefer to obey the law without being forced. You then, confusingly, go on to add, "Granted the designs are copyrighted..." which seems to contradict your initial premise. And we're not, as you state, "discussing an image of an artifact"; we are discussing a label that happens to be applied to a whole bunch of images. The images themselves are fine (although the copyrighted ones need to be tagged for fair use). Nobody is suggesting that any images be deleted, if that's your concern! We're suggesting that some text be changed or removed (or deprecated) because it contains serious misinformation. I think that lying to our users is more than a tempest in a teapot. (And yes, buildings, bridges and shirts can be copyrighted, but only if they contain "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article".[4] Since you asked.) cheers, Xtifr tälk 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Military insignia are extremely utilitarian, let me tell you (as an active duty Sailor). It is extremely critical to be able to instantaneously understand a military person's relative rank and which country he represents. Any supposed artistic elements in the designs serve not an artistic function, but utilitarian. They are founded in each country's heraldic traditions and serve to quickly identifies them by their country and rank, and if not actually recognized by the viewer, then the heraldic traditions at least give you a good idea. These images are PD as utilitarian and as required by the Geneva Convention. Nardman1 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Utilitarian objects are copyrighted to the extent that they contain creative material which is independent of their normal use. The amount of creativity required to cause copyright protection is minimal. For example, the eagle from a colonel’s insignia, used in a non-utilitarian context, would be indubitably copyrighted; since this design is not implied by the purpose of the insignia (say ‘colonel’ on the uniform), it makes the insignia subject to copyright.

Regardless of the precise balance of utility and creativity in actual insignia, it should be obvious that drawings of insignia are not in any way utilitarian, but are creative works. —xyzzyn 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It obviously serves at least SOME purpose; it links to numerous article pages. Also, per above comment(s). Jmlk17 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently serves the purpose of misinforming our users and, worse yet, categorizing a bunch of images—some of which are public domain and some aren't—as public domain. I agree that it's used on too many pages to be deleted, but it also, obviously, needs to be fixed. What we're trying to figure out is how. Got any suggestions? Xtifr tälk 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Geneva conventions REQUIRE that military insignia be recognizable by other armed forces. Other countries are REQUIRED to instruct their personnel on the appearances of other countries' insignia. The only way to do so is by reproducing them. International law thus implicitly forbids disallowing copies of these insignia. Nardman1 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This legal argument was already in the first discussion (here), a few people in that discussion said they did some research on the treaties but nobody managed to find the legal basis. Could you back this claim with any specific wording? DGtal 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately while I believe this to be true, it is probably original research. The Geneva Convention doesn't even require organized militaries to have insignias, only irregular militias. See [5] for counter-argument. Getting from A to B in this argument requires going through C-Z. I still think the patches are entirely utilitarian though, and might be PD under that angle. Nardman1 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some nations, like Russia, Belarus, United States and others do not place military insignia under copyright, others do. The copyright and recognition of insignia are two different issues, we should focus on the first issue. I have asked others before to provide information on if any of the Genevea Conventions provide for the copyright of insignia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no conclusive evidence or case law suggesting that military insignia is by default ineligible for copyright; until we can find such information, we should consider digital reproductions on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. --Iamunknown 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've so far only found indirect references to badges of rank; The 3rd Geneva Convention, § 43 states Upon the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties to the conflict shall communicate to one another the titles and ranks of all the persons mentioned in Article 4 of the present Convention, in order to ensure equality of treatment between prisoners of equivalent rank. Titles and ranks which are subsequently created shall form the subject of similar communications. [6] The purpose of establishing the comparative rank of soldiers from the two armies is expressly mentioned but § 17 of the same convention makes it the POW's responsibility to relay such information in his / her own case: Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. But to be the devil's advocate, if one army isn't able to identify members of the other correctly, that will seriously undermine the entire construction. Has somebody tried contacting the U.S. military? They must have lawyers employed that know this stuff by heart. Valentinian T / C 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but none of that has any necessary effect on copyright status. The copyright holder can certainly communicate such information without putting the copyrighted works into the public domain or under a free licence. —xyzzyn 18:41, 3 May 2007 (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.

April 26

Sock templates for meme vandals

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WiC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:WoW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These unused templates categorise pages as sock puppets of ancient vandals such as WoW or WiC who are very often copied by meme vandals seeking to share in the notoriety or gain notice. They were deprecated in early October 2006 and deleted in late February 2007 (with no usage during that period), then recreated by FYA in late April 2007 as inaccurate shortcuts for proven sockpuppets ({{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}}). Both are currently unused. See Wikipedia:Deny recognition for the reasoning that led to their deprecation nearly eight months ago, which still applies today. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Definitely delete as unnecessary and per WP:DENY. --Iamunknown 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need for this shortcut. –Pomte 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Pomte. Jmlk17 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have categories to keep the sockpuppets in order. The standard indefblock templates work fine. YechielMan 23:36, 30 April 2007 (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:Portuguese international ties

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portuguese international ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicated information. Already in section of "International organizations" templates - Guilherme (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as superfluous reverse navigation redundant to templates at the bottom of Portugal. –Pomte 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Pomte, but also just completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:21, 28 April 2007 (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:Texas Rangers

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Texas Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary space-hogging template. Box comprises mostly redlinks; the few blue links in the template are easy enough to find within the article. Mr. Darcy talk

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:db-unverifiable

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 speedy delete. Kusma (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-unverifiable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely empty as is, and we don't speedy delete for verifiability, so the tag is fairly useless in practice. If CSD policy changes concerning unverifiable content, we can recreate it then. —-badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as empty. Kusma (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2007 (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:db-product

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 nuke from orbit. What is it with the baseless CSD templates this week? >Radiant< 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-product (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improper tag detailing an improper speedy deletion criteria, as products do not fall under CSD A7. Tag serves no legitimate purpose due to it being misleading. -—badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I created this template for use while I started doing NPP and should have read up on speedy deletion criteria and policy beforehand. Well, everybody makes mistakes early in their "Wikicareer". --Poeloq 14:31, 26 April 2007 (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:Hairstyles

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has no purpose. Categories should be used instead. —Bensin 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete and agree. Has no purpose whatsoever Booksworm Talk to me! 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Booksworm. Jmlk17 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Wenli 02:34, 27 April 2007 (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:Riskofvandalism

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ugly box that applies to most of Wikipedia's articles. We don't want to draw extra attention to vandalism, nor violate WP:BEANS and WP:DENY. Delete. — Kusma (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the points above. It will just attract more vandalism instead of getting rid of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Booksworm (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the fact that articles with big vandalism problems should get semi-protected, not have a tag calling attention to vandals... why would vandalism mean that you should read the talk page before changing things? -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kusma. —dima/talk/ 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ALL Wikipedia articles are at risk of vandalism, so this template is redundant and unnecessary. — Wenli 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, plus it's recreated. Addhoc 15:48, 1 May 2007 (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.

Old discussions

April 25

Template:SightLandmarkDenmark

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a semi-random grab bag of Danish sights. Not a bad list but not encyclopedic, and where is Saint Canute's Cathedral in Odense, Viborg Cathedral, the Little Mermaid, the Dybbøl trenches, Kronborg Castle, Koldinghus, Ribe Cathedral, and Skamlingsbanken? Delete. Valentinian T / C 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:Random listing; uncencylopedic; no criteria used to determine entries. Peregrine981 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 01:56, 30 April 2007 (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:Concept automobile

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 consensus. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Concept automobile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As concept cars are rarely ever produced in any form similar to the concept, it is likely that this template, unlike other "future/timing" templates, will never be removed from articles it is on. As such, it violates WP:NDT, especially "Concept automobiles, and their derivatives if any, are subject to delays or cancellation by the automaker." — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is some sort of template for things in development (or there should be); we don't need this overspecific, and wordy, template. -Amarkov moo! 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with Comment: actually the vast majority of all-new and significantly redesigned automobiles show up first at the various auto shows and magazines as Concept cars. There are usually significant changes in the car's evolution from concept, to prototype, to production; which is why a special template for Concept Car was created - to differentiate them from production automobiles and even prototypes, which are relatively close to production specifications. The template could probably use some wordsmithing to address concerns about violating the disclaimer template guideline. As explained in the guideline, it is meant to discourage making templates that warn readers about possibly offensive material - such as profanity or sexual themes. I believe that the disclaimer template guideline does not really apply here: in fact, it could be said that the template at the top of the guideline page itself would violate it's own text on disclaimer templates - as it essentially "warns" the reader that the following is only a WP:GUIDELINE, and not a firm WP:POLICY per se. Finally, deleting a template based on the blind assumption that there "is" or "should be" ... "some sort of template for things in development" is not a particularly reasonable or valid justification. Wordiness can be addressed by means other than a deletion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about the cars that will not be produced (Ford Airstream for an example)? Cars like that are built only to show off designs and new technology. Something similar to the Ford Interceptor might not be built in any form for years, even then, it might be totally different and have a different name. Template:Future automobile works better for eventual-production cars, while never-to-be-produced cars don't need a template like this as it would be permanent. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes a car "never-to-be-produced"? The Ford Shelby Cobra Concept, for example, may never see production, but who is to say Ford won't suddenly decide to produce the car at some point in the future? Likewise, an "eventual-production" car may be scrapped at any point. Most of these articles are distinctly either concept cars or just cars. It seems to me that if the article is about a concept car, the very definition of a concept car conveys all of the information shown in the template. When the car is officially announced as a production car, then edit the article to say so and add the Template:Future automobile to it. Sully 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are templates saying things like: This article talks about a tunnel that will soon be built or This article talks about a US highway currently under construction' so why should we delete this one? The Weak in Weak Keep is due to the fact that the explanation on the template is really too long! Booksworm Talk to me! 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that many of the articles in Category:Concept automobiles in fact don't use this template (pick 10 articles at random... it's hard to find even 2 that have it on the article), so it doesn't necessarily follow that the template must be permanently attached to automobile articles, or that it happens in practice. The text of the template could be changed to read something closer to {{current event}}, eg. make it clear that it isn't meant to be permanently affixed, that it should be removed once there's no longer significant news coming out about the concept car. --Interiot 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NDT is enough, it is a standing guideline. As concerns the "this is a guideline" template, I understand that the guidelines and policies apply to articles in the first place. I mean, do you have to quote sources and adhere to the MoS when editing talk pages, or even here? As concerns the very template in question, it has huge amounts of small-print text, longer than some articles the template is transcluded into, and basically boils down to "this article by force of this template may be infused by all kinds of rubbish, including speculation more or less derived from automotive media and other stuff, because this car is a concept".
    The truth is that a concept car is a concept car, if somebody needs to be explained what the nature of a concept car is, there should be wikilink to concept car in the article's body, if some actual production model is developed based in this way or another on the concept car, then it should be noted in the article, before it happens or is officially announced, WP:CRYSTAL applies. PrinceGloria 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. As I said before, this template is essentially the definition of a concept car, as stated in the article on concept cars itself. Sully 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category will do the job. -- NaBUru38 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but with rewrite The template COULD potentially be useful, but not in its current form. I vote for a keep, but only on the condition that it could be rewritten in the future if it survives this vote. Jmlk17 02:00, 30 April 2007 (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:PD-USGov-Military-Coast Guard

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 redirect to Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CG. All transclusions have been replaced. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Coast Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}, the Coast Guard is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security. — jwillburtalk 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and redirect. Actually I was WP:BOLD and did this already. Move to close? Nardman1 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and redirect -- No brainer! // FrankB 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above comments and nomination. Jmlk17 02:02, 30 April 2007 (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:Modern Attack Helicopters

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Attack Helicopters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As below, trivial subject, contentious content, seems divisive out of proportion with any utility it may (doubtfully) add. Guinnog 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As above. most comparable attacke helicopters are alredy listed in the "comparable" field under Related contents on each page. - BillCJ 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shpould not have a template on something that could be covered in the article, especially something like the concept of "advanced" what defines it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - created outside of the project, duplicates material already in the standard project template which every helicopter article already gets (the "comparable aircraft" and "related development" sections). Akradecki 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Low-relevance, subjective topic for a nav box; material best belongs in the "Comparable aircraft" section. Flags are overkill in a nav box. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've tweaked it to current standard but I vote for deletion of meaningless template. Piotr Mikołajski 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Will always be contentious on content - does not add any value. MilborneOne 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did anyone make this? Delete without requirement of explanation Booksworm Talk to me! 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's a neat template, but it serves no purpose, hence...delete. Jmlk17 02:03, 30 April 2007 (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:4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trivial subject, flags inappropriate in a footer template, created outside the appropriate project guidelines — Akradecki 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it adds nothing to the articles.--Guinnog 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mmx1 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contentious subject - too many users will argue that their nation's fighter should be there, but their rival nation's fighter should not, etc. - BillCJ 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not well defined category, too narrow of a subject to have its own nav box. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too subjective a category for template stability or navigational use. Flags really look awful in a nav box. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Covered by putting 4th generation jet fighter article in the See also section. -Fnlayson 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Meaningless to the most readers - does not add any value. MilborneOne 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Covered by other articles. --EfferAKS 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - --McSly 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have seen many pointless templates, but this one may be the most pointless (however US highways under construction is worse...) Booksworm Talk to me! 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - distinguishing between 4 & 4.5 is usually quite easy and important. Its the difference between Gen 4++ & Gen 4.5 that is usually blurred. However, I think that this template is needed, at least when it covers a wide swathe of aircrafts developed today, and helps the reader check out the comparable aircraft. Sniperz11 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adds nothing to the articles.--padraig3uk 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once again, a pretty neat template (information wise), but serves no purpose. Jmlk17 02:04, 30 April 2007 (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:Uw-longtermabuse

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Template:Uw-longtermabuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This was created as a user-warning template to employ when a user has unintentionally done something wrong ("abused" some aspect of Wikipedia, in the author's terms) for a long time, to the degree that this behaviour is felt to be disruptive. I find the idea of a canned template for that situation quite counterproductive. When a user does something wrong, the right thing to do is very simple: you politely tell them. "Please, could you stop doing X, it's bad because Y." This template doesn't help doing this and will only create bad feelings (just as its creator's intervention in an alleged case of "abusive" behaviour yesterday did). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hitherto, WP:WARN offered a tag that it described as sanctioning a "Long term pattern of abuse." The template it offered for this purpose is extremely strongly-worded, and better suited to vandalism specifically than abuse generally (see [7]). I created this new template in order to provide a more appropriate template for sanctioning long-term abuse, and changed the description of the older tag to make clear it was only for sanctioning vandalism, a shoe into which it more comfortably fits. This seems self-evidently a meritorious and necessary change. I consider this nomination - minutes after I got done spending a lot of time trying to bring the written text into conformance with what I'm told is its spirit - to be in profoundly bad faith, a fortiori when it comes on the back of a sabre-rattling threat from the person proposing deletion. This template should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place, should be removed from this process immediately, but if it must remain here I strongly urge other users to vote to keep, at least until it has existed long enough for experience to either bear out or refute the nominator's supposed concerns. If in practice this turns out to be a bad idea, then it can later be renominated.Simon Dodd 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, if you can't bring yourself to actually type out what's bothering you about what another user is doing -- and it's clearly a question of you choosing not to, since your rather verbose attempts at justifying your actions demonstrate that you're perfectly capable of doing so -- don't say anything. You want a shiny official club to hit people with? No. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shiny - then I suppose I ought to nominate every other template on WP:WARN for deletion, because your logic about why this template is superfluous applies with just as much force to all those others, too. Can I count on your "delete" vote for them as well?Simon Dodd 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try again, Sparky -- the "Mommy, other kids are doing it, too!" excuse hasn't worked since grade school. The other templates are simply timesaving devices for specific and common situations (perhaps reading templates before actually applying them would save you some grief) and not the official billy club you clearly want them to be. It would certainly take less time to type out your "abuse" concerns for uncommon and specific situations rather than 5,000 words of post-facto Why I'm Always Right and Everyone Else is Wrong verbiage. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A solution in search of problem. Reading the WP:AN thread, I get the impression that the creator is looking for some official club he can use to hit people with. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{uw-longterm}} was made for a long term pattern of vandalism, not abuse of the minor edit tag, and so on. After WP:WARN had been modified, it may not have been clear that this was the purpose, but it was. The description has now been clarified, but there is no need for a more general template, as anything more complicated should be dealt with using a custom message that explains the problem, not a general "abuse" template. JPD (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the word abuse itself is far too strong to describe something unintentional. If the template is kept it needs to lose this name and it needs to have any threat of blocking removed. No admin would block a user for a mistake, that would violate WP:BITE Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally think that kind of things are much better handled by a personally typed message than by a "fits for all" template. If the behavior is disruptive, tell them why you think it is so. -- lucasbfr talk 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the Template messages/User talk namespace discussion page. -- lucasbfr talk 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template states that "abuse is not necessarily vandalism". Well fair enough, but surely if you are accusing someone of a long term pattern of "abusive" action that isn't vandalism, you need to explain to them exactly what they are doing wrong and how they should change their ways. If I found this message on my talk page and had been doing something "abusive" unintentionally, I would be totally confused over what was being referred to. In the cases of a complicated accusation like this, a one-size-fits-all template really isn't helpful. People should take the 30 seconds to type a more specific message. Will (aka Wimt) 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns - for genuine long term abuse a personally typed message would be preferable. Addhoc 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There are already far too many templates to combat vandalism and other issues on a user's page. Jmlk17 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A personal message is better than a template for this situation (i.e. WP:DTTR)--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (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:Infobox City Kuching

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Unused. — MJCdetroit 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not needed. GracenotesT § 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused. —dima/talk/ 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- Originator has been inactive for eons. // FrankB 07:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Jmlk17 08:42, 28 April 2007 (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.

April 24

Template:TOCrightEx

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only exists to break font-size layout, shouldn't even exist as a option. Dispenser 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not entirely sure what the nomination says, but regardless, there's no reason a TOC needs to be in the middle of article content. -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The font size in a TOC should not be customizable. It seems it was done at Geographical centre of Europe so the Ukraine image is higher up. If there are overcrowded images to the right, the TOC is fine at the left by default. –Pomte 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed whatsoever. Jmlk17 08:43, 28 April 2007 (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:TOCnestright

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{TOCright}} does the same thing with the clear=none parameter. Dispenser 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redundant. –Pomte 00:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- What's a clear=none parameter to an average editor? In fact, what's a clear? This is a natural adaptation of {{TOCright}} and {{TOCleft}}, so what's the disdain for producing a tool usable by anyone? Is there some HTML pre-requisite course I was supposed to take before making my first wikiedit? This template is A) Brand new, B) unfinished (I'd asked advice of CBD -- see the before and after diffs and discussion points!), and C) is very useful as is for packing a TOC in tight against our much too much over worked right page sides where infoboxes, images and the kitchen sink all predominate. This template helps keep those ugly blotches of excess whitespace from making pages ugly. A much needed thing, IMHO. // FrankB 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The CSS Clear property forces floats underneath the side in which is specified in the attribute. So, clear:left; will place the element after all the left floating elements creating white space above as need. If the property is not specified then the default (clear:none;) will take effect, which is what you have done in this template. —Dispenser 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the average editor ignores most templates and associated parameters. While clear=none is not exactly intuitive, they are likely to not know what nesting means either, and "TOCnestright" doesn't describe how the TOC is being nested. Looking at the name alone, I could not guess what this template does (a TOC nested inside something while aligned to the right?) Even if it gets renamed to a better name, the functionality appears so far to be redundant. If you provide a distinct use though, feel free to create a new template for that. I disagree that the whitespace is ugly especially if the TOC is small. Shoving the box to the side adds clutter and looks unorganized as text isn't justified around it. –Pomte 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Pomte and Fabartus. Jmlk17 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate, for Fabartus gave reasons to keep. –Pomte 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must first apologize for the mixup; finals are in session as well, so my mind enjoys the opportunity to veg-out every so often, my bad. Secondly, it seems this template would make it easier for a non-experienced editor to use, hence it's creation. I myself am not too experienced, and my major is history, not computer science or anything, so it has taken QUITE alot of getting used to in order for me to do even what I do now. I believe the majority of editors on this site are like that, or even less experienced than myself, and any help they/we can get is GOOD. JṃŁЌ17 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Dispenser, Thanks for the clear explanation of how clear works -- such is useful for the vast majority of us who don't speak script except in pigdin! <g> Please see if you can improve the {{TOCright}} (and left?) usage for such lay people! (At least I have a programming background as an engineer, albeit one lacking in all this modern CS script based technology.)

    • Answer--Per my query section to CBD, my own thinking at that time and from playing with it was to add parameters ahead and behind the actual occurrence of the TOC command. Most times, and most places it would be applied in one or two paragraphs down in longer articles with equally long introductions (See Arabian Sea and other pages where applied). The point is I want something that will be fixed in a vertical placement, and have the other text (below it) wrap around it and down, yet still float right against the long graphics and info box elements that predominate our pages. In sum, neaten things up and eliminate text/element combinations which don't nest well together now. The whitepace I'm trying to obviate is the effect that occurs with a long occupied and overbusy right margin element, causing even TOCright to create huge whitespace gaps sans any text. Typically, these go well over half a screenview, show the TOC only in the next section, then finally continue the article again. The TOCright, even with the switch I believe will not work with IE6, which alas, will still be with us for several years. MSIE7 also fails here with the first stab version of this, which I first saw when posting the above--both seem to want to anchor the TOC box with a valign-top, so there is a significant difference in Bharuch viewed in IE browsers and in Firefox/Netscape.

      Bottom line, we need something to tighten up unsightly large gaps in a fairly large percentage of articles, and I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. That 'nest' means nothing when viewing just a template name means little, most template names follow that pattern (What the hell does {{Catmore}} mean, for example! <g> I'm still trying to figure out that mnenomically!).

      However, any editor who sees the difference pushing the TOC over against the other boxed elements on the right can then 'project' that solution elsewhere (As I did when first experiencing TOCright), when the need occurs to their evaluation. Like anything, one has to use such a few times before feeling sure of it.

      Bottom line, TOCright usage needs fixed up to clarify this if it will perform this way, as I will (plan) to document this, assuming success. If not, per normal practice, I'll db-author it. (I don't usually fail, though! <g> Praise the Lord! Lol!) Unfortunately, I'm on the road this week, so wiki-time is a premium. // FrankB 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Position changed to keep. I'll need some time to understand exactly what Fabartus wants to achieve, but he's obviously enthusiastic about getting this to work and there's more code than that of {{TOCright}}, so this template will be used for testing. I'll look at the issue from different browsers and help give suggestions if possible. Still, I have to wonder whether this is really more aesthetic for a similar reason I had opposed {{TOChidden}} here. –Pomte 23:00, 30 April 2007 (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:Displace Me

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Displace Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template for a one-day event sets a bad precedent. Has the stench of advertising. I'm sure it's a worthy cause, but an ad is still an ad. dm (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Navigation templates are for defining qualities, which being part of this event is not. A category, maybe. -Amarkov moo! 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. it looks like spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.Jer10 95 Talk 03:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually using this template would add to article-bottom-clutter, and while perhaps made in good faith, this is a bad idea in the long run. GracenotesT § 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom - thank you Astuishin 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very bad precedent. When I saw this on the Chicago article a day or two ago, my reaction was to propose it for deletion myself. -- DS1953 talk 23:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointlessness at the extreme Booksworm Talk to me! 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Simple spam; no need for a template for a one-time, one-day event. Jmlk17 08:47, 28 April 2007 (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:Easier Version:WHOIS

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Easier Version:WHOIS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used on WHOIS, also an inappropraiate use of {{nutshell}}, which states is only to be used on Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. The text should be merged into the lead and the template deleted. — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't anyone here try to accept that someone MIGHT be new here and MIGHT not know all the ropes of how wiki is to be used? SORRRRRRYYY that I hurt someone by accidentally placing my 256 KB of MySQL usage in the wrong place. I'll move it. Geez. JoshEdgar 00:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... who isn't accepting that? And who thinks you are hurting them? -Amarkov moo! 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is about the fifth time that some Wiki-idiot gets all in a huff over a little itty bitty mistake just because "it's not the right format". Christ, what will we do!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshEdgar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is not an appropriate use of a template. -- Mithent 01:38, 30 April 2007 (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:Social Christianity

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating this in relation to the AfD for the parent article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Christianity. A more full reasoning for deletion is presented there, but in summary this appears to be an OR attempt to unify a bunch of vaguely (if at all) related topics. Adam Smith as a key thinker in the Social Christianity movement?. — Arkyan • (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. Jmlk17 08:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its parent article was deleted as not being about a reasonable grouping of topics, and the same criteria should apply here. -- Mithent 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mithent. Ros0709 20:50, 1 May 2007 (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:Subst:

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does this template have fa purpose?. →AzaToth 14:34, 24 April 2007 (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:Fb-spoiler

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb-spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this is an unneeded template, unneeded clutter and going to far with spoiler templates. This is solely intended to do the same thing as {{spoiler}} except say it's for the "future", if an article is structured/written correctly this type of template should not be needed. Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer states that Wikipedia contains spoilers, if people read them when there's a general warning they only have themselves to blame, spoiler warnings are a courtesy and just a placebo to be frank. Matthew 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Repetitive and unnecessary. {{spoiler}} is good enough. Jmlk17 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any spoiler templates other than {{spoiler}}. Gavia immer (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article should already have made it clear that it is a future episode. –Pomte 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • eeeeh, maybe keep, maybe delete At first I redirected this template to {{spoiler}}, thinking it was a bit needless, but the author did have a point, most people don't expect future spoilers. Given this is the same rationale for the spoiler warning template in the first place, even more so because it points out a spoiler that even Wikipedia regulars would likely not expect. At the same time I can't say that it would bother me if this was deleted. A warning for spoilers is never guaranteed, and it is just a courtesy. For most situations editors will likely not be able to include "future" information, because a lot of that stuff comes from unreliable spoiler websites, or is flat out speculation. I'd lean towards keep since I don't see the harm and I can see the value, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If this can be used (and Ned Scott points out there may not be many uses), it does seem to do something that {{spoiler}} doesn't adequately do. -- DS1953 talk 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of things could be used, but I don't find your argument compelling. Take for example an episode, we generally already have {{Future television episode}} and {{spoiler}} combined. Matthew 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{Future television episode}} is not supposed to be used in that way. The template should not be used to tag all future television episodes, something we've talked about time and time again on CFD. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the spoilers are "Quote" yet to broadcast "Unquote" then how can we verify the spoiler itself? Booksworm Talk to me! 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
    • Through reliable sources, which makes it more easily verifiable than actually having to watch a show, as most plot summaries are unsourced. –Pomte 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes this kind of stuff gets accidentally said in interviews or in product merchandizing (track 57 of the OST for Episode I.. titled... "Qui-Gon's Funeral".. "oops" haha.) But yeah, it doesn't happen often. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (The soundtrack came out before the movie). -- Ned Scott 02:20, 30 April 2007 (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:Supplement

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:For more (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete for the following reasons:
  1. Its functionality is covered by {{main}} and {{see also}}.
  2. It is used by only two articles:
  3. Its parameter handling is bizzare.
I have notified Lacatosias (the template's creator) and Scharks (a user who had the template in his toolbox).
--Kevinkor2 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jmlk17 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and poor use of parameters. "Supplement" is an inaccurate way to describe the relationship between articles. –Pomte 17:05, 24 April 2007 (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:Generational cohorts

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generational cohorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Does not cite sources, and even if it did, would represent a false sense of consensus on the topic of naming and dating global generations (there is a separate template for purely American generations - {{Generations}}). There is no consensus, as evidenced by the constant bickering and changes seen on the pages for the various generations. A template like this adds nothing but confusion the the articles. Peregrine981 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to {{Generations}}. –Pomte 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is redundant as mentioned; however, I agree with Peregrine981 as well, and will take that to {{Generations}} myself. - Freechild 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, {{Generations}} is a case of systematic bias towards America; I created this template to be more general/global -- deleting it doesnt fix the problem. The bickering is a problem; to resolve that I think the best approach is to replace the start/end years with decades. John Vandenberg 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate the effort, but I just don't think that there is such a thing as a "global generation", and doubt that reliable sources can be found to back up that assertion. Generations will be very different in different countries experiencing different phases of social development, and lumping them all together is artificial IMO. The American chart has its problems (is it based on Strauss and Howe or not? The dates in the chart explicitly contradict information in the articles... etc... but as long as it is explicit about its geographic scope, it can stay. Peregrine981 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the {{Generations}} table is placed on articles like Generation Y and Generation X, which are terms that I grew up with in relation to Australian generations (you disagree they can be international, thats fine). The term generational cohort is defined as "the aggregation of individuals (within some population definition) who experience the same event within the same time interval", which IMO leaves plenty of room for global cohorts that experience the same global events; i.e. if you use a definition of "population" that equals everyone, the aggregation is fine provided the events that define them are worldwide, and I have limited this template to generations of international note as a consequence. Gen Y is becoming known as the "Global Generation", as there are now so few local-only events.[8][9][10][11] gs: "global generation" "generation y", gs: "global generation" "gen y" John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly many of these terms, baby boom, gen X, etc.. are used in many international contexts especially in the developed world. But I have a problem saying that they're truly "global" since I don't think that they necessarily apply to much of the developing world. For example, in China the experience of generations experiencing the cultural revolution, one child policy, and then rapid industrialization will be vastly different than the generic boom, bust, echo pattern seen elsewhere. Much of southern and western Asia, and Africa certainly differs from the patterns described in this template. Neither is it exclusive to a developing/developed dichotomy, see Greece, Japan, Korea, and Russia for places that will differ widely. Also, I would argue that despite "experiencing" some the same worldwide events, the effects and interpretations will be different enough to make generalization very difficult. ie. someone living in Afghanistan vs. New York will see September 11th quite differently. Peregrine981 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree each locality will have more meaningful and precise generations, but this template was a navbox to aid the user, for example jumping from Gen X to Gen Y, without needing to resort to the {{Generations}} which is really {{USA Generations}}. If you can think of a better way to do that, I am all ears! John Vandenberg 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this, I don't think there's a really a viable way, short of making a seperate infobox for various countries, which is bound to get out of hand. I think people may just have to get by without a navbox. Peregrine981 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific country articles can have them, not as templates but single-use tables for summary/navigational purposes. {{Generations}} is unweildly and should get removed from general articles, unless those articles have an extensive section on USA only. –Pomte 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its almost unused, and a table can be substituted easily enough.DGG 05:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a navbox, placed at the top of each article it linked to, such as Generation X and Generation X, but some enterprising people have removed it. John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've removed the years from template as they were unreferenced. John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (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.

April 23

Template:ToxicWPPDD

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template appears not to be in use. — meco 22:52, 23 April 2007 (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:Anaheim Ducks Team

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anaheim Ducks Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless. Just a recreation of {{Anaheim Ducks Roster}}. The latter is the accepted template, while the nominated is just a copy. — Jmlk17 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. - hmwithtalk 07:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. The smaller size was explained by the creator here, but it is unused and even so, there could be a small option instead of two separate templates. –Pomte 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really don't see why somebody would make a copy of {{Anaheim Ducks Roster}}. AppleMacReporter 22:16, 23 April 2007 (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:Non-admin fwarn

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-admin fwarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Reported (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm nominating this template pursuant to the discussion at WT:UTM#Template to say a user has been reported for the reasons stated there. In brief, I believe this is a well intentioned template that is turning out to be largely counterproductive. A person receiving this template will have been reported to AIV and will therefore either (1) be blocked, in which case s/he has no opportunity to reconsider their behavior or (2) not be blocked, in which case they presumably come away thinking their vandalism was not that bad and they may learn how far they can push the envelop without getting blocked. --Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think these templates are a bad idea. It effectively tells the vandal that they cannot be blocked by the person who has warned them and that they now have a window of time to vandalise as much as possible before their inevitable blocking. It also has a bit of "I've gone and told teacher about you" feel to it which doesn't help. {{uw-vandalism4}} seems a perfectly acceptable final warning- there is then no need for any further communication until a block notification is posted. WjBscribe 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mirroring WJBscribe's concerns completely. Naconkantari 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying my comment from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace: I've been seeing this {{fwarn}} template on user pages before I block them, and I'm thinking maybe we should delete it. A lot of people who make WP:AIV reports do so improperly, and we remove the reports instead of blocking. If someone receives one of these messages and then doesn't get blocked, that's worse than just getting {{uw-v4im}} and not getting blocked. And this inevitably happens, we don't block on all reports but getting this warning and then no block definitely sends the wrong message: "go ahead and vandalize with impunity, nobody cares". So yeah, delete. — coelacan — 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As proposed.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per coelacan's argument. – Riana ऋ 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or modify it so that it requires a link to the report/discussion as an argument. It's more informative if they can actually see where the report is so they can contest it. Tuxide 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we really want vandals being pointed towards WP:AIV so they can go and remove themselves from it? WjBscribe 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. It'll just be another reason for them to be blocked. Tuxide
    I would hope that if they've been reported at AIV its on the basis that their conduct already warrants a block... WjBscribe 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually one of those non-admins who uses this template, but more as a notification than as a warning. Sometimes I go to AIV, and sometimes I bring it up on IRC depending on how interesting the activity is. Seriously, you wouldn't find an administrator using {{non-admin fwarn}} anyways. I see nothing wrong with removing non-relevant template messages as long as someone can back you up. My thoughts are that such a template should be "toned down" so that people don't use it as a level 4 warning, but more as a notification. Tuxide 04:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the hope that the vandal will contest it? I've seen bad reports on AIV. I just remove them. If someone is obviously vandalizing, what's the point of them contesting it? And if it's not obvious vandalism, we remove them (as happens when one person in a content dispute wants us to block their opponent, a common report). — coelacan — 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not answering the obvious vandalism question—I've yet to see someone contest such a thing. I've used it when reporting 3RR in the past, and from what I've seen, those get contested. Tuxide 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's a good point and I think a 3RR-specific template would be a good idea. Pointing someone to the report at WP:AN3 can be helpful. — coelacan — 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the template creator, I use it a lot because it lets people know that Wikipedia's not simply a place for them to run amok and there is accountability. I even feel that vandals may be testing the waters and may come back as valued contributing members if they know that articles are guarded so seriously. I don't think we should point the vandals to WP:AIV, but I made it so as to say, "Look, you're not going to vandalize Wikipedia without consequence. You've been warned." I think you can let Vandals know that there is a method/hierarchy here without giving them the blueprint. We non-admins who police vandals have no tools whatsoever besides persistence. Let us keep at least one. BrianZ(talk) 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's the template I use to demonstrate accountability: {{uw-block}}. I don't understand what you want with this template. You report them to AIV, they get blocked. If they don't get blocked, and they sometimes don't, then this template makes things worse. Please read my first comment above and reply to those points; it seems you've overlooked them. — coelacan — 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless. - hmwithtalk 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have plenty of useful final warning templates, and this doesn't add anything useful to them. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I was initially dubious of this one (at WT:UTM), but think that the WP:BEANS factor is a bit too significant. Let's not use a template as a crutch for process problems. GracenotesT § 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I commented at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace I feel that this template is not useful for two reasons. Firstly, the advice it gives (which currently reads "please reconsider your behavior" and has previously read "be careful and serious from now on") is pretty much an irrelevance because, if a correct WP:AIV report has been made after a final warning, then however the user reconsiders their behaviour, they are still going to be blocked. Secondly, and more importantly I think, the thing that this template says is effectively you are about to be blocked. Now telling that to a vandal surely has the potential of making them up their ante to try and squeeze in as much vandalism as possible before the inevitable block occurs. Also I agree with what Coelacan says about sending out the wrong message if a user is not blocked after this template has been given to them. Will (aka Wimt) 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we were going to delete this then what about Template:Reported which is essentially the same? GDonato (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or merge I use the template more to notify users that they have been reported to an admin but not to say they are going to be blocked which sometimes doesn't happen. Maybe we need to create or merge this template with the temp:reported one to create a more neutral message that simply says you have been reported? -- Hdt83 Chat 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-As said above, it's just going to draw the vandals attention to AIV. Sometimes removed reports aren't even noticed. Also, if they violated a final warning, they're going to be blocked, so why say "you may be blocked". We already warned them, they didn't listen. It's not they may be blocked. They will be. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now included Template:Reported in the nomination, being bold following various comments here that called attention to this identical-in-purpose template. — coelacan — 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I would have included it in the nomination if I had been aware of its existence.--Kubigula (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have complained about it earler, had I known. ;-) — coelacan — 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really useful other than to possibly instigate something? Jmlk17 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for Template:Reported only - I have found it useful to post on a vandal's talkpage while WP:AIV has a backlog... In some of these cases, it has promoted the vandal to stop vandalising before an administrator considers a block. Chrisch 12:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a vandal has been reported to the AIV then it is most likly that he/she will be blocked even if the user stops vandalizing after being notified of the AIV report. -Mschel 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I used to use it, but I now think it only feeds the troll. As a side note, I have no problem with people using the template if it is on their user space (I have a similar one myself for times of endless vandalism on an article and no admin nearby), I just don't think the template space should contain templates that might reveal being troll feeding. -- lucasbfr talk 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Keep the {{reported}} as I regularly use it and its handy instead of typing the message informing users they're reported, however, I say delete for the other one but keep the {{reported}}.Tellyaddict 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you need to tell them they've been reported at all? WjBscribe 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WJB at the very beginning of this TfD. Do you really think that putting such a template will accomplish anything besides the unrepentant and chronic vandal going after you? --Valley2city₪‽ 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's no use warning someone for whom it is too late already. As said before, this will not deter the vandal from further disruption, as nothing they can do could prevent a block if one is justified. I also agree it will give out the wrong sort of message to the vandal if a block is not put into effect, much like several consecutive {{uw-v4}} would. --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 April 2007 (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:ISBN-13

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISBN-13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MediaWiki software now recognizes ISBN-13s, so obsolete. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template might be thought to have two benefits:
  1. Allow you to click on an ISBN-13 and be taken to Special:Book sources, like you can with an ISBN-10.
  2. Provide a whatlinkshere to find uses of ISBN-13.

In fact, you already get #1 for free via Mediawiki now, as RevRagnarok points out, and #2 doesn't seem worth transcluding the template all over the encyclopedia. (We have 80,000 ISBNs now). It also makes it harder to verify ISBN check digits. A system like SmackBot, or Rich Farmbrough's off-line wikitext checking software, would have to do extra work to handle the curly braces when it parses the ISBN-13s to add the proper hyphenation and to verify the check digit. EdJohnston 03:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete--as originator, and beg yer pardon actually, this was made unnecessary about a month after it's inception, and most occasions for need were built into book templates by the time the system software began handling them directly. I'd meant to db author it, but dropped the ball, obviously. Cheers // FrankB 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, good idea at the time. Rich Farmbrough, 07:07 23 April 2007 (GMT).
  • Delete as above. Andy Mabbett 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Strong Delete Completely unnecessary and obsolete. Jmlk17 06:43, 24 April 2007 (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:Wikihermitalert

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 converted to WP:DEFCON. --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of the WP:DEFCON template, with an entire project noincluded in the tempate. — Naconkantari 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historicalize and deprecate - This separate template isn't needed. I do like the design, however; we should send it to {{Wdefcon}}--Ed 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming "historicalize" means "delete at once, salt, and bury under 1600 metres or coal seam", I concur with Ed. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fine. If you want to send it to defcon please do. I have no problems with that. In fact, it would probably be better there. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I don't know how to move it. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to DEFCON-Duplicate not needed (and neither is the bureaucracy on the page). I like the template though, so move it. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sigs have been changed in this edit BTW, not that it matters...--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before April 22nd if possible, then nuc it. (Must be nice to have time to waste.) // FrankB 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept, that JPEG image (which has nasty, visible artifacts) should be replaced with a SVG image. *** Crotalus *** 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to {{Wdefcon}}: My reason is that of Ed and Crotalus combined. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to defcon Looks like a good template. Upgrade it so it works with Defcon and it's okay. -- Hdt83 Chat 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done I've upgraded it to work with Wdefcon. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or convert into a new Wdefcon format Appears to be a cross between the less useful half of Wdefcon and the worst part of Esperanza. --ais523 16:00, 24 April 2007 (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:db-list

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. Templates should not misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 08:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neither a speedy deletion criterion nor likely to become one. —Cryptic 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - references A7, which it's not. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may qualify for A7, depending on whether or not the list is in print, but even where it does, it doesn't need a seperate template. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary, A7 covers this fine. – Riana ऋ 03:51, 23 April 2007 (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.

Completed discussions

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

  • I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices

Current discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2024 May 30

May 2

Template:Video game list

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 speedy delete per CSD criterion G7. Harryboyles 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this list initially as a video game version of the TV episode list template. Since creating it I've found that there's no need for the template and it also encourages using non-free images without critical analysis. I am in the process of removing it from the 2 minor articles it was used in. — ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Speedy delete, if possible, since requested by creator.) --myselfalso 03:43, 3 May 2007 (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:Smithsonian

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 // Pilotguy hold short 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images coming from the Smithsonian Institution are not inherently ok according to our Non-free content criteria. This could be a source-tag, but not a licensing tag.. Abu badali (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it. As far as I know there is nothing special that we'd say in a source tag... and it's certantly not a valid license tag. --Gmaxwell 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smithsonian is not the copyright owner of any of the objects it holds afaik. This is a source tag masquerading as a copyright tag. Delete it. --Iamunknown 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is possible that someone donated them not only his works but also his copyright. But the tag is ill-advised either way. My (old) arguments are at Template talk:Smithsonian. Delete. Lupo 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to source tag so there is one unified way to find all Smithsonian images, should Smithsonian policy change. Currently where the Smithsonian buys collections they are buying the copyright. Donated images can be donated with the copyright or without depending on which contract you sign, I donated the copyright on images sent to NASM. There largest collection at the Smithsonian was made by the WPA and as government employees, those images are public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is not acceptable as a fair use tag, but I agree that it is useful, especially in the general clean-up as a source tag. As such, we should convert and not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physchim62 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • It isn't a source tag and not a license tag; it is a fair use tag. It's a "this-is-certainly fair use" tag — read the talk page. Just clarifying that aspect since people seem confused as to what it is supposed to be saying, though it is fairly clearly written. --24.147.86.187 19:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thats what it's trying to be.. but it's completely and totally invalid as such.. there is absolutely nothing about taking an image from the Smithsonian which makes it much more likely to be a valid claim of fair use than 'because I said so'. --Gmaxwell 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious if anyone who thinks the template should be a source template has designed a proposal. I'd like to see one and would hope that the closing admin only consider conversion if an adequate one is developed. --Iamunknown 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as source tag it's not specific enough anyway. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or remake to source tag. Alex Spade 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to source tag.--PericlesofAthens 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to source tag. Nowimnthing 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source tag wouldn't be possible as, according to the Smithsonian Institute, they don't hold copyright on everything on their site. Terms and conditions reads: "Copyrights and other proprietary rights in the content on this website may also be owned by individuals and entities other than, and in addition to, the Smithsonian Institution.". This tag should be redirected to {{No_copyright_holder}} --Abu badali (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would there be a way to seperate the images taken by the staff of the smithsonian which seem to be fair use and the images taken by non staff which they may or may not hold the copyright on? Nowimnthing 01:51, 12 May 2007 (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:H2o

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H2o (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

orphaned – should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_6#Template:H2O since {{H2O}} was an identical template — Crashintome4196 18:02, 2 May 2007 (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:Montana State Highways

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Montana State Highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to browse boxes and categories provided on the pages the template would be used for. Precedent set by deletion of other similar templates for other state highway systems. —Scott5114↗ 06:41, 2 May 2007 (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:NJ-AtlanticCountyFreeholders

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJ-AtlanticCountyFreeholders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All related articles have been deleted for notability concerns. Template is (save for a relic page in user space) orphaned. — Caknuck 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Now that consensus has been overturned and the articles deleted, there's little point in keeping the associated template. Alansohn 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete red-linked articles are deleted, soon to be unused. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --myselfalso 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vishwin60. aido2002 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Phoenix 22:31, 9 May 2007 (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:Theocracy

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template needs to go for several reasons. 1) The template is obscure. Is is about "theocracy" or "religion in governement"? The latter is quite a broad topic that can be interpreted quite openly. 2) The template doesn't serve a meaningful purpose. It is a random collection of entries ranging from safely theocratic to some that are quite controversial. It doesn't help the reader in any way. 3) Finally not one entry in the template is based on a reliable source calling the idea "theocratic" or an example of "religion in government", except the obvious ones.— Bless sins 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quoting this post by Bless sins: "Theocracy can be defined as "government by or subject to religious institutions" (from Theocracy). In that case I don't see a contradiction between "Theocracy" or "Religion in government". Only after his attempts to list Israel as a theocracy failed, the same user decided that the template is not useful. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True those were my intial views. Later, however, I saw the confusion created. Your bad faith (that this proposal has something to do with Israel) is disgusting.Bless sins 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template was set up by User:Patchouli, who was banned for abusive editing and sockpuppetry. From its inception the template's primary purpose has been to push POV. Since Patchouli's banishment it's morphed into a capture the flag game between Team Islam and Team Zion. More importantly, the template is overcategorization on steroids. It's close to worthless for the average user and has no legitimate raison d'etre. A micro-subject like this needs no template. Majoreditor 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the debate on the template talk page, this seems to be the most logical route to take. --myselfalso 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a particularly useless template, and something of a trolling-magnet. Hornplease 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can specifically stated what this template is about and what not, and what kind of links should be included on it. Now it's just confusing! C mon 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like another one of User:Patchouli useless POV pushing templates.--Gerash77 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like many templates, this one is hardly useful. The POV-pushing and other disputes that come with it make it quite undesirable, so as with User:Patchouli it is time to say "goodbye." The Behnam 04:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly entirely for Gerash77's reasoning. --Phoenix 22:33, 9 May 2007 (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:BarnstormersCoach

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 —METS501 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template lists the two managers of a three year old non-affiliated minor league baseball team. Only one of the managers has an article linked. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). Michael Greiner 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When creating a template, one should ask themself, "Is a template really needed to link to one other article?" Of course, the answer is "No." Caknuck 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote change, see below. Keep. Even though it links to only one article, the Houston Texans of the National Football League have only had 2 coaches. --myselfalso 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they don't have a separate template, it is a part of the general Houston Texans template. There is no comparison between the two. Michael Greiner 03:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Also, none of the other teams in that league have a similar template. Delete. --myselfalso 03:48, 3 May 2007 (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.

May 1

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not linked anywhere and I do not see the usefullness of it so it should be speedily deleted — Jorfer 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, the project it links to was just re-activated today after a long hiatus. This meets no speedy deletion criteria. Nardman1 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. By the way, a lack of links is not immediate grounds for speedy deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above, but the project should stay more active in the future. Jmlk17 06:20, 2 May 2007 (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:OurStory

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Outside opinion wanted on external links, nominating for deletion as nonencyclopedic/unreliable self-promotional/spam link — DreamGuy 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Consensus was reached that link placement should be considered on a case-by-case basis at talk pages, rendering a mass-use template unnecessary. –Pomte 06:03, 3 May 2007 (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:Nights series

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. —freak(talk) 02:44, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nights series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Navigational template for two video games, one of which has not even been released. Not useful. — Pagrashtak 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Pagrashtak. - Cyrus XIII 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a template isn't needed for a decade old video game, and one currently "in production". Jmlk17 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better served by a "See also" header. Caknuck 07:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all the various reason. --Guess Who 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --dannycas 23:54, 7 May 2007 (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:24 Series Regulars

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24 Series Regulars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is totally redundant as there are already several existing templates for past and present characters. —T smitts 19:25, 1 May 2007 (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:Infobox South African Alternatives

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox South African Alternatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This infobox was created for use in articles that fall within the scope of WikiProject on South African Alternatives, an inactive project that has been nominated for deletion here. It is currently unused, seemingly incomplete, and redundant to Template:South Africa topics. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Template is redundant, unused, and soon to be completely lacking in any chance to be used. Jmlk17 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. –Pomte 03:50, 7 May 2007 (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:Infobox Politician (Alternative)

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unneeded, Template:Infobox Politician does its job.— Philip Stevens 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redundant duplication. --Dweller 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created this template because I disliked a certain aspect of infobox politician. That infobox has since been changed in an acceptable way, and I'm ok with deleting this. However, please note the following in dealing with similar situations in the future:
  • It is not a duplication and actually differs significantly from infobox politician.
  • It was used until the person nominating this for deletion removed it from the page it was being used on.
  • Corresponding directly with the creator of a template to determine why it was created and why it may be needed, before nominating it for deletion, seems like the right thing to do.

Harrykirk 16:51, 1 May 2007 (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:Db-invalid

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 userfied and deleted by creator. I'll still keep it in my page development archive in case I have some use for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) While well-intended, I think this is a bad idea. This template is used to indicate other templates are invalid, by redirecting those templates to this one. I think that instead, we should delete those invalid templates (and indeed we generally do). >Radiant< 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It looks to me that the user who created this recreated the recently deleted {{Db-product}}, {{Db-list}}, and {{db-hoax}} and made them all redirects to this template. I say Delete all --After Midnight 0001 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - if no one knows that these templates existed, that's less harm than having them existing and confusing people. GracenotesT § 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agreed, delete and salt the invalid reasons templates. Look forward to seeing them at TfD soon. --Dweller 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ugh, well-intended, but an obvious issue-creating template. Jmlk17 06:25, 2 May 2007 (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:AVFC-infobox

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. —freak(talk) 02:42, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Template:AVFC-infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template contains an instance of {{Infobox football club}} pertaining to Aston Villa, currently used in articles Aston Villa F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. statistics. However the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it - not least because it includes a fair use image, inclusion of which should be minimal under Wikipedia rules, and inclusion of FU images in templates is forbidden by policy. This template should only be used in one page and thus it is a waste to have it, not to mention a bad precedent (it could lead to hundreds of similar templates created for other football clubs). Therefore delete and revert to using {{Infobox football club}} in the main Aston Villa F.C. article Qwghlm 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary infobox. --Dweller 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having this is wrong in every way. Punkmorten 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Applies, with fair use in each case, to two current pages and a future, planned age splitting of the history of the club. The claim that "the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it" is unsubstantiated. The policy referred to is not cited, but if there is such a policy, a better solution would be to replace the image with a free one. Better still would be to fix the policy to apply to situations like this one. The "precedence" claim is "Slippery slope" and thus false logic. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited and linked to the fair use policy already. The two most relevant parts are:
"8. The material must' contribute significantly to the article."
"9. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates"
No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article (and the burden of proof is on the editor who proposes adding it), nor the history article for that matter, and in any case it should not be included in the template under #9. And I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template.
Quite apart from the fair use reasons, the infobox should not be replicated freely over any page to do with a club; infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects and not every topic to do with them. That's not policy, it's just mere common sense. I'd quite happily admit my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead? Qwghlm 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article" It provides a visual clue to the subject of the article, as it does on the club's main article.
"I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template" - I donlt say that iot should,.
"infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects" all of the pages discussed are directly about Aston Villa.
"my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead?" It has none.
Andy Mabbett 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on Give or take the image it seems a good idea to have an AV-specific template to put on all AV related articles (which has to be updated just the once rather than once per AV-page). If other FC pages follow suit, does it matter? (The fair use image should be used just once, in the crest section of the main article, which looks a bit odd with no crests in sight. Apparently a new crest is imminent anyway.) -- roundhouse 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no objection to a navbox at the bottom of the article, like {{Arsenal F.C.}} or {{Manchester United}}. But my main objections are the misuse of a fair use image and the misuse of the {{football club infobox}} at the top of articles that are not about clubs in general. Qwghlm 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neither use is a misuse, you should be content, then. Andy Mabbett 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, basically a copy of {{Football club infobox}}, and therefore surplus to requirements. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"basically a copy of {{Football club infobox}}" : No it is not. Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks just that way to me, a glance at the source code will show it it just a transclusion of said infobox. It is superfluous. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a glance at the source code will show it it just a transclusion of said infobox." Poppycock. Where, in the latter, is the AVFC logo? Andy Mabbett 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please pigsonthewing, have a look. It begins with {{Infobox Football club |. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name, as I have told you many times, is Andy Mabbett. I don't need to look, having created it, to know that it uses {{Infobox Football club}}. That does not make it just a transclusion of that template. Would you like someone to explain the difference? Andy Mabbett 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" these pages do not even exist yet" which pages do not exist yet? Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"to two current pages and a future, planned [p]age splitting of the history of the club" - a quote from you Pigsonthewing. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a quote from you". Indeed. Which pages - your plural - do not exist yet? My name, as you well know, is Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett 21:52, 3 May 2007 (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:Universal Press Syndicate

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal Press Syndicate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ridiculously bloated template, should use a category instead, see comments proposing deletion on template's talk page. The template also creates a subtle (probably not intentional) spamming effect by splatting an enormous, obtrusive box festooned with names of Universal Press Syndicate products across dozens of articles. 75.62.7.22 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom... and the different topic areas included could easily be split out in any case into more managable templates. --Dweller 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is this intentional spamming? I can see splitting the template into two, UPS comics and UPS columns, but this template is helpful for fans people to discover new comics, and for Wikipedians to discover comics that need articles. -- Zanimum 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I'd made it clear that I don't consider the spamming effect to be intentional. It's just a side effect of having a template so large that it dwarfs a lot of the articles it's transcluded in, blasting the reader with the names of all those products. Splitting to smaller templates would be an improvement though I'd still prefer using a category. As for helping fans discover new comics, maybe I'm a bit POV on the issue, but I don't think we're here for that. 75.62.7.22 06:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Zanimum, but template looks like crap right now with all the deadlinks. Jmlk17 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful navigation template. I agree that it should be split into {{Universal Press comics}} and {{Universal Press columns}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:28, 2 May 2007 (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:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

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. Splitting it up is still an option, but for now there's nothing really wrong with the template which would call for deletion. —METS501 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The permission must be cleary given, otherwise it's still non-free image (red mark of copyright). The day before yesterday the {{Kremlin.ru}} (which has got permission for free using, but hasn't got permission for derivative works) was deleted exactly in this maner without discussion. Also, for example, CC-BY-ND permits free use without derivative works, but we delete speedy images with it as CSD I3. — Alex Spade 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this template is authorized, I ask for undeletion of {{Kremlin.ru}} for reload of its images from commons to en-wiki. Alex Spade 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are dissatisfied with the deletion of your template, there are other avenues of redress that can be explored. Bringing it up here makes this nomination look like a WP:POINT issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. Alex Spade 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be used for any purpose" is free enough for me. deleting a tag outright isn't the way to resolve copyright questions, it's just going to make things worse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's abou derivative works? Repeat: CC-BY-ND - allowed free use, but not der.works and we delete images with them. This is unfair and inconsequent.Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modify, and possibly rename, into something that says "copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose provided attribution is given to the original creator and/or it is shared under the terms", the two copyroght holder rights we do not find restrictive. Daniel Case 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - something similar is seen on Commons Booksworm Talk to me! 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not similar, let's compare them:
      Commons: derivative work and commercial use must be allowed.
      En-wiki: must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives
    • This is large difference. First template cleary demand of permission for der.works, second is not. The Kremlin.ru not allowed cleary commercial use and der.works, and was deleted from commons - it's all right. But it not include evident restriction - so it can be use at en-wiki. Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the template should at least be revised to indicate that modification and derivative works must be allowed (otherwise Wikipedia does not consider the image to be free). I mentioned this on the template talk page, but nothing was ever done about it. —Bkell (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, good for miscellaneous type licenses. Nardman1 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template can be used correctly or incorrectly, just like any other license tag. I see no reason to delete it. Improper use should be handled on a case-by-case basis.Pagrashtak 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I will change the license (condition of using) of not my image, for example from GFDL to PD, who will be I? The bad user. If I will do it more times? The vandal. Somebody changed condition without notification of all authors. Who is he? A good man? A very good man? Alex Spade 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked the current and the original, and they have the same text. If you're concerned that someone changed the license, please provide an exact diff. Pagrashtak 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For this template [12], for its "brother" [13] Alex Spade 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've got to be kidding. The first link is the addition of a note that basically says "Please list this image for deletion if it violates Wikipedia policy", and the second is a clarification that preserves the intent, made less than 24 hours after the tag's creation. Pagrashtak 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For second , you are right, I was mistaken. Thanks for comment. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For first. You ask to show, when meaning the license was changed, I have shown. Initially only free use was allowed, after must not include terms had appeared. Compare en-wiki-template with commons-template. As I said early, there is large difference between them. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pagrashtak above. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This can be misused, but it isn't necessarily. And it would be really annoying to have a bunch of seperate templates for each restriction someone decides to give. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also support conversion to other templates if it is feasible. For example, this image has a provided that "the photographer is credited" clause, which is fine. But that specific example could easily be converted to a separate template. -- RM 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but notify people first and let them go through the list and salvage anything that can be salvaged. For the case RM mentions, people can use {{attribution}}. I'm not aware of any other terms that one may add to restrict usage of his photo other than attribution so there shouldn't be any need for this. This specific template is more prone to abuse as it isn't even a specific license, it's just one each user can make up themselves. Anything using this license should be either own work by the user or have an OTRS permission and can only have attribution as a term. I'm willing to bet that over 50% of the uses of this template are illegitimate in one of the aforementioned ways.

Conclusion: This template simply encourages people to add terms that we consider to be unfree which would in turn cause the pictures to be deleted. If somebody doesn't want to use CC-BY for some reason, they can use {{attribution}} so there's no need to keep this license. Alternatively, I'd be willing to compromise with slowly deprecating this tag (ie. subst'ing all uses of it, adding a category so we can track the images and deleting the template). Yonatan talk 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, I've added a note to the template to use Attribution when appropriate. I also speedied an orphan using this tag improperly and listed a few at IFD. I'm sure there are many more, if someone wants to go through them. Pagrashtak 14:37, 8 May 2007 (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:CopyrightedFreeUse-User

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What are exactly possibilities of this license tags?
  1. Is it nevertheless variant of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} (initial version, free use only, see above) or {{Attribution}} (last version, free use and modification)?
  2. Why the text of license had been change from FreeUse-variant to Attribution-variant? Many images were loaded before text change, under another conditions, did all authors receive the information about changing of conditions, did all of them they cleary agree with chaging?

I offer two decisions

  1. If change is correct and appropriate, we can just redirect it to Template:Attribution, which can used as {{Attribution|User:Login}}
  2. If change is incorrect, we must revise template text for early edition, and perhaps delete template as subvariant of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, which is discussed above.

Alex Spade 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's already deprecated. Deleting it and replacing it without the consent of the uploaders will just make the license situation even more confused. The text doesn't seem to have undergone any changes in meaning since april 2005, within a day of its creation. Plus, this one doesn't require attribution, so replacing it with attribution would be misleading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure, that every single author know about changing of permission? Alex Spade 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one doesn't require attribution - yes, but {{attribution}} can be placed also without attribution (as {{{1}}}-parameter) and many images with {{attribution}} haven't got {{{1}}}-parameter. Alex Spade 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People falsely declare stuff as gfdl-self all the time. We aren't going to delete that template because of that. Neither would we delete this one because of that. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • of course we aren't going to delete gfdl-self because of that. gfdl-self makes clear which license it is supposed to be, and should gfdl for some reason not be free (which is not the case), then we could go ahead and delete all pictures with it. However, with this template being permitted, we have no way to easily identify the pictures with a certain license. We don't have any space problems, so we should create a single tag for each reason, and not re-use generic tags for various, completely different reasons. --rtc 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for historical purposes, especially because some images are still tagged with it. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand this nomination; this is different from Attribution. What does the nominator propose to do with the images that use this tag? We cannot redirect to Attribution or make any significant revisions to the text. Pagrashtak 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The my main question: is change of license text legitimate? Alex Spade 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The prev.phrase haven't initial significance at this disscussion Alex Spade 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pagrashtak above, with an extra helping of "huh?" added in. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are fewer than 300 current usages of this template seen through "What Links Here". I don't see how it is being abused, however, substituting it would solve the abuse problem if there was one, as the template can't be used for new images. -- RM 02:32, 3 May 2007 (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.

April 30

Template:Ko

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be both deprecated and currently unused. {{Lang}} does the job far more efficiently anyway. — Grutness...wha? 23:05, 30 April 2007 (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:PD-WWII-in-Color

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 ^demon[omg plz] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-WWII-in-Color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another template that currently acts as an image copyright tag but is not qualified to do so; indeed, the first paragraph of http://www.ww2incolor.com/site-faq.html indicates that, "Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners (....) (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions)" (see the URL for the rest of the paragraph). Well, unfortunately we are distributing and copying them and, by labeling and categorising them as "public domain", indicating that they are free to use for commercial reuse and derivative works. They are clearly not, and this is clearly a non-license. I thus recommend that the template be deleted and that a small bit of text indicating the source (ww2incolor.com) and a dated {{no license}} tag is placed in the former template. --Iamunknown 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Same as PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really serving a purpose at this time, as well as per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - somewhat superfluous; as per nom as well. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, interesting, was created in 2005. --Phoenix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WWII in Color seems to have gotten less selective in the copyright department over the years. --Carnildo 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Many images can be attributed to Military Personnel and so on Booksworm Talk to me! 15:56, 1 May 2007 (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:PD-USGov-NARA

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 Retag then delete ^demon[omg plz] 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-NARA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not all NARA images are public domain. Images tagged with this should be marked with {{NARA-image}} and given an appropriate license tag. See also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Iamunknown 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the "vast majority" language is not acceptable for sourcing. Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unneeded and unnecessary. JṃŁЌ17 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per commons-del-req. Alex Spade 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We shouldn't confuse source with license tags, especially when there is not a 1:1 correlation. - cohesion 23:26, 5 May 2007 (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:NHLteamabbr

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, with the nominator implicitly withdrawing by declaring a keep vote. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A useless template. There is no need for this, and I have yet to see it in practical use. — JṃŁЌ17 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I have found much more use for this template. I would even now vote for a keep myself. JṃŁЌ17 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as template creator. It is used as an index for the series of articles listing NHL player names. i.e.: List of NHL players: A. Allows someone to easily understand what each team abbreviation is. Resolute 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful in player lists. -- JamesTeterenko 14:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used for player lists to clarify teams. --Djsasso 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It helps less familiar readers. GoodDay 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Resolute's reasons above. --Pparazorback 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yet to see it in practical use? One would think checking "What links here" would be a good stop before nominating a template for deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be fair, it was only linked to three of the player articles when he nominated it. I subsequently added the template to the other four articles that I have converted to chart form afterward. Resolute 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the fairness. JṃŁЌ17 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, shucks. My apologies. I see that now by looking at the histories, thanks. --Phoenix (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2007 (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:New Jersey Devils current roster

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Jersey Devils current roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is already in use with {{New Jersey Devils Roster}}, and the latter follows the usual format. — JṃŁЌ17 08:40, 30 April 2007 (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:The Wotch

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wotch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used on one article; the two other links in the template now redirect back to that article. Sean Curtin 02:24, 30 April 2007 (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:LittleEinsteinsEpisodes

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the links to individual episodes have been redirected back to the main list. — HokieRNB 13:30, 30 April 2007 (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.

April 29

Template:SBS tag

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. Picaroon (Talk) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SBS tag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Insignificant text to warrant a template (it would be easy to manually add to articles), unused, delete. Iamunknown 23:17, 29 April 2007 (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:Appears in:DB

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. In addition to not being of any practical use, these templates include fair use images which are being actively misused. I encourage all those who recommended keeping them to review Wikipedia:Fair use to understand why the images are inappropriate. Picaroon (Talk) 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Appears in:DB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB, DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB, DBZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB, DBZ, DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBGT, DB Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBZ, DBGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DBZ, DB Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Appears in:DB Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These various templates are included in the various articles of Dragon Ball Z characters. While they're a good idea in theory, to a non-fan of the show, merely seeing an image of something does not describe what shows/movie they appeared in. When clicking on them, they do not link to the article, rather they link to the actual image itself, which does not adequately explain what it's about. ^demon[omg plz] 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What? there is nothing wrong with this. the templates tell which kind of Dragon Ball media the said charecter appears in. there is no reason to delete this. DBZROCKS 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of them are in use in multiple pages. -凶 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the templates. All someone needs to do is go to the top of the many articles where it shows and/or explains what the templates are and what it means nexts to the character that appears on the articles. Heat P 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: I personally feel that these pictures help make it easier for inexperienced readers to know which series that character appeared in. -Adv193 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need to get rid of a useful template. It's used, and could easily extend elsewhere. Jmlk17 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You don't need a whole template for something like this. If you want to list which Dragon Ball shows a character is in, then list them in the infobox with a normal link. It's nothing major or anything, just a needless use of templates. You can do this exact same thing without a template, just as tons of other articles do. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to the keepers, don't take offense or anything to this. If anything, this is a minor housekeeping task. KISS for the infobox links. There is no need to get defensive. We just don't use a whole template for a single icon, we just bypass the template and use the icon directly. It's a minor technical issue, and the images don't have to actually go away. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was impressed by this intuitive way to label characters, especially for the ones who are only described in sections of lists witout infoboxes; see List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball for an example. The top of such lists mentions the icons, and can be expanded with a legend for what each mean. The images can be made to link to the series they represent. The links in infoboxes can put the series name to the right of the image like {{flag}}. So a small option for headings, and a text option for infoboxes. I think this system is redeemable and can be kept pending improvements. –Pomte 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So just use the image directly instead of the template. The only thing in the template is the image, so there's really no need. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to mention that even in that example article, listing (in text with a link) which series the character appears in would be better than the icon. It's also being done in the subheader currently, which should be changed. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think a better place than the subheader is to the right, either under the thumbnail or within the caption. Listing the series with full text links vertically would create whitespace between character sections, and listing horizontally is harder to read. Easier to read if text is added so the image can be used foremost for identification. If these templates have to be subst'd in the end, then sure, but it'd be less intuitive and harder to maintain for something so widely used. –Pomte 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Or inline with the text, such as "X is a character in.." As far as maintenance goes, well that's no different than any other image out there, and you'd only run into a problem if you were changing file formats for the image, else you'd just update the one image. I don't really feel strongly about this, though, so whatever's cool with me. -- Ned Scott 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Pomte & Ned Scott - Though each picture helps differentiate whether the character appeared in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT or the Dragon Ball movies or all of them, a template markup (like the flag one) would serve better and I believe wouldn't ruin the /* (section name) */ link when you try to go to it. Understandable? ~I'm anonymous
  • Keep They are useful imho Helios 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, definitively delete:
  • As fair use images in the template namespace. These other ones are not that useful, in my humble opinion; remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a multimedia extravaganza. While infoboxes and the like aren't that bad of an idea, this is inline and a bit too unencyclopedic (and remember WP:SELF: on some mirrors, people will either not have the images at all, or have no idea what the hell those little icons are). I also agree that they're sort ofcrufty; I have no idea what they mean, and finding out what they mean would probably take longer than extracting information from the text. This all adds up to delete all for me. GracenotesT § 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, as they use fair use images in the template namespace and such a template without images is useless. Many had been mistagged as "public domain" images (based on the misguided assumption that if one creates his own imitation of a logo, it qualifies as public domain) but I have properly tagged them and CSD'd the ones currently at Commons. Anyway, as I said, they have fair use images (big no-no) and an equivalent template that doesn't employ fair use images is completely useless. Axem Titanium 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if I would call them all fair use images, but the DBZ one definitely is. The others are very simplistic, and while they are being used to mimic the real thing, it's just a circle with a star in the middle. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All These templates are highly needed. One can just look at it and see basics about the characters (and other). There is nothing wrong with the templates. SSJ 5 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above comments--$UIT 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is an important template. It gives the reader the information of which part of Dragon Ball the charecter in question appears in. Also how can you link movie charecters to the article if they appear in multiple movies? Of course we could link the GT DB and DBZ templates to their respective articles. The information provided by the templates is important. It is not cruft or Fanon or speculation. The template is just a neat why of showing which of the 3 dragon Balls the charecter appears in and if they appear in a Dragon Ball movie. the templates themselves don't take up much room and are very good at getting their information across. Deleting this template is just like deleting good information out of the articles. DBZROCKS 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we deleting good information out of articles? The information is already there, in the text. GracenotesT § 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe one article with a colored table ({{yes}} and {{no}}) could replace this conceptually? GracenotesT § 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But why replace? Why scroll down a list to find out if someone is in Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball Z when currentally it is right there? The template is only doing good and helping wikipedia. DBZROCKS 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... looking over it, the article text almost completely lacks an out-of-universe perspective. GracenotesT § 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? DBZROCKS 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball for an example. It's affected by in-universe-ness a bit. GracenotesT § 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether a character is in a certain series or whatever should be stated in the text. We do not need a ugly, convoluted system for this, especially when text is a much simpler and more reader-friendly alternative. ' 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment convoluted? its a simple picture people. Its there because it is quick reference. Someone shouldn't have to dig into the article to find such simple information. Just like the Manga names and the Romanji. Its not worth merging it into the article because it is much eaiser and much more convienient to just put it on the nifty little table we have. I am almost sure that people reading the articles would apriciate it just being there. I mean which sounds better:
Son Goku appears in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. or
A template that says the same thing with 1/3 of the space fits onto the table and has a nifty graphic to boost. The table on the articles is there to give facts that are in the article but give a reader quick info that would be a pain to dredge up by going through the article. Why was this put up for deletion? in response to Demon's comment, linking the image to the Dragon Ball Z GT article would be a waste. The articles don't explain what role every charecter had in the series that is what the article for the charecter the template is on is for. how is a one to four little images on a table a ugly and convoulted system, in fact how is it easier to look up something in the text than to glance at a table that tells you the same thing but is faster and easier to find, its right at the top of the page with a sign that says apears in: how is that harder to see than looking in a long article of text? hope I didn't offend anyone with this I like to think of all non vandalising/non Sockpuppetting/non other kind of evil Wikipedians as my friends :) DBZROCKS 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nifty graphic, yes, but may be fair use. If the images are meant to be recognizable as logos (quote: "quick identification" below), then fair use can't happen. If they're not meant to recognized as logos, then the system is original research. GracenotesT § 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All If you're going to foolishly delete these, you might as well delete all the country flag icons as well. They serve the same purpose for quick identification. Evan1975 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But they aren't fair use images, are they? The images in our DB templates are.--$UIT 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some canvassing occurred here. While perhaps in good faith, this does muddy the waters a bit. GracenotesT § 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah, this is complicated. There are 9 keeps, 5 of which comes from members of the wikiproject. There are 5 deletes. There has been no response to the issue of fair use. Relisting might be good for this, but I'm not going to do it, since I was quite involved in the debate. GracenotesT § 02:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All These are good for quick reference if you're like myself using DBZ as a research project. I can quickly find out all the info on the said item, without trawling through the text! As well as that it looks upgly to write it out in full and takes up more space. Quick identifiable icons work wonders and are better for people whom struggle with large volumes of text. I know that I struggle with large volumes of text because of bad eye sight and the icons are a godsent!UltimateDingbat 11:42, 06 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about... fair use... Gracenotes faints from exhaustion 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You should stop editing in Super Saiyan mode to replenish any lost energy. I have retracted my keep position. At first I had only checked the simple circle image with the star, which has since been tagged as a copyright violation. I don't know the specifics with images like this and Image:Azumanga.svg, but it's best to be on the safe side. A solution is to replace these logos with generic images of plain, colored text ("DB", "DBZ", "DBGT", and "DB" with a free movie icon), like in userboxes. –Pomte 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I would be happy with linked text instead of images. If the articles are edited to comply with WP:WAF, then I don't think a template is needed anymore (a mini-infobox might even work). Of color I am dubious, but this seems like a good compromise if implemented correctly... sigh, energy. << Super Saiyan debate mode off >>. GracenotesT § 16:42, 7 May 2007 (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:Sxc-warning

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 ^demon[omg plz] 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sxc-warning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not needed anymore. Images tagged with this template have been deleted or retagged after listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. This nomination also includes Category:Unfree SXC licensed images. — Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I was browsing through the templates when I was new and the template text educated me about images from this host. Nardman1 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, should an unused template &category be kept to educate users about (often) not free enough images of a certain website? Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can find better ways to educate people. For example, if we adopt common's multiple upload pages we can put SXC as a dropdown option for images from other sites.. and have it bring up a regular deletion notice. ;) Perhaps we should start directing people to the commons bad sources page at Commons:Commons:Bad_sources? --Gmaxwell 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading my comment, to be clear, my question was meant rhetorically. :) The template should not be kept for educating editors. An en.wikipedia version of the Commons bad sources might be practical yes. Garion96 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2007 (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:3-digit ZIP Codes

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 {{3-digit ZIP Codes}}, {{ZIP Code Lists}} and {{2-digit prefixes for 5-digit ZIP codes}}. Default to keep for {{Three-digit ZIP Code table}} as it is an integral element of ZIP Code prefixes, which was not nominated for deletion. Should be considered together if deletion is thought warranted. WjBscribe 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3-digit ZIP Codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:ZIP Code Lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Three-digit ZIP Code table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2-digit prefixes for 5-digit ZIP codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a cross-namespace nomination. Discuss it here, please. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:06, 29 April 2007 (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:/doc

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, move notice into place, and protect, which I have already done. ^demon[omg plz] 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This may seem like an odd request, but when users mistakenly substitute template:stub or template:GFDL, and lord knows how many other templates, they end up transcluding Template:/doc. Someone spammed it recently and got transcluded on a half dozen articles and image pages. I blanked it temporarily to prevent the spam from showing up, but it'd be nice to have that template deleted and/or locked with nothing outside of a noinclude. Not sure which of those two is the better alternative MrZaiustalk 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace the current contents with a warning for template developers that they need to fix their doc transclusion. That way the templates will tend to get fixed. It should definitely be protected no matter what else is done with it - that's a big freaking spamhole we have there. Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • make a permanently protected deleted page. Nardman1 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make an informative permanently protected deleted page saying something like, "If you are looking at this page, you may not be aware of the Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern." --Iamunknown 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect No need for this crap to happen again now is there? Jmlk17 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect - question: "protect" means to prevent others from re-creating it, correct? ~I'm anonymous
  • If this template existed with any content, it would kind of defeat the point of the /doc subpage. So either keep blank and protected or delete and add to Wikipedia:Protected titles GracenotesT § 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. Mike Dillon 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protect and replace with <noinclude>'d helpful info for users who search Template:/doc thinking it will reveal what {{/doc}} contains when they encounter it. –Pomte 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a proposed template at Template:/doc/Proposed that the closing administrator may wish to consider history merging with Template:/doc or, if not, to delete it. --Iamunknown 00:06, 8 May 2007 (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:National Anthems of ...

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. Garion96 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Anthems of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of Oceania and the Pacific Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of South America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National Anthems of Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merged into a single Template:National Anthems. — Guilherme (t/c) 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely keep. We already have such a world national anthem template, which quite large, so is used in the List of national anthems of the world article; the individual continent templates are used for the various national anthem pages to keep the templates focused on particular geographic regions. This CFD is unnecessary at best, and disruptive at worst. Please try to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive, not destructive manner. The fact that the individual proposing the deletion did not even check to see that such a world template already exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld shows that s/he has not actually considered this issue carefully. Badagnani 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Badagnani; a very usable template. Jmlk17 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree, a very useful template. Who'd want to get rid of it?Inkan1969 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify, it's not just a single template under consideration but each of the continent/geographical region templates, as well as the original "global" template. The "global" template was judged too large to put on each of the pages for the individual anthems, so if, for example, the anthem is for a European nation that page gets the Europe anthem template. The huge "global" template appears only on the National anthem and List of national anthems pages. IMO this has worked well so far. The template User:Guilherme Paula has created duplicates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld , which has already existed for some time. Badagnani 09:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See Wikipedia:Guidelines for "(Continent/region) topic" templates and the talk pages of those templates for numerous examples that show why this is done. –Pomte 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Sorry, I didn't see Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld. So, delete my duplicated Template:National Anthems. — Guilherme (t/c) 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful and coherent templates. Man vyi 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful templates and having them all in one will be unnessesary and will clutter up the article footer space. —dima/talk/ 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call this TFD disruptive, but because a single national template would just be too large, since not only we have anthems of nations, but of those that are not nations or have some kind of special status. That would be too large to maintain, so it is a good idea to split them up by region. keep. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is. A template with over 192 countries on it would be exhaustive! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should we file a TfD for the huge {{National Anthems}}? NikoSilver 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - it's standard to list certain things (human rights, flags, capital punishment, religion) by continent. Biruitorul 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and a good idea would be to add a hidden <show> at the bottom of each template that opens the list of anthems of the rest of the world. --Andersmusician 05:41, 5 May 2007 (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:DHC

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 ^demon[omg plz] 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info already covered much better in {{de Havilland Canada}}. — - Emt147 Burninate! 02:26, 29 April 2007 (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:Infobox European Union

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 speedy close as delete per below, since template no longer in use. David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No more necessary! I had modified[[14]] Template:Infobox Country to be more flexible. Now, supports other_symbol, other_symbol_type, membership, membership_links and capital_type. — Guilherme (t/c) 01:39, 29 April 2007 (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:Virginia Tech massacre 1

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. Picaroon (Talk) 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia Tech massacre 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A navigational template for the incident already exists. -Phoenix 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Template:Virginia Tech massacre is the already existing template. Carcharoth 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves a slightly different function, but not enough to keep it. Carcharoth 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. Much better templates out there. Jmlk17 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Focus work on one template. –Pomte 09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not necessarily against this layout, but I'd rather see a discussion take place at Template talk:Virginia Tech massacre, and if agreement is found modify that template to a different layout. --StuffOfInterest 12:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above Booksworm Talk to me! 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although personally I prefer this layout to the other one (it looks ugly, imo), forking it is not the right way to do things, discuss a format changes on the main one. ^demon[omg plz] 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~I'm anonymous
  • Delete but expand the other one slightly by adding links to more people Nyttend`
    • Has been discussed sufficiently on the talk page for that template. Looks like most people think it's fine how it is. --Phoenix (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2007 (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.

April 28

Template:Sections of the Lima Metropolitan 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sections of the Lima Metropolitan Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The "Lima" template (template:Lima) already covers all links here.— Andersmusician 23:36, 28 April 2007 (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:Infobox Sakshama

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in only one article presently nominated for AfD; if the article does survive, this could easily be replaced with the standard corp/org infobox, as this is essentially a duplicate, provides no additional parameters, and no evidence of needing other parameters has been given. --Kinu t/c 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Phoenix 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not in use; soon won't be needed whatsoever. Jmlk17 06:33, 29 April 2007 (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:Chrono Cross

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrono Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should be deleted because it's redundant with Template:Chrono series. — Kariteh 14:34, 28 April 2007 (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:Chrono Trigger

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

Template:Chrono Trigger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should be deleted because it's redundant with Template:Chrono series. — Kariteh 14:32, 28 April 2007 (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 Ultimate Encyclopedia" templates

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 Withdrawn, templates now part of a bigger discussion at MfD here. VegaDark 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Isles Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:British Isles Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Administrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Birding Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Birding Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia California Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia California Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Featured Website (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Presidents Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Presidents Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Star Wars Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Star Wars Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:The Ultimate Encyclopedia Virginia Project member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All of these templates were apparently created for use on another Wiki. This should therefore be on that Wiki, not here. All should be deleted or at least userfied. VegaDark 02:03, 28 April 2007 (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.

April 27

(moon) templates

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. Picaroon (Talk) 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(moon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:(Moon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be an unused template intended to make it easier to link to a page ending with (moon). It isn't any easier than just using a Pipe trick. (Moon) is a redirect to (moon). -- kenb215 talk 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator -- kenb215 talk 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial play apparently // FrankB 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and unneeded. Jmlk17 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's useless and orphaned. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- useless template. Eaomatrix 12:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful, because it decreases the risk of a typo always present with a pipe trick. For example, one could write [[Hyrokkin (moon)|Hrokkin]] without noticing the typo in the apparent part. Urhixidur 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a pipe trick. A pipe trick, as shown in the link, is typing this [[Hyrokkin (moon)|]], which creates this Hyrokkin. -- kenb215 talk 15:32, 30 April 2007 (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.

Several unnecessary "copyright" templates

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. Picaroon (Talk) 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright 2005 Joan Cartwright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Moose Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Open source (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:© AS projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates are not entirely similar, but they are all unnecessary, formerly used in only a couple of instances (but then substituted by me) and, in general, seem to be made out of mistaken assumptions regarding image use policy. I'll be nominating more in batches as I go through User:Kotepho/reports/templates used in ns:6, but the index is currently too large to realistically go through and deal with all of the templates in one run. --Iamunknown 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all mistakes, or misinformed creation. - cohesion 03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Junk templates. Jmlk17 07:11, 28 April 2007 (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:User no GFDL

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 Speedy Delete by David Gerard as "a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion review discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 27#Template:User_no_GFDL - David Gerard 11:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User no GFDL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dunno where to start, but it just simply shouldn't exist on Wikipedia - we cannot give away a free encyclopedia built on fair use images. Anyway, it may encourage users to use fair use images where a free image would be more appropriate - most users seem to think fair use to represent a living person is fine, we must not reinforce this idea, and it could feasibly encourage edit wars, who constitutes a better fair use image, so in that respect it's too ambiguous. We need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia only uses fair use images when a free image cannot be used, created or can exist. Deletion of this userbox is a step in the right direction. -- Nick t 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kill it with a stick - this is grossly inappropriate and a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy. It's as inappropriate as "Wikipedians against Neutral Point Of View". Or "Wikipedians against Wikipedia". Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation - David Gerard 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have been zapped on sight. It abuses the resources of a free encyclopedia to agitate against the encyclopedia's founding principles. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop -- Goodness, it's just a userbox, it won't harm you. The prior "no consensus" hasn't changed, and certainly two comments here aren't enough to indicate it has. I've userfied the box at {{User:Jenolen/Userboxes/User no GFDL}}. Or did you mean to take this action: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL to deletion review? Because the result of the debate was no consensus... Jenolen speak it! 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting! -- I tried to follow what seemed to be the most common theme of the previous deletion debate - "Keep and Userfy" -- but this box was deemed "an attack on the Foundation" -- and deleted from my user space. Some ideas, I guess, are really dangerous, although the idea that a poor quality GFDL image should be prefered to a professional quality fair use image is, thankfully, a minority viewpoint. Jenolen 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remember that "fair use" in this case means "non-free". One of the elements of the fair use defense is that no alternative image exists. It's hard to argue that you're not infringing someone's copyright massively if you put their property onto a top-ten website when you had access to an alternative. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the idea that a poor quality GFDL image should be prefered to a professional quality fair use image" is a Foundation viewpoint. It's policy and the way things are here. I'm a staunch fan of fair use as appropriate - talking about things requires quoting them, and that applies to images as well as text - but your viewpoint is completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, implicitly and explicitly. This is mission-statement level stuff - David Gerard 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill advocacy templates (like this one). Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:35, 27 April 2007 (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:BaixSegura

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. Neither of the two commenters seem to have arguments beyond the fact that this is the Valencian equivalent of the Spanish name. Redirects from other languages are fine for articles but not every helpful for templates. Picaroon (Talk) 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan redirected to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. — SueHay 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirection. I hadn't even noticed that it was a seperate template. The predominant language in this region is Castillian Spanish, not Valencian, so the main title of the template shoulc be an approximation to the Spanish name. Redirects are, of course, welcome! Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't state that very clearly. I didn't redirect the template myself. You redirected Template:BaixSegura to Template:Vega Baja del Segura back on 27 June 2006. I'm merely suggesting that the unused template be deleted so that it stops appearing on template maintenance lists. Since this was all quite some time ago, you might've forgotten that you also redirected Template:ElBaixSegura to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. I didn't know there was a language issue over this, I'm just trying to clean up lists of templates with red links. --SueHay 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're having trouble running your bot, program it better, don't delete perfectly good redirects. Nardman1 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep redirect per language issues. Nardman1 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a redirect discussion. The Template:BaixSegura was previously redirected to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. This is a discussion about whether or not to delete the unused Template:BaixSegura. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that. --SueHay 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of "keep redirect" (per current status) wasn't I plain about? I'm pretty sure my vote (or opinion if you will) is clear enough. I say keep the template, with the redirect. Simple, no? Nardman1 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep it if nothing links to it? I don't understand. Only Template:Vega Baja del Segura is in use now. --SueHay 03:58, 1 May 2007 (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:Canadian federal election, 2005/on-n

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. Picaroon (Talk) 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian federal election, 2005/on-n (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphan template. Template:Canadian federal election, 2006/on-n used instead. — SueHay 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Phoenix 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 01:08, 30 April 2007 (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:MathSymbols

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template not used. Written in HTML. — SueHay 04:04, 27 April 2007 (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:Brugg

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. Picaroon (Talk) 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan template. Template in use is Template:Municipalities of the district of Brugg — SueHay 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Malevious, for making clear what I didn't make clear. --SueHay 03:19, 30 April 2007 (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:Military-Insignia (2nd nomination)

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 Keeping, with changes, per the discussion below, this template should be refactored (which I just finished doing) to indicate that a more appropriate copyright tag needs to be used. In addition, I have created Category:Military Insignia images needing copyright status check, which will reside within Category:Images_requiring_maintenance ^demon[omg plz] 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military-Insignia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a previous no consensus debate about this template I am bringing it here again. This template doesn't appear to reflect international copyright law - it vaguely asserts that military symbols of rank are exempt from copyright. Nobody has been able to produce anything to that effect. Military symbols in certain countries may not be protected by copyright - but it's certainly not a blanket exemption. I would propose that we deprecate this template (indicating that images uploaded after 30 April 2007 will be speedy deleted) and migrate the existing images to a either a non-free template (i.e. something like non-free-military-insignia) under fair use or appropraite nation PD templates. Megapixie 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite and repurpose (preferred choice), or, delete deprecate. I agree that the current text appears to be completely at odds with reality, and something should be done about this ASAP. But I don't necessarily think that deleting the template is the best solution. I would suggest, instead, repurposing this as a maintenance template. Rewrite the text completely, to explain what the situation actually is (US Gov't insignia are PD, most other countries' insignia are not, but some may have lapsed copyrights, etc.), and to suggest some cleanup strategies (might need a separate page for that). Have the template put the images in a "copyright uncertain" category (I assume we have one like that), and unleash the cleanup crews and wikignomes. Xtifr tälk 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further reflection, I think deletion would be a very bad idea, since it would leave a bunch of images in limbo. If the "what links here" page ever becomes empty, then we can discuss deletion. Xtifr tälk 09:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Xtifr - the only additional comments I have are that insignia (especially unit citations) may actually be also trademarks, which don't always have an expiration date. Another important note is that commons (and probably other wikis) has it too: commons:Template:Military Insignia. one the other hand thay also have commons:Template:Insignia which seems to say the same as this discussion. DGtal 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megapixie, you're making a second deletion proposal three days after the first one was rejected? What's the purpose with having these debates at all if people simply repropose them when they don't like the result? Is it even in conformity with deletion policy to make a new proposal three days after the last one was rejected? Valentinian T / C 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't personally interpret WP:DEL otherwise than renominations should happen after a "reasonable amount of time" has passed. Do we have any precedent on what such a time frame is? Valentinian T / C 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It depends heavily on the circumstances. Re-nominating after a no-consensus close usually has a much lower threshold. It also depends on whether people are actually having a discussion, or simply trying to out-shout each other. I just saw a case where a no-consensus was re-opened the next day, and many of the participants came back, and nobody objected, because they all wanted to find a consensus and believed they could. It's rare, but it happens. Basically, the more it looks like you're trying to game the system by re-nominating till you get the result you want, the more likely you are to be shut down. In this case, Megapixel isn't even asking for deletion, he's asking for the template to be deprecated, which is a whole new question. Xtifr tälk 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace template on all pages with other, more appropriate tags, and only renominate for deletion once the template is not used. Until then, Keep. --Qyd 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult situation. We should not have a blanket template for insignia, because the copyright situation is too complex. However, I don't think that we should be taking hasty action either. Should be deleted, but not yet. A WP:RFC might be more appropriate in the meantime, and affected WikiProjects should be asked to propose replacements. Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • RFC has been done already. (See links in previous nomination.) —xyzzyn 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While all US insignia fall under the PD flag for works of the US goverment, This May differ from Country to country, While there may not be an expression of Copyright ownership in other countries, this is mostly for 1. To Stop Illegal production of the Insignia as wearing them is against the law in a lot of countries. 2. Using them for Commercial purposes. 3. Other forces using the particular insignia. This Template doesn't reflect what international copright law? Insignia are not Copyright in the United States, with particular regulations for their use, European Union Copyright law is extrememly Vague although being reviewed, and in some parts of Asia Copyright Law is almost non existant. Queens Copyright states that the information may be used as long as it doens't bring the forces into disrepute (Britain and Commonwealth Countries this was discussed in the previous nomination). AND I AGREE just because there was no consensus last time, doesn't mean you keep putting it up here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stabilo boss (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Unlike last time, Megapixel is not asking for the article to be deleted; he's suggesting that it be deprecated. Which was actually suggested by one of the people who opined keep at the last discussion. Furthermore, this is a complex issue, and the last debate had almost as many different opinions as participants. If this were a simple thumbs-up/down question, then I would tend to agree about the speed of the relisting, but it's not, and I think the topic warrants further discussion. Although this may be the wrong forum, and I don't envy the person who'll attempt to close this. :) Xtifr tälk 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at least deprecate. The template still contains no sane reasoning for any particular copyright status. On the matter of procedure, ‘no consensus’ means exactly what it says; apparently Megapixie feels that consensus can be achieved and the standard means for achieving consensus is a discussion in the relvant forum, which is what’s happening. —xyzzyn 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I believe this is precisely and exactly correct as worded; Military rank insignia are not subject to copyright laws. Period. NO AMBIGUITY. Someone is confusing use of (as in wearing) with display of Insignia in general (Note the disclaimer on the bottom of that article.) It is improper and illegal to drive a car marked Police if one is not employed as one, that does not make it improper, illegal, nor protected by copyright to display what symbols one carries, and the prohibition on copyrighting such makes tons of sense under various international conventions, beginning with the Geneva convention. Combatants must be able to identify the personel and ranks of their adversaries or face international condemnation for mistreatment of persons of rank. Taking the point made in the first link (RFC) about one side providing them to the other, how many copies would one provide?... They are not copyrighted simply because they need to be copied. Lastly, can't you guys find something serious and important to worry about? The worst that will happen if some government takes umbrage is they will send a letter, and THEN and ONLY THEN should all this man-power be put into worrying about it. Bet you if you checked the local library most encyclopedia's have color plates showing tons of these inconsequential artifacts. Granted the designs are copyrighted and the uses are constrained both nationally and internationally, but this when all is said and done is a huge amount of effort discussing an image of an artifact. Can you copyright a building, a bridge, or a shirt? Worry about something worth your time. This is a tempest in a teapot! (IMHO, it's AGF to have this re-nominated so soon, and shame on anyone supporting that too!) // FrankB 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your first claim, that these are not subject to copyright: it was clearly established at the RFC discussion that Canadian insignia are subject to Crown copyright, administered by the Dept. Of National Defence . Unless you can provide a reliable source to trump the existing evidence and prove your claim, I think we have to dismiss it as sheer speculation, and not a justification for violating fundamental Wikipedia policy. Worse, you then attack the policy ("the worst that will happen ... is they will send a letter... and ONLY THEN should ... [we] worry about it"). Believe it or not, some of us actually care about the goals of this project. Some of us also prefer to obey the law without being forced. You then, confusingly, go on to add, "Granted the designs are copyrighted..." which seems to contradict your initial premise. And we're not, as you state, "discussing an image of an artifact"; we are discussing a label that happens to be applied to a whole bunch of images. The images themselves are fine (although the copyrighted ones need to be tagged for fair use). Nobody is suggesting that any images be deleted, if that's your concern! We're suggesting that some text be changed or removed (or deprecated) because it contains serious misinformation. I think that lying to our users is more than a tempest in a teapot. (And yes, buildings, bridges and shirts can be copyrighted, but only if they contain "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article".[15] Since you asked.) cheers, Xtifr tälk 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Military insignia are extremely utilitarian, let me tell you (as an active duty Sailor). It is extremely critical to be able to instantaneously understand a military person's relative rank and which country he represents. Any supposed artistic elements in the designs serve not an artistic function, but utilitarian. They are founded in each country's heraldic traditions and serve to quickly identifies them by their country and rank, and if not actually recognized by the viewer, then the heraldic traditions at least give you a good idea. These images are PD as utilitarian and as required by the Geneva Convention. Nardman1 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Utilitarian objects are copyrighted to the extent that they contain creative material which is independent of their normal use. The amount of creativity required to cause copyright protection is minimal. For example, the eagle from a colonel’s insignia, used in a non-utilitarian context, would be indubitably copyrighted; since this design is not implied by the purpose of the insignia (say ‘colonel’ on the uniform), it makes the insignia subject to copyright.

Regardless of the precise balance of utility and creativity in actual insignia, it should be obvious that drawings of insignia are not in any way utilitarian, but are creative works. —xyzzyn 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It obviously serves at least SOME purpose; it links to numerous article pages. Also, per above comment(s). Jmlk17 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently serves the purpose of misinforming our users and, worse yet, categorizing a bunch of images—some of which are public domain and some aren't—as public domain. I agree that it's used on too many pages to be deleted, but it also, obviously, needs to be fixed. What we're trying to figure out is how. Got any suggestions? Xtifr tälk 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Geneva conventions REQUIRE that military insignia be recognizable by other armed forces. Other countries are REQUIRED to instruct their personnel on the appearances of other countries' insignia. The only way to do so is by reproducing them. International law thus implicitly forbids disallowing copies of these insignia. Nardman1 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This legal argument was already in the first discussion (here), a few people in that discussion said they did some research on the treaties but nobody managed to find the legal basis. Could you back this claim with any specific wording? DGtal 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately while I believe this to be true, it is probably original research. The Geneva Convention doesn't even require organized militaries to have insignias, only irregular militias. See [16] for counter-argument. Getting from A to B in this argument requires going through C-Z. I still think the patches are entirely utilitarian though, and might be PD under that angle. Nardman1 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some nations, like Russia, Belarus, United States and others do not place military insignia under copyright, others do. The copyright and recognition of insignia are two different issues, we should focus on the first issue. I have asked others before to provide information on if any of the Genevea Conventions provide for the copyright of insignia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no conclusive evidence or case law suggesting that military insignia is by default ineligible for copyright; until we can find such information, we should consider digital reproductions on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. --Iamunknown 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've so far only found indirect references to badges of rank; The 3rd Geneva Convention, § 43 states Upon the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties to the conflict shall communicate to one another the titles and ranks of all the persons mentioned in Article 4 of the present Convention, in order to ensure equality of treatment between prisoners of equivalent rank. Titles and ranks which are subsequently created shall form the subject of similar communications. [17] The purpose of establishing the comparative rank of soldiers from the two armies is expressly mentioned but § 17 of the same convention makes it the POW's responsibility to relay such information in his / her own case: Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. But to be the devil's advocate, if one army isn't able to identify members of the other correctly, that will seriously undermine the entire construction. Has somebody tried contacting the U.S. military? They must have lawyers employed that know this stuff by heart. Valentinian T / C 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but none of that has any necessary effect on copyright status. The copyright holder can certainly communicate such information without putting the copyrighted works into the public domain or under a free licence. —xyzzyn 18:41, 3 May 2007 (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.

April 26

Sock templates for meme vandals

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WiC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:WoW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These unused templates categorise pages as sock puppets of ancient vandals such as WoW or WiC who are very often copied by meme vandals seeking to share in the notoriety or gain notice. They were deprecated in early October 2006 and deleted in late February 2007 (with no usage during that period), then recreated by FYA in late April 2007 as inaccurate shortcuts for proven sockpuppets ({{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}}). Both are currently unused. See Wikipedia:Deny recognition for the reasoning that led to their deprecation nearly eight months ago, which still applies today. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Definitely delete as unnecessary and per WP:DENY. --Iamunknown 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need for this shortcut. –Pomte 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Pomte. Jmlk17 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have categories to keep the sockpuppets in order. The standard indefblock templates work fine. YechielMan 23:36, 30 April 2007 (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:Portuguese international ties

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portuguese international ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicated information. Already in section of "International organizations" templates - Guilherme (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as superfluous reverse navigation redundant to templates at the bottom of Portugal. –Pomte 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Pomte, but also just completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:21, 28 April 2007 (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:Texas Rangers

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Texas Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary space-hogging template. Box comprises mostly redlinks; the few blue links in the template are easy enough to find within the article. Mr. Darcy talk

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:db-unverifiable

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 speedy delete. Kusma (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-unverifiable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely empty as is, and we don't speedy delete for verifiability, so the tag is fairly useless in practice. If CSD policy changes concerning unverifiable content, we can recreate it then. —-badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as empty. Kusma (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2007 (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:db-product

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 nuke from orbit. What is it with the baseless CSD templates this week? >Radiant< 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-product (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improper tag detailing an improper speedy deletion criteria, as products do not fall under CSD A7. Tag serves no legitimate purpose due to it being misleading. -—badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I created this template for use while I started doing NPP and should have read up on speedy deletion criteria and policy beforehand. Well, everybody makes mistakes early in their "Wikicareer". --Poeloq 14:31, 26 April 2007 (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:Hairstyles

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has no purpose. Categories should be used instead. —Bensin 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete and agree. Has no purpose whatsoever Booksworm Talk to me! 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Booksworm. Jmlk17 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Wenli 02:34, 27 April 2007 (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:Riskofvandalism

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ugly box that applies to most of Wikipedia's articles. We don't want to draw extra attention to vandalism, nor violate WP:BEANS and WP:DENY. Delete. — Kusma (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the points above. It will just attract more vandalism instead of getting rid of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Booksworm (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the fact that articles with big vandalism problems should get semi-protected, not have a tag calling attention to vandals... why would vandalism mean that you should read the talk page before changing things? -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kusma. —dima/talk/ 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ALL Wikipedia articles are at risk of vandalism, so this template is redundant and unnecessary. — Wenli 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, plus it's recreated. Addhoc 15:48, 1 May 2007 (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.

Old discussions

April 25

Template:SightLandmarkDenmark

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a semi-random grab bag of Danish sights. Not a bad list but not encyclopedic, and where is Saint Canute's Cathedral in Odense, Viborg Cathedral, the Little Mermaid, the Dybbøl trenches, Kronborg Castle, Koldinghus, Ribe Cathedral, and Skamlingsbanken? Delete. Valentinian T / C 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:Random listing; uncencylopedic; no criteria used to determine entries. Peregrine981 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 01:56, 30 April 2007 (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:Concept automobile

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 consensus. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Concept automobile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As concept cars are rarely ever produced in any form similar to the concept, it is likely that this template, unlike other "future/timing" templates, will never be removed from articles it is on. As such, it violates WP:NDT, especially "Concept automobiles, and their derivatives if any, are subject to delays or cancellation by the automaker." — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is some sort of template for things in development (or there should be); we don't need this overspecific, and wordy, template. -Amarkov moo! 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with Comment: actually the vast majority of all-new and significantly redesigned automobiles show up first at the various auto shows and magazines as Concept cars. There are usually significant changes in the car's evolution from concept, to prototype, to production; which is why a special template for Concept Car was created - to differentiate them from production automobiles and even prototypes, which are relatively close to production specifications. The template could probably use some wordsmithing to address concerns about violating the disclaimer template guideline. As explained in the guideline, it is meant to discourage making templates that warn readers about possibly offensive material - such as profanity or sexual themes. I believe that the disclaimer template guideline does not really apply here: in fact, it could be said that the template at the top of the guideline page itself would violate it's own text on disclaimer templates - as it essentially "warns" the reader that the following is only a WP:GUIDELINE, and not a firm WP:POLICY per se. Finally, deleting a template based on the blind assumption that there "is" or "should be" ... "some sort of template for things in development" is not a particularly reasonable or valid justification. Wordiness can be addressed by means other than a deletion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about the cars that will not be produced (Ford Airstream for an example)? Cars like that are built only to show off designs and new technology. Something similar to the Ford Interceptor might not be built in any form for years, even then, it might be totally different and have a different name. Template:Future automobile works better for eventual-production cars, while never-to-be-produced cars don't need a template like this as it would be permanent. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes a car "never-to-be-produced"? The Ford Shelby Cobra Concept, for example, may never see production, but who is to say Ford won't suddenly decide to produce the car at some point in the future? Likewise, an "eventual-production" car may be scrapped at any point. Most of these articles are distinctly either concept cars or just cars. It seems to me that if the article is about a concept car, the very definition of a concept car conveys all of the information shown in the template. When the car is officially announced as a production car, then edit the article to say so and add the Template:Future automobile to it. Sully 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are templates saying things like: This article talks about a tunnel that will soon be built or This article talks about a US highway currently under construction' so why should we delete this one? The Weak in Weak Keep is due to the fact that the explanation on the template is really too long! Booksworm Talk to me! 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that many of the articles in Category:Concept automobiles in fact don't use this template (pick 10 articles at random... it's hard to find even 2 that have it on the article), so it doesn't necessarily follow that the template must be permanently attached to automobile articles, or that it happens in practice. The text of the template could be changed to read something closer to {{current event}}, eg. make it clear that it isn't meant to be permanently affixed, that it should be removed once there's no longer significant news coming out about the concept car. --Interiot 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NDT is enough, it is a standing guideline. As concerns the "this is a guideline" template, I understand that the guidelines and policies apply to articles in the first place. I mean, do you have to quote sources and adhere to the MoS when editing talk pages, or even here? As concerns the very template in question, it has huge amounts of small-print text, longer than some articles the template is transcluded into, and basically boils down to "this article by force of this template may be infused by all kinds of rubbish, including speculation more or less derived from automotive media and other stuff, because this car is a concept".
    The truth is that a concept car is a concept car, if somebody needs to be explained what the nature of a concept car is, there should be wikilink to concept car in the article's body, if some actual production model is developed based in this way or another on the concept car, then it should be noted in the article, before it happens or is officially announced, WP:CRYSTAL applies. PrinceGloria 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. As I said before, this template is essentially the definition of a concept car, as stated in the article on concept cars itself. Sully 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category will do the job. -- NaBUru38 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but with rewrite The template COULD potentially be useful, but not in its current form. I vote for a keep, but only on the condition that it could be rewritten in the future if it survives this vote. Jmlk17 02:00, 30 April 2007 (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:PD-USGov-Military-Coast Guard

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 redirect to Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CG. All transclusions have been replaced. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Coast Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}, the Coast Guard is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security. — jwillburtalk 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and redirect. Actually I was WP:BOLD and did this already. Move to close? Nardman1 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and redirect -- No brainer! // FrankB 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above comments and nomination. Jmlk17 02:02, 30 April 2007 (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:Modern Attack Helicopters

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Attack Helicopters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As below, trivial subject, contentious content, seems divisive out of proportion with any utility it may (doubtfully) add. Guinnog 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As above. most comparable attacke helicopters are alredy listed in the "comparable" field under Related contents on each page. - BillCJ 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shpould not have a template on something that could be covered in the article, especially something like the concept of "advanced" what defines it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - created outside of the project, duplicates material already in the standard project template which every helicopter article already gets (the "comparable aircraft" and "related development" sections). Akradecki 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Low-relevance, subjective topic for a nav box; material best belongs in the "Comparable aircraft" section. Flags are overkill in a nav box. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've tweaked it to current standard but I vote for deletion of meaningless template. Piotr Mikołajski 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Will always be contentious on content - does not add any value. MilborneOne 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did anyone make this? Delete without requirement of explanation Booksworm Talk to me! 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's a neat template, but it serves no purpose, hence...delete. Jmlk17 02:03, 30 April 2007 (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:4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trivial subject, flags inappropriate in a footer template, created outside the appropriate project guidelines — Akradecki 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it adds nothing to the articles.--Guinnog 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mmx1 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contentious subject - too many users will argue that their nation's fighter should be there, but their rival nation's fighter should not, etc. - BillCJ 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not well defined category, too narrow of a subject to have its own nav box. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too subjective a category for template stability or navigational use. Flags really look awful in a nav box. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Covered by putting 4th generation jet fighter article in the See also section. -Fnlayson 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Meaningless to the most readers - does not add any value. MilborneOne 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Covered by other articles. --EfferAKS 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - --McSly 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have seen many pointless templates, but this one may be the most pointless (however US highways under construction is worse...) Booksworm Talk to me! 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - distinguishing between 4 & 4.5 is usually quite easy and important. Its the difference between Gen 4++ & Gen 4.5 that is usually blurred. However, I think that this template is needed, at least when it covers a wide swathe of aircrafts developed today, and helps the reader check out the comparable aircraft. Sniperz11 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adds nothing to the articles.--padraig3uk 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once again, a pretty neat template (information wise), but serves no purpose. Jmlk17 02:04, 30 April 2007 (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:Uw-longtermabuse

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Template:Uw-longtermabuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This was created as a user-warning template to employ when a user has unintentionally done something wrong ("abused" some aspect of Wikipedia, in the author's terms) for a long time, to the degree that this behaviour is felt to be disruptive. I find the idea of a canned template for that situation quite counterproductive. When a user does something wrong, the right thing to do is very simple: you politely tell them. "Please, could you stop doing X, it's bad because Y." This template doesn't help doing this and will only create bad feelings (just as its creator's intervention in an alleged case of "abusive" behaviour yesterday did). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hitherto, WP:WARN offered a tag that it described as sanctioning a "Long term pattern of abuse." The template it offered for this purpose is extremely strongly-worded, and better suited to vandalism specifically than abuse generally (see [18]). I created this new template in order to provide a more appropriate template for sanctioning long-term abuse, and changed the description of the older tag to make clear it was only for sanctioning vandalism, a shoe into which it more comfortably fits. This seems self-evidently a meritorious and necessary change. I consider this nomination - minutes after I got done spending a lot of time trying to bring the written text into conformance with what I'm told is its spirit - to be in profoundly bad faith, a fortiori when it comes on the back of a sabre-rattling threat from the person proposing deletion. This template should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place, should be removed from this process immediately, but if it must remain here I strongly urge other users to vote to keep, at least until it has existed long enough for experience to either bear out or refute the nominator's supposed concerns. If in practice this turns out to be a bad idea, then it can later be renominated.Simon Dodd 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, if you can't bring yourself to actually type out what's bothering you about what another user is doing -- and it's clearly a question of you choosing not to, since your rather verbose attempts at justifying your actions demonstrate that you're perfectly capable of doing so -- don't say anything. You want a shiny official club to hit people with? No. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shiny - then I suppose I ought to nominate every other template on WP:WARN for deletion, because your logic about why this template is superfluous applies with just as much force to all those others, too. Can I count on your "delete" vote for them as well?Simon Dodd 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try again, Sparky -- the "Mommy, other kids are doing it, too!" excuse hasn't worked since grade school. The other templates are simply timesaving devices for specific and common situations (perhaps reading templates before actually applying them would save you some grief) and not the official billy club you clearly want them to be. It would certainly take less time to type out your "abuse" concerns for uncommon and specific situations rather than 5,000 words of post-facto Why I'm Always Right and Everyone Else is Wrong verbiage. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A solution in search of problem. Reading the WP:AN thread, I get the impression that the creator is looking for some official club he can use to hit people with. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{uw-longterm}} was made for a long term pattern of vandalism, not abuse of the minor edit tag, and so on. After WP:WARN had been modified, it may not have been clear that this was the purpose, but it was. The description has now been clarified, but there is no need for a more general template, as anything more complicated should be dealt with using a custom message that explains the problem, not a general "abuse" template. JPD (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the word abuse itself is far too strong to describe something unintentional. If the template is kept it needs to lose this name and it needs to have any threat of blocking removed. No admin would block a user for a mistake, that would violate WP:BITE Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally think that kind of things are much better handled by a personally typed message than by a "fits for all" template. If the behavior is disruptive, tell them why you think it is so. -- lucasbfr talk 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the Template messages/User talk namespace discussion page. -- lucasbfr talk 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template states that "abuse is not necessarily vandalism". Well fair enough, but surely if you are accusing someone of a long term pattern of "abusive" action that isn't vandalism, you need to explain to them exactly what they are doing wrong and how they should change their ways. If I found this message on my talk page and had been doing something "abusive" unintentionally, I would be totally confused over what was being referred to. In the cases of a complicated accusation like this, a one-size-fits-all template really isn't helpful. People should take the 30 seconds to type a more specific message. Will (aka Wimt) 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns - for genuine long term abuse a personally typed message would be preferable. Addhoc 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There are already far too many templates to combat vandalism and other issues on a user's page. Jmlk17 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A personal message is better than a template for this situation (i.e. WP:DTTR)--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (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:Infobox City Kuching

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Unused. — MJCdetroit 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not needed. GracenotesT § 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused. —dima/talk/ 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- Originator has been inactive for eons. // FrankB 07:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Jmlk17 08:42, 28 April 2007 (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.

April 24

Template:TOCrightEx

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only exists to break font-size layout, shouldn't even exist as a option. Dispenser 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not entirely sure what the nomination says, but regardless, there's no reason a TOC needs to be in the middle of article content. -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The font size in a TOC should not be customizable. It seems it was done at Geographical centre of Europe so the Ukraine image is higher up. If there are overcrowded images to the right, the TOC is fine at the left by default. –Pomte 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed whatsoever. Jmlk17 08:43, 28 April 2007 (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:TOCnestright

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{TOCright}} does the same thing with the clear=none parameter. Dispenser 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redundant. –Pomte 00:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- What's a clear=none parameter to an average editor? In fact, what's a clear? This is a natural adaptation of {{TOCright}} and {{TOCleft}}, so what's the disdain for producing a tool usable by anyone? Is there some HTML pre-requisite course I was supposed to take before making my first wikiedit? This template is A) Brand new, B) unfinished (I'd asked advice of CBD -- see the before and after diffs and discussion points!), and C) is very useful as is for packing a TOC in tight against our much too much over worked right page sides where infoboxes, images and the kitchen sink all predominate. This template helps keep those ugly blotches of excess whitespace from making pages ugly. A much needed thing, IMHO. // FrankB 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The CSS Clear property forces floats underneath the side in which is specified in the attribute. So, clear:left; will place the element after all the left floating elements creating white space above as need. If the property is not specified then the default (clear:none;) will take effect, which is what you have done in this template. —Dispenser 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the average editor ignores most templates and associated parameters. While clear=none is not exactly intuitive, they are likely to not know what nesting means either, and "TOCnestright" doesn't describe how the TOC is being nested. Looking at the name alone, I could not guess what this template does (a TOC nested inside something while aligned to the right?) Even if it gets renamed to a better name, the functionality appears so far to be redundant. If you provide a distinct use though, feel free to create a new template for that. I disagree that the whitespace is ugly especially if the TOC is small. Shoving the box to the side adds clutter and looks unorganized as text isn't justified around it. –Pomte 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Pomte and Fabartus. Jmlk17 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate, for Fabartus gave reasons to keep. –Pomte 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must first apologize for the mixup; finals are in session as well, so my mind enjoys the opportunity to veg-out every so often, my bad. Secondly, it seems this template would make it easier for a non-experienced editor to use, hence it's creation. I myself am not too experienced, and my major is history, not computer science or anything, so it has taken QUITE alot of getting used to in order for me to do even what I do now. I believe the majority of editors on this site are like that, or even less experienced than myself, and any help they/we can get is GOOD. JṃŁЌ17 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Dispenser, Thanks for the clear explanation of how clear works -- such is useful for the vast majority of us who don't speak script except in pigdin! <g> Please see if you can improve the {{TOCright}} (and left?) usage for such lay people! (At least I have a programming background as an engineer, albeit one lacking in all this modern CS script based technology.)

    • Answer--Per my query section to CBD, my own thinking at that time and from playing with it was to add parameters ahead and behind the actual occurrence of the TOC command. Most times, and most places it would be applied in one or two paragraphs down in longer articles with equally long introductions (See Arabian Sea and other pages where applied). The point is I want something that will be fixed in a vertical placement, and have the other text (below it) wrap around it and down, yet still float right against the long graphics and info box elements that predominate our pages. In sum, neaten things up and eliminate text/element combinations which don't nest well together now. The whitepace I'm trying to obviate is the effect that occurs with a long occupied and overbusy right margin element, causing even TOCright to create huge whitespace gaps sans any text. Typically, these go well over half a screenview, show the TOC only in the next section, then finally continue the article again. The TOCright, even with the switch I believe will not work with IE6, which alas, will still be with us for several years. MSIE7 also fails here with the first stab version of this, which I first saw when posting the above--both seem to want to anchor the TOC box with a valign-top, so there is a significant difference in Bharuch viewed in IE browsers and in Firefox/Netscape.

      Bottom line, we need something to tighten up unsightly large gaps in a fairly large percentage of articles, and I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. That 'nest' means nothing when viewing just a template name means little, most template names follow that pattern (What the hell does {{Catmore}} mean, for example! <g> I'm still trying to figure out that mnenomically!).

      However, any editor who sees the difference pushing the TOC over against the other boxed elements on the right can then 'project' that solution elsewhere (As I did when first experiencing TOCright), when the need occurs to their evaluation. Like anything, one has to use such a few times before feeling sure of it.

      Bottom line, TOCright usage needs fixed up to clarify this if it will perform this way, as I will (plan) to document this, assuming success. If not, per normal practice, I'll db-author it. (I don't usually fail, though! <g> Praise the Lord! Lol!) Unfortunately, I'm on the road this week, so wiki-time is a premium. // FrankB 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Position changed to keep. I'll need some time to understand exactly what Fabartus wants to achieve, but he's obviously enthusiastic about getting this to work and there's more code than that of {{TOCright}}, so this template will be used for testing. I'll look at the issue from different browsers and help give suggestions if possible. Still, I have to wonder whether this is really more aesthetic for a similar reason I had opposed {{TOChidden}} here. –Pomte 23:00, 30 April 2007 (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:Displace Me

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Displace Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template for a one-day event sets a bad precedent. Has the stench of advertising. I'm sure it's a worthy cause, but an ad is still an ad. dm (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Navigation templates are for defining qualities, which being part of this event is not. A category, maybe. -Amarkov moo! 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. it looks like spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.Jer10 95 Talk 03:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually using this template would add to article-bottom-clutter, and while perhaps made in good faith, this is a bad idea in the long run. GracenotesT § 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom - thank you Astuishin 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very bad precedent. When I saw this on the Chicago article a day or two ago, my reaction was to propose it for deletion myself. -- DS1953 talk 23:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointlessness at the extreme Booksworm Talk to me! 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Simple spam; no need for a template for a one-time, one-day event. Jmlk17 08:47, 28 April 2007 (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:Easier Version:WHOIS

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Easier Version:WHOIS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used on WHOIS, also an inappropraiate use of {{nutshell}}, which states is only to be used on Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. The text should be merged into the lead and the template deleted. — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't anyone here try to accept that someone MIGHT be new here and MIGHT not know all the ropes of how wiki is to be used? SORRRRRRYYY that I hurt someone by accidentally placing my 256 KB of MySQL usage in the wrong place. I'll move it. Geez. JoshEdgar 00:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... who isn't accepting that? And who thinks you are hurting them? -Amarkov moo! 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is about the fifth time that some Wiki-idiot gets all in a huff over a little itty bitty mistake just because "it's not the right format". Christ, what will we do!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshEdgar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is not an appropriate use of a template. -- Mithent 01:38, 30 April 2007 (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:Social Christianity

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating this in relation to the AfD for the parent article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Christianity. A more full reasoning for deletion is presented there, but in summary this appears to be an OR attempt to unify a bunch of vaguely (if at all) related topics. Adam Smith as a key thinker in the Social Christianity movement?. — Arkyan • (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. Jmlk17 08:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its parent article was deleted as not being about a reasonable grouping of topics, and the same criteria should apply here. -- Mithent 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mithent. Ros0709 20:50, 1 May 2007 (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:Subst:

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does this template have fa purpose?. →AzaToth 14:34, 24 April 2007 (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:Fb-spoiler

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb-spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this is an unneeded template, unneeded clutter and going to far with spoiler templates. This is solely intended to do the same thing as {{spoiler}} except say it's for the "future", if an article is structured/written correctly this type of template should not be needed. Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer states that Wikipedia contains spoilers, if people read them when there's a general warning they only have themselves to blame, spoiler warnings are a courtesy and just a placebo to be frank. Matthew 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Repetitive and unnecessary. {{spoiler}} is good enough. Jmlk17 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any spoiler templates other than {{spoiler}}. Gavia immer (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article should already have made it clear that it is a future episode. –Pomte 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • eeeeh, maybe keep, maybe delete At first I redirected this template to {{spoiler}}, thinking it was a bit needless, but the author did have a point, most people don't expect future spoilers. Given this is the same rationale for the spoiler warning template in the first place, even more so because it points out a spoiler that even Wikipedia regulars would likely not expect. At the same time I can't say that it would bother me if this was deleted. A warning for spoilers is never guaranteed, and it is just a courtesy. For most situations editors will likely not be able to include "future" information, because a lot of that stuff comes from unreliable spoiler websites, or is flat out speculation. I'd lean towards keep since I don't see the harm and I can see the value, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If this can be used (and Ned Scott points out there may not be many uses), it does seem to do something that {{spoiler}} doesn't adequately do. -- DS1953 talk 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of things could be used, but I don't find your argument compelling. Take for example an episode, we generally already have {{Future television episode}} and {{spoiler}} combined. Matthew 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{Future television episode}} is not supposed to be used in that way. The template should not be used to tag all future television episodes, something we've talked about time and time again on CFD. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the spoilers are "Quote" yet to broadcast "Unquote" then how can we verify the spoiler itself? Booksworm Talk to me! 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
    • Through reliable sources, which makes it more easily verifiable than actually having to watch a show, as most plot summaries are unsourced. –Pomte 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes this kind of stuff gets accidentally said in interviews or in product merchandizing (track 57 of the OST for Episode I.. titled... "Qui-Gon's Funeral".. "oops" haha.) But yeah, it doesn't happen often. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (The soundtrack came out before the movie). -- Ned Scott 02:20, 30 April 2007 (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:Supplement

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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:For more (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete for the following reasons:
  1. Its functionality is covered by {{main}} and {{see also}}.
  2. It is used by only two articles:
  3. Its parameter handling is bizzare.
I have notified Lacatosias (the template's creator) and Scharks (a user who had the template in his toolbox).
--Kevinkor2 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jmlk17 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and poor use of parameters. "Supplement" is an inaccurate way to describe the relationship between articles. –Pomte 17:05, 24 April 2007 (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:Generational cohorts

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generational cohorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Does not cite sources, and even if it did, would represent a false sense of consensus on the topic of naming and dating global generations (there is a separate template for purely American generations - {{Generations}}). There is no consensus, as evidenced by the constant bickering and changes seen on the pages for the various generations. A template like this adds nothing but confusion the the articles. Peregrine981 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to {{Generations}}. –Pomte 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is redundant as mentioned; however, I agree with Peregrine981 as well, and will take that to {{Generations}} myself. - Freechild 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, {{Generations}} is a case of systematic bias towards America; I created this template to be more general/global -- deleting it doesnt fix the problem. The bickering is a problem; to resolve that I think the best approach is to replace the start/end years with decades. John Vandenberg 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate the effort, but I just don't think that there is such a thing as a "global generation", and doubt that reliable sources can be found to back up that assertion. Generations will be very different in different countries experiencing different phases of social development, and lumping them all together is artificial IMO. The American chart has its problems (is it based on Strauss and Howe or not? The dates in the chart explicitly contradict information in the articles... etc... but as long as it is explicit about its geographic scope, it can stay. Peregrine981 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the {{Generations}} table is placed on articles like Generation Y and Generation X, which are terms that I grew up with in relation to Australian generations (you disagree they can be international, thats fine). The term generational cohort is defined as "the aggregation of individuals (within some population definition) who experience the same event within the same time interval", which IMO leaves plenty of room for global cohorts that experience the same global events; i.e. if you use a definition of "population" that equals everyone, the aggregation is fine provided the events that define them are worldwide, and I have limited this template to generations of international note as a consequence. Gen Y is becoming known as the "Global Generation", as there are now so few local-only events.[19][20][21][22] gs: "global generation" "generation y", gs: "global generation" "gen y" John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly many of these terms, baby boom, gen X, etc.. are used in many international contexts especially in the developed world. But I have a problem saying that they're truly "global" since I don't think that they necessarily apply to much of the developing world. For example, in China the experience of generations experiencing the cultural revolution, one child policy, and then rapid industrialization will be vastly different than the generic boom, bust, echo pattern seen elsewhere. Much of southern and western Asia, and Africa certainly differs from the patterns described in this template. Neither is it exclusive to a developing/developed dichotomy, see Greece, Japan, Korea, and Russia for places that will differ widely. Also, I would argue that despite "experiencing" some the same worldwide events, the effects and interpretations will be different enough to make generalization very difficult. ie. someone living in Afghanistan vs. New York will see September 11th quite differently. Peregrine981 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree each locality will have more meaningful and precise generations, but this template was a navbox to aid the user, for example jumping from Gen X to Gen Y, without needing to resort to the {{Generations}} which is really {{USA Generations}}. If you can think of a better way to do that, I am all ears! John Vandenberg 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this, I don't think there's a really a viable way, short of making a seperate infobox for various countries, which is bound to get out of hand. I think people may just have to get by without a navbox. Peregrine981 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific country articles can have them, not as templates but single-use tables for summary/navigational purposes. {{Generations}} is unweildly and should get removed from general articles, unless those articles have an extensive section on USA only. –Pomte 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its almost unused, and a table can be substituted easily enough.DGG 05:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a navbox, placed at the top of each article it linked to, such as Generation X and Generation X, but some enterprising people have removed it. John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've removed the years from template as they were unreferenced. John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (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.

April 23

Template:ToxicWPPDD

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template appears not to be in use. — meco 22:52, 23 April 2007 (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:Anaheim Ducks Team

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anaheim Ducks Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless. Just a recreation of {{Anaheim Ducks Roster}}. The latter is the accepted template, while the nominated is just a copy. — Jmlk17 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. - hmwithtalk 07:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. The smaller size was explained by the creator here, but it is unused and even so, there could be a small option instead of two separate templates. –Pomte 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really don't see why somebody would make a copy of {{Anaheim Ducks Roster}}. AppleMacReporter 22:16, 23 April 2007 (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:Non-admin fwarn

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-admin fwarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Reported (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm nominating this template pursuant to the discussion at WT:UTM#Template to say a user has been reported for the reasons stated there. In brief, I believe this is a well intentioned template that is turning out to be largely counterproductive. A person receiving this template will have been reported to AIV and will therefore either (1) be blocked, in which case s/he has no opportunity to reconsider their behavior or (2) not be blocked, in which case they presumably come away thinking their vandalism was not that bad and they may learn how far they can push the envelop without getting blocked. --Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think these templates are a bad idea. It effectively tells the vandal that they cannot be blocked by the person who has warned them and that they now have a window of time to vandalise as much as possible before their inevitable blocking. It also has a bit of "I've gone and told teacher about you" feel to it which doesn't help. {{uw-vandalism4}} seems a perfectly acceptable final warning- there is then no need for any further communication until a block notification is posted. WjBscribe 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mirroring WJBscribe's concerns completely. Naconkantari 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying my comment from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace: I've been seeing this {{fwarn}} template on user pages before I block them, and I'm thinking maybe we should delete it. A lot of people who make WP:AIV reports do so improperly, and we remove the reports instead of blocking. If someone receives one of these messages and then doesn't get blocked, that's worse than just getting {{uw-v4im}} and not getting blocked. And this inevitably happens, we don't block on all reports but getting this warning and then no block definitely sends the wrong message: "go ahead and vandalize with impunity, nobody cares". So yeah, delete. — coelacan — 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As proposed.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per coelacan's argument. – Riana ऋ 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or modify it so that it requires a link to the report/discussion as an argument. It's more informative if they can actually see where the report is so they can contest it. Tuxide 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we really want vandals being pointed towards WP:AIV so they can go and remove themselves from it? WjBscribe 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. It'll just be another reason for them to be blocked. Tuxide
    I would hope that if they've been reported at AIV its on the basis that their conduct already warrants a block... WjBscribe 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually one of those non-admins who uses this template, but more as a notification than as a warning. Sometimes I go to AIV, and sometimes I bring it up on IRC depending on how interesting the activity is. Seriously, you wouldn't find an administrator using {{non-admin fwarn}} anyways. I see nothing wrong with removing non-relevant template messages as long as someone can back you up. My thoughts are that such a template should be "toned down" so that people don't use it as a level 4 warning, but more as a notification. Tuxide 04:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the hope that the vandal will contest it? I've seen bad reports on AIV. I just remove them. If someone is obviously vandalizing, what's the point of them contesting it? And if it's not obvious vandalism, we remove them (as happens when one person in a content dispute wants us to block their opponent, a common report). — coelacan — 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not answering the obvious vandalism question—I've yet to see someone contest such a thing. I've used it when reporting 3RR in the past, and from what I've seen, those get contested. Tuxide 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's a good point and I think a 3RR-specific template would be a good idea. Pointing someone to the report at WP:AN3 can be helpful. — coelacan — 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the template creator, I use it a lot because it lets people know that Wikipedia's not simply a place for them to run amok and there is accountability. I even feel that vandals may be testing the waters and may come back as valued contributing members if they know that articles are guarded so seriously. I don't think we should point the vandals to WP:AIV, but I made it so as to say, "Look, you're not going to vandalize Wikipedia without consequence. You've been warned." I think you can let Vandals know that there is a method/hierarchy here without giving them the blueprint. We non-admins who police vandals have no tools whatsoever besides persistence. Let us keep at least one. BrianZ(talk) 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's the template I use to demonstrate accountability: {{uw-block}}. I don't understand what you want with this template. You report them to AIV, they get blocked. If they don't get blocked, and they sometimes don't, then this template makes things worse. Please read my first comment above and reply to those points; it seems you've overlooked them. — coelacan — 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless. - hmwithtalk 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have plenty of useful final warning templates, and this doesn't add anything useful to them. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I was initially dubious of this one (at WT:UTM), but think that the WP:BEANS factor is a bit too significant. Let's not use a template as a crutch for process problems. GracenotesT § 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I commented at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace I feel that this template is not useful for two reasons. Firstly, the advice it gives (which currently reads "please reconsider your behavior" and has previously read "be careful and serious from now on") is pretty much an irrelevance because, if a correct WP:AIV report has been made after a final warning, then however the user reconsiders their behaviour, they are still going to be blocked. Secondly, and more importantly I think, the thing that this template says is effectively you are about to be blocked. Now telling that to a vandal surely has the potential of making them up their ante to try and squeeze in as much vandalism as possible before the inevitable block occurs. Also I agree with what Coelacan says about sending out the wrong message if a user is not blocked after this template has been given to them. Will (aka Wimt) 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we were going to delete this then what about Template:Reported which is essentially the same? GDonato (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or merge I use the template more to notify users that they have been reported to an admin but not to say they are going to be blocked which sometimes doesn't happen. Maybe we need to create or merge this template with the temp:reported one to create a more neutral message that simply says you have been reported? -- Hdt83 Chat 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-As said above, it's just going to draw the vandals attention to AIV. Sometimes removed reports aren't even noticed. Also, if they violated a final warning, they're going to be blocked, so why say "you may be blocked". We already warned them, they didn't listen. It's not they may be blocked. They will be. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now included Template:Reported in the nomination, being bold following various comments here that called attention to this identical-in-purpose template. — coelacan — 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I would have included it in the nomination if I had been aware of its existence.--Kubigula (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have complained about it earler, had I known. ;-) — coelacan — 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really useful other than to possibly instigate something? Jmlk17 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for Template:Reported only - I have found it useful to post on a vandal's talkpage while WP:AIV has a backlog... In some of these cases, it has promoted the vandal to stop vandalising before an administrator considers a block. Chrisch 12:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a vandal has been reported to the AIV then it is most likly that he/she will be blocked even if the user stops vandalizing after being notified of the AIV report. -Mschel 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I used to use it, but I now think it only feeds the troll. As a side note, I have no problem with people using the template if it is on their user space (I have a similar one myself for times of endless vandalism on an article and no admin nearby), I just don't think the template space should contain templates that might reveal being troll feeding. -- lucasbfr talk 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Keep the {{reported}} as I regularly use it and its handy instead of typing the message informing users they're reported, however, I say delete for the other one but keep the {{reported}}.Tellyaddict 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you need to tell them they've been reported at all? WjBscribe 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WJB at the very beginning of this TfD. Do you really think that putting such a template will accomplish anything besides the unrepentant and chronic vandal going after you? --Valley2city₪‽ 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's no use warning someone for whom it is too late already. As said before, this will not deter the vandal from further disruption, as nothing they can do could prevent a block if one is justified. I also agree it will give out the wrong sort of message to the vandal if a block is not put into effect, much like several consecutive {{uw-v4}} would. --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 April 2007 (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:ISBN-13

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISBN-13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MediaWiki software now recognizes ISBN-13s, so obsolete. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template might be thought to have two benefits:
  1. Allow you to click on an ISBN-13 and be taken to Special:Book sources, like you can with an ISBN-10.
  2. Provide a whatlinkshere to find uses of ISBN-13.

In fact, you already get #1 for free via Mediawiki now, as RevRagnarok points out, and #2 doesn't seem worth transcluding the template all over the encyclopedia. (We have 80,000 ISBNs now). It also makes it harder to verify ISBN check digits. A system like SmackBot, or Rich Farmbrough's off-line wikitext checking software, would have to do extra work to handle the curly braces when it parses the ISBN-13s to add the proper hyphenation and to verify the check digit. EdJohnston 03:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete--as originator, and beg yer pardon actually, this was made unnecessary about a month after it's inception, and most occasions for need were built into book templates by the time the system software began handling them directly. I'd meant to db author it, but dropped the ball, obviously. Cheers // FrankB 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, good idea at the time. Rich Farmbrough, 07:07 23 April 2007 (GMT).
  • Delete as above. Andy Mabbett 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Strong Delete Completely unnecessary and obsolete. Jmlk17 06:43, 24 April 2007 (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:Wikihermitalert

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 converted to WP:DEFCON. --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of the WP:DEFCON template, with an entire project noincluded in the tempate. — Naconkantari 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historicalize and deprecate - This separate template isn't needed. I do like the design, however; we should send it to {{Wdefcon}}--Ed 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming "historicalize" means "delete at once, salt, and bury under 1600 metres or coal seam", I concur with Ed. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fine. If you want to send it to defcon please do. I have no problems with that. In fact, it would probably be better there. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I don't know how to move it. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to DEFCON-Duplicate not needed (and neither is the bureaucracy on the page). I like the template though, so move it. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sigs have been changed in this edit BTW, not that it matters...--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before April 22nd if possible, then nuc it. (Must be nice to have time to waste.) // FrankB 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept, that JPEG image (which has nasty, visible artifacts) should be replaced with a SVG image. *** Crotalus *** 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to {{Wdefcon}}: My reason is that of Ed and Crotalus combined. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to defcon Looks like a good template. Upgrade it so it works with Defcon and it's okay. -- Hdt83 Chat 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done I've upgraded it to work with Wdefcon. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or convert into a new Wdefcon format Appears to be a cross between the less useful half of Wdefcon and the worst part of Esperanza. --ais523 16:00, 24 April 2007 (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:db-list

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. Templates should not misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 08:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neither a speedy deletion criterion nor likely to become one. —Cryptic 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - references A7, which it's not. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may qualify for A7, depending on whether or not the list is in print, but even where it does, it doesn't need a seperate template. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary, A7 covers this fine. – Riana ऋ 03:51, 23 April 2007 (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.

Completed discussions

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

  • I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=127897746"