< May 27	May 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Everyday...more and more countries get added.....this will make the already messy template more difficult to read.I don't think it really serves the purpose.There are no similar templates for economy or other fields.Morever, if the template is completed with all the countries.........it will distract the users from the original page.Thanks Strike Eagle ^✈ 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Eagle its better to keep a list article rather than a template. the list article can be added to the see also section at the bottom.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this template. The issue of distracting from the article is fixed by having it appear collapsed until you hit the show button. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. This is hard enough to navigate already and it's only about 10% populated. We don't need a global navbox for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. better as a list article or even a navbox, but as a sidebar it's going to be way too big and distracting. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SCOTUS-recentcase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:SCOTUS-case. The only difference between then is that this one indicates that the case is recent, and provides a Findlaw link to the case text. The latter is useful. Note that Template:SCOTUS-case should not be linked from anything itself, because it is a shortcut for creating an article from a case, and is supposed to be subst'ed. I would guess that this one should be subst'ed as well, but there only needs to be one template to do this job. Having the part about it being a "recent case" could be incorporated as an option in Template:SCOTUS-case. bd2412 T 17:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Both this and ((SCOTUS-case)) should be deleted: the template that should actually be in use is ((infobox SCOTUS case)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ((SCOTUS-case)) serves a different function. It is a template for creating an article which provides an easily implemented common format for Supreme Court case articles. It is always supposed to be subst'ed. The infobox, on the other hand, is just that, an infobox that would be nested within such an article. bd2412 T 03:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ((SCOTUS-recentcase)) with ((SCOTUS-case)), and Rename the resulting template.

The similarity in names is unfortunate, but I agree with bd2412 that ((SCOTUS-case)) serves a completely different function than ((infobox SCOTUS case)). Including "recent" in the template's name is a misnomer, because one could be creating a new article about an old case. Some suggestions for the resulting template name could be:

SCOTUS-new-case (again, "new" might also be a misnomer)
SCOTUS-empty-case
SCOTUS-create-case
SCOTUS-blank-case

You get the idea. Groll†ech (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the title SCOTUS-new-article? And should we added a z-template to track the use of this template? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started a documentation page, but I don't know the format enough to finish. It would be great if someone who knows this template better could finish documenting it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian statehood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to Template:Statehood of Georgia, it is only used in articles where the other one is only used. As a sidebar, it takes too much place compared to the other, a navbox. Susuman77 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge together, use a switch to select between sidebar and footer formats. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both are badly named, so I suggest Template:Georgia (country) statehood, since Georgia (U.S. state) also has statehood topics. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps redirect afterwards. Very redundant, and I can't think of when this would be a more appropriate infobox than the former country one, or failing that the history of Georgia one. CMD (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see any redundancy, this template is well organized, I would suggest to delete the other one. Iberieli (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you not see redundancy and yet suggest deleting the other template? In addition, how is this better as an infobox than a navigation box? CMD (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the navbox is better and less obtrusive. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, navigates only 3 articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are not at least five articles on which the navbox is used and there doesn't seem to be a need for this type of navigation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough there. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not enough to justify a template, per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 2 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. These are long-unused templates that have been deprecated in favor of ((chembox)). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NatOrganicBox mass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NatOrganicBox section chemprop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NatOrganicBox section physicalprop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NatOrganicBox section miscellaneous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and replaced by other templates.Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, given the trivial content and lack of any documentation, it shouldn't be too hard to recreate them if the bot request is revived. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mirror me (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Reflect me (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears part of a failed bot proposal here. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not failed, it's on hold. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete failed request, it's not on hold, it expired. You, as the bot-system operator, did not respond for 6months to the requests for updates on the status of the system. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musician icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sculptor icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

seems unnecessary, since we can just use ((country data)) directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiride icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mountain box start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by ((infobox mountain)). Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interstate 670 (Kansas–Missouri) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template space isn't for article content like this. A similar example was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 11#Template:M1 motorway junction_list. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for it. Dough 48 72 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the M1 precedent. Technical limitations with PDF output should not govern our page management decisions; those issues should be fixed by the developers, and until then people can copy and paste the table to a word processor and edit it as required for printing there.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or minor changes can be made to the template suite that we now use (with which I-680's article has been updated to use) and thousands of articles could enjoy better printing output. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 29 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

better to just type |- followed by | directly, which uses fewer keystrokes, and reduces server load (see my recent edit to List of Indiana townships which reduced the size of the wikitext by 4k. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused, redundant to standard interwiki linking, and potentially confused with ((mh icon)), ala ((en icon)) and ((en)). Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MaximunValue for bit amount (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

not used by Seattle Mariners all-time roster. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and redundant to other hatnote templates (like main, which automatically uses plural when there is more than one). Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maidenhead grid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused external link template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

this template used to have an icon with the linked text, but that was removed, so this template is now basically useless. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and trivial. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

basically unused frontend to template:mp. could be substituted and deleted. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, does not appear to be needed, and if it is needed somewhere, we can most likely address the problem by modifying the parent template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List as parameter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this template is no longer needed for template:Infobox NFL player, which is the example given in the documentation. while it may be useful for other templates, it's not clear which templates. the reason it is no longer needed for the NFL player box is that with one simple edit (adding a newline before the teams/awards parameters) there is no longer a need for "nowiki" markup to force a line break to allow the list markup to be parsed correctly (see item 6). hence, if this is needed in an infobox, it can be easily fixed in the infobox, rather than requiring the addition of this template to all the transcluding articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as Template:Wikimarkup as parameter, for use with templates in general when parameter starts with wikimarkup. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what we really need is for the template name to be lengthened. Some of these parody keeps crack me up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fix other templates, so that this obscure one does not need to be used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link pre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

basically unused internal link template. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lin-b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused image icon template. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liberty ship categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

seems easier to just add the category directly. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old, almost unused, template. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unecessary frontend to lcfirst. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

used only briefly in 2009. frontend to two other templates. suggest substituting it and deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Key article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to ((cat main)). Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 29 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kerala in Malayalam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and uncategorized. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TLS-H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. Delete and move ((TLS-H2)) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as historical~~ - it's not doing any harm and deletion would make historical revisions of a number of pages unreadable. That said, I will take care of the last article-space transclusion. --W. D. Graham 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator has replaced the template himself on several pages in good faith, but does not seem to be aware that the template could not simply be replaced, but that the pages would have to be rewritten to accommodate it. I therefore had to revert his edits as they were causing severe formatting errors, so the template is in use again, and it will be some time before all transclusions can be removed. Per my previous !vote, I still believe that it should be retained as historical after this, in order not to make page histories meaningless. --W. D. Graham 15:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a content-breaking edit without prior clue, or checking of the resultant pages afterwards. Also raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#XfD_Topic_Ban_for_User:TenPoundHammer_.28Again.29

I can also see the value of the historical aspect. However wouldn't it then be easier to keep the new template under the same name, and to use a format parameter as a switch to flip behaviours? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Charlotte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Louisiana Tech (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject University of Oklahoma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject September 11, 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Los Angeles Lakers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Durham NC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, superseded, few uses —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator I don't have a problem with this in principle, especially as German Wiki is doing something similar. However, could we please ensure that a) existing links are pointed at ((DNB portal)) and b) that ((DNB portal)) can handle all the information intended for this template. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All links changed to Template:Authority control and/or Template:DNB portal. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, superseded, and unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with caveats as per my comment for Template:SWD. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All links changed to Template:Authority control and/or Template:DNB portal. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template was created in 2011 but never used. Probably not needed anymore Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-controversial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:04, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move to Wikipedia:WikiQuizes/template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old uneeded template Kumioko (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of this template, I'd like to note that, as far as I can tell, it is of no value unless the page Wikipedia:WikiQuizes becomes active again. Of course, I don't really see any harm in keeping it, on the off chance that someone could find a use for it. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 02:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also don't have any strong feelings either way I just saw it wasn't used and apparently hadn't been for some time. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiQuizes. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Texas which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject University of North Texas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Texas which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject United States presidential elections/editintro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old unused template. Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is used in the creation of articles for USPE. See this as an example.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Ohio which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Notre Dame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time. The articles also fall under Indiana which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also not the most famous Notre Dame, which someone may want to create a WPP for (like the one the Hunchback haunts?) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Impossible for the selection of articles to be NPOV; in some cases, the connection is not only POV, it violates WP:BLP. However, if I just delete the BLP entries, there would be further dispute, so I'm proposing deletion in its entirety. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are pedophilia-related and cited in the pedophilia article. How is the connection POV? Oct13 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you said on my talk page "I cannot see any possible way Pedophilia could be NPOV, with all the accusations of pedophilia going on". What did you mean by that? Oct13 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed the half-dozen articles not associated with pedophilia; it happens that none of the scandals actually have evidence or proof of pedophilia, even those which had evidence of child sexual abuse or accusations of pedophilia. Perhaps the template can be kept clean, after all. We'll see.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details on template talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but carefully review its links and what pages it's used on. All of the links there are unquestionably subtopics of pedophilia. I don't understand the BLP violation, unless this template is used on biographies (I haven't checked the links list) - Even so, there is nothing wrong with including this on biographies of a person convicted of pedophilia crimes, or a person or organization that advocates in its favor. (In fact, this template should probably have a proponents section linking to pro-pedophilia organizations and persons) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't link to biographies. I don't know of any pedophile organizations or persons. Oct13 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template did link to reports on criminal cases, and the defendants are (in some cases) still living. Where convictions were not obtained, that is still a WP:BLP violation. Even if a conviction on child sexual abuse were to have occurred, it still might be a WP:BLP violation to assert that pedophilia was involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I know where the perceived bias is from. I made this template using code from another template of mine, and forgot to remove the Catholic categories in the code. At first I thought Arthur added the categories, but than I remembered where I got the code from. My apologies. Oct13 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete. The template violates principles of NPOV, civility, child protection. It looks like hidden intention to promote subject. Why should be mixed pro- and anti- p. organizations? Who should establish criteria for including articles to template? It should be deleted.Ans-mo (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Huh? Promote it? How the hell does an organized list of articles "promote" pedophilia? And don't tons of templates mix pro and anti organizations? I would expect an abortion template to list prominent pro and anti abortion organizations, and no one it their right mind would say that it's "promoting" abortion to point to articles about it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this template would set a troubling precedent. Saying that this template can never meet NPOV creates the problem that any other topic about a topic that disgusts most people can never meet it either. Wikipedia is not censored, and there should be templates on topics that disgust people, and it would be completely wrong to delete all of them. And no matter how much something disgusts most of the population, everything has a minority who favors it. This template properly does its job in pointing readers to more articles on the broader topic, just as it should, and the difficulty in maintaining NPOV is not a valid reason to delete it, and probably eventually a whole bunch of other templates on disgusting topics. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's more like Category:Terrorists (as opposed to Category:Terrorism); there's too much disagreement as to whether something is associated with it. For example, Child sexual abuse (and subarticles) is (are) associated with pedophilia, but not closely associated. And, if we are to have consistent standards, the recently removed local organization should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template doesn't promote pedophilia anymore than the Medjugorje template I made promote the Medjugorje apparitions. Moreover, this template is about a disorder, not the people with said disorder. This template further distances itself from the child abuse and sexual abuse templates by including topics specifically about pedophilia. This template does not disgust me; on the contrary, I see it as a helpful means for people to find articles on pedophilia and related topics, the same as my other templates on their respected topics. Finally, I'm trying to find a better alternative to the word "Organizations", since it has too much of a pro-pedophilia feel to it; I want a word that explains the associations are pedophilic. Oct13 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse are not pedophilia, as made clear in their articles and the Pedophilia article. That is why this template is WP:Original research and a WP:NPOV violation. And I know that it's confusing when one says that child sexual abuse is not pedophilia; that's why you need to study this topic, starting with reading what the Pedophilia article says about that. Not all pedophiles commit child sexual abuse, and not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebephilia and ephebophilia are issues fixed by editing, not deletion. And I think the connection between pedophilia and child sexual abuse is so obvious as to qualify under WP:BLUE D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be fixed, then fix it. They should not be under the heading pedophilia as a type of pedophilia, especially not ephebophilia (which is the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents/teenagers; aka usually post-pubescent individuals). Pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Hebephilia is being debated as to whether or not it overlaps with pedophilia enough to be considered a subset of pedophilia (meaning pubescent children who still look prepubescent or very child-like), but it still isn't officially considered a type of pedophilia. Editors at the Pedophilia article have worked on that article to make clear in it what pedophilia is and isn't, and this template, as currently formatted, is undermining that. For the Pedophilia article to go over in the lead, as well as lower in the article in the Misuse of medical terminology section, how the term "pedophilia" is often misused, but then to have a template saying "Nope, it's all pedophilia"...is highly contradicting. We're trying to educate people here, so that they don't go around calling some 21-year-old guy with a 17-year-old girlfriend a pedophile, as though there is some significant physical difference between 17 and 18-year-olds. Too many people confuse pedophilia with age of consent and age of majority laws, and we're trying to keep that distinction clear. As for the connection between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, or pedophilia and other child sexual abuse behaviors, looking at the template more closely, I don't mind those being included since they are listed under Behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I don't see why possible problems with unwise placement of this navigational template should count in favor of its deletion. Also, I see a lot of, in my opinion, irrational, arguments flying here already, such as this template contributing to the promotion of child abuse, or that clearly belonging topics should not be associated with pedophilia. I suppose all of this is to be expected for this topic, but now I at least have given my opinion on the matter. __meco (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebephilia and ephebophilia are not "clearly belonging topics," as I've just explained above. That is my only problem with this template. If they are included in this template in a way that doesn't classify them as types of pedophilia, then I won't have a problem with the template. The listing for them should either be renamed or they should be removed. They should be listed as "Associated philias," "Associated chronophilias," or something of that nature. One could suggest "Associated paraphilias," but there is debate as to whether or not hebephilia is a paraphilia, and ephebophilia isn't even (normally) a paraphilia. Neither is an official mental disorder either, so they also shouldn't be categorized as "Associated mental disorders." Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit as necessary. I read mainly the oppositional comments. All valid issues can be resolved by editing and having a template is not promotion any more than having any other template or any article is promotion. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nick. That's all I'm asking for regarding this -- is accuracy. I don't see any promotion of pedophilia either. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason in principle why we should not have a such a navigational template. Disputes about whether specific articles, e.g. hebephilia, belong in it is really a separate issue from whether such a template should exist at all. With regard to that issue specifically, not all things listed in a navigational template about X need actually be instances of X; they could be non-X things with some relationship to X (whether that relationship be one of similarity or of contrast.) Maratrean (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer used, of no value A:-)Brunuś (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah :) No one nominated the template last year, so I thought people had forgot about it, as it's usually nominated once a year. Good to see it's back to normal :) _→AzaToth 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still deprecated; still unused; still of historical interest; still useful when browsing prior revisions of templates. Nothing new since previous discussions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not useful. It is now empty, so it won’t work anyway when viewing past revisions. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note This may qualify for speedy deletion under WP:T3 A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template doesn't seem to be of more historical interest than all the others the get deleted when no longer in use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping old templates around so that ancient page revisions don't look too broken has been proven not to work. Quite often it's MediaWiki itself which breaks them. Unless there are actual examples out there (rather than theoretical use cases), I can't see any reason to keep this around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For what it's worth, here is where I nominated it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to keep this template is based on it's historical significance. This template was the direct cause for the implementation of ParserFunctions which are of central importance building up the wiki. If someone is going to study the evolution of wikipedia and mediawiki, it's probable they will want to know about this template, as it was so widely used back in the days before ParserFunction. This template was also one of the causes to start protecting templates due to high usage, even without any apparant vandalism history. Also this template is related to the historical struggle defined in WP:AUM. Removing this template is basically to remove histrory from the wiki. _→AzaToth 18:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: As I'm the original author of the template, it's clear I can't be 100% objective in my analysis. _→AzaToth 18:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
move to either userspace or somewhere in project space if it is of historical value. otherwise, just delete it. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical/archival/licensing related issues. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 6 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, but remove detailed stadium list from main template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFL Stadiums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with Template:Canadian Football League. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the fuller template. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That could cause duplication of the box on pages. What purpose does a redirect serve? 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could, I don't know, EDIT THE PAGE THE TEMPLATES ARE ON to get rid of the duplicates. Redirection is fine in this case. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I could just ignore the nomination and discussion process, and remove all use of a template that I don't see fit. But I don't think that is what a responsible Wikipedian should do. 117Avenue (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't need this duplication, but I would actually prefer to keep this template and remove the stadia links from ((Canadian Football League)) and remove that template from these articles. Large, overreaching templates like that create a needle-in-the-haystack effect and places a great many trivial links of no navigational value in unrelated articles. For instance, there is no reason to expect a reader will go from McMahon Stadium to Canadian Football League Cheerleading to Jeff Russel Memorial Trophy. But a focused template that links the teams and their stadiums is far more useful as it makes the relevant links with shared attributes far more prominent. Reso lute 19:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, but change the list of stadiums in Template:Canadian Football League to a simple link to List of Canadian Football League stadiums. in other words, per Resolute. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free architectural work (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template misstates the policy of Wikipedia and leads to situations like File:Atomium_20-08-07.jpg where a non-free image of a free work is uploaded. See prior discussion on this point at Template talk:FoP-USonly which is the tag that should be used instead. In the US, buildings before 1990 are not copyrighted. Period. There is no URAA restoration of copyright to foreign buildings because there was no copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights where it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored. For buildings constructed after 1990, the FoP law restricts the right of copyright owners to prevent the making of derivative works in the form of photographs. Hence this template is not needed. These works are not considered unfree under US law. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary. Use ((FoP-USonly)) instead. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue the discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly rather than debate one issue in two places. 9carney (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for two templates. The images are free in the United States, so it looks wrong to have a non-free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. This template has been in place since May 2008 and accurately states US law and Wikipedia and WMF policy. The proposed replacement ((FoP-USonly)) completely misstates both law and policy. Any proposals to amend policy should be made on the talk pages of the appropriate policies. There is lengthy discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly 9carney (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you have claimed that the other template misstates both law and policy, but you have forgot to present any source for that claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have nominated ((FoP-USonly)) and ((FoP-US)) for deletion, for the reasons stated and explained at some length in Template talk:FoP-USonly 9carney (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Buildings and photos are not the same. While non-U.S. buildings lost copyright and are not restored by URAA, copyright of photo of any buildings is different. However, I see the point that the template says two-dimensional representation of multi-dimensional buildings. Back then, there was no "NOFOP-France" or "NOFOP-Russia", so they used this template. Now I have copied "Template:NoFoP-France" from Commons, and the Template:NoFoP-Russia is created. I wonder if these templates make this template more useful than it already is. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say keep since Russia and France, regardless of how old and new any building is, does not allow picturing anything for free in either country. --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Files on English Wikipedia only need to be free in the United States. Photos of French and Russian buildings are free in the United States even if the photos are unfree in France and Russia. I'll nominate your NOFOP templates for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any photo of a building may be restored by URAA, even if a building itself may no longer be copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The URAA is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you are talking about photos of buildings in Iran or the like. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you saying that, for example, if I took a picture of a building in France constructed in 1985, I could upload it to the English Wikipedia under a free license? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of us are real or experienced experts on copyrights of derivatives of original buildings. A French guy from France may understand English, yet someone asserted that, in some other countries, accessing one website within one country is legal, while accessing other from another country is illegal. The question is: where are the servers of French Wikipedia? Besides Georgia (or Florida), where else are other servers of English Wikipedia? As for the "free license" part, use one license and "FOP-USonly". Unsure how free or unfree any image is; if unsure, this template can be used with "FOP-USonly". --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what happens if the photo copyright expires before the building copyright, but I would expect that both copyrights would have to expire before the photo is fully free. This situation ought to occur all of the time in Italy where buildings are protected for life+70 years whereas photos only are protected for creation+20 years. Anyway, this is irrelevant for the discussion held here. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is definitely relevant to the question. If US FOP does not apply to other countries but we want to illustrate a French building, then we need to use this template. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per 17 USC 120(a), the United States appears to allow photos of any building in any country to be licensed under a free licence. However, such a photo may be unfree in other countries. In my comment above, I was talking about the photo copyright status in the country where the building is located, but this might have been a bit unclear.
      - Also note that buildings completed before 1 December 1990 have no copyright whatsoever in the United States, see here. Thus, the discussion is only relevant to buildings completed on or after 1 December 1990. We should maybe create a PD-building template to avoid having to use custom ((PD-because)) templates as I did here when fixing the licence templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked a number of images for which this template is used, and found out that it is typically used in three cases. For each case, I propose the following solution:
1. Photo of pre-1990 building in a non-FOP country. Example: File:Areva1.jpg. Since the building was completed before 1 December 1990, the building is in the public domain in the United States, so there is no copyright to violate. Solution: Create a new ((PD-building-USonly)) template and use this, combined with a free licence for the photographer's contribution. Many photos of buildings have been changed from free to unfree licences, so it should be possible to retrieve valid free licences from the file history in many cases. If no free licence can be found, tag as ((di-replaceable fair use)).
2. Photo of post-1990 building in a non-FOP country. Example: File:Burj Khalifa building.jpg. Since the building was completed on or after 1 December 1990, the building is copyrighted in the United States. However, per 17 USC 120(a), photos of the building don't infringe the architect's copyright in the United States. Use ((FoP-USonly)) combined with a free licence for the photographer's contribution. If you can't find out when the building was completed, assume that it was completed on or after 1 December 1990 to be on the safe side. The ((FoP-USonly)) template isn't really suitable for pre-1990 buildings since the template assumes that the building is copyrighted.
3. Preview of a not yet constructed building. Example: File:Trump Tower Design.jpg. Keep ((non-free architectural work)) but change the text to state that it only applies to this kind of images. These images shouldn't really be replaceable by anything until the building has been completed.
The template also seems to be used in a number of cases where it shouldn't be used, for example because someone is too lazy to take an own photo of a building in a FOP country, or where a different non-free tag would be more appropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the building was constructed before or after 1990 is entirely irrelevant. The template is used for tagging images, it's the copyright of the image which is important. 9carney (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What matters is whether the photo is free or not, and in the majority of the cases where this template is used, the photos are free in the United States, so the template is currently misleading. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's up to the uploader and copyright claimant of a photo. .....Well, anybody can take a picture within the United States and/or the United Kingdom and then post it in Commons, right? There's no need to use a non-free photo of a building that resides in either U.S. or UK, regardless of age, right? As for the overseas building, non-free license is needed for French and Russian buildings, no matter how or what the U.S. law says about ALL buildings worldwide. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, English Wikipedia allows any image which is free in the US to be uploaded as a free image. Compare with the similar templates ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) and ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg is free to use and share, as long as it is attributed. Meanwhile, the subject is also tagged with "non-free 3d art". --George Ho (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely unrelated situation. The United States has FOP for buildings but not for artworks. I'm not sure that the car is copyrighted either, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lichtenstein13.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nard the Bard, if as you say this this template misstates the policy of Wikipedia, please point out where the correct policy is documented. The recently created template FoP-USonly is based on a commons template for use on US buildings so is not a substitute for this template which is exclusively used for photos of buildings in non-FoP countries (ie. outside the US). The 1990 date only has relevance to the question of whether or not the photograph is taken on private property. URAA copyright restoration is not mentioned in the template so is not an issue. The content guideline you mention: Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights does not state that it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored, that section explains US law, not Wikipedia policy. In any case it's the copyright of photographs of buildings which is the issue, not the copyright of buildings. The template explains that such photographs can be copied freely in FoP countries but not in non-FoP countries which is why they are not "free-content" in Erik Möller's definition. I personally would like to see official Wikipedia policy changed but I'd suggest the correct way to do that would be to initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. 9carney (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section you are requesting is Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Duration of restored copyright: 'The duration of the restored copyright is "the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain":' For a building the full term is creation+0 years if completed before 1 December 1990, see s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act. Thus, a pre-1990 building would only be restored for the remainder of "creation+0 years", i.e. nothing.

For more recent buildings, note that 17 USC 120(a) does not specify any location of the building. Thus, the section applies to any building worldwide, and so you may freely distribute and produce pictures of any French or Russian buildings within the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opening phrase of this template "This image is a two-dimensional representation of a building or architectural work" is a big clue that this template is only concerned with images of buildings and is not concerned with physical buildings which are copies of other buildings. Thus the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act and any considerations of restored copyright have no relevance to discussion of this template. They are relevant to physical buildings which are copies of other buildings. As this template rightly says "Although this image can be freely copied in the United States, and in countries with similar laws (generally referred to as Freedom of panorama), it [the image] can not be freely copied in the country in which it [the image] was made and is therefore not classified as free content under the definition used by the Wikimedia Foundation". 9carney (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikimedia-wide copyright policy is that a user should respect both the copyright laws of their origin and US copyright law. The suggestion of replacing ((Non-free architectural work)) with ((FoP-USonly)) directly contradicts this principle, and effectively invites users to violate the laws of their origin, which is clearly something Wikipedia shouldn't do. I came to this discussion after looking at File:Burj Khalifa building.jpg. Deryck C. 22:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Violating the copyright in the source country is exactly what English Wikipedia does when using the ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) template. This is no difference. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are copyright of photos and of buildings the same? --George Ho (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, morons. This nonsense really, really pisses me off. To illustrate how ridiculous those of you supporting deletion are being, I ask you this- will you be rushing to delete pictures of recent statues taken in countries where there is a freedom of panorama to do so? Clearly, only the United States (GOD BLESS AMERICA) matters, and, in the United States (GOD BLESS AMERICA) there is no freedom of panorama for statues. So, they should be deleted, right? Oh, wait, no, you don't believe that. You're just trying to circumvent the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. I wouldn't put it as strongly as J Milburn, but I too am a bit concerned here in that I don't understand how, if we are to decide we can rely exclusively on US law in those cases where US FOP rules are more liberal than those of the country of origin, we could at the same time continue to rely on the non-US law in those cases where the situation is the exact reverse (e.g. photos of statues in the UK or Germany). Not that I'd exclude the possibility that such a have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too approach might somehow be justifiable, and I'd truly be glad if somebody could explain to me in a reliable fashion that it is, but right now I just don't feel confident making that step without competent advice from somebody who really understands the issues better than most of us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legally, I would guess that US FOP rules apply in both cases (recent French buildings and recent German statues). See Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/03#How international copyright works: "a photo of an Austrian building was OK in Austria, but it was ruled an infringement in Germany when it went to court there, because the German FOP law required that the photo be taken from a public place, whereas Austrian FOP does not". I would not be surprised if United States copyright law works in exactly the same way as German copyright law in that aspect. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) and ((FoP-USonly)) are valid tags -- i.e., English Wikipedia basically uses U.S. law, then this template does not make sense. It's about the definition of "free"; photos like this are virtually certain to not be a problem in the U.S.; they are not considered to be derivative works there and are fine. U.S. copyright law tries to treat foreign and U.S. works equally; their law explicitly states that photos of buildings are not derivative works, and I don't see any rational way that French etc. architects would have more rights on their work (in the U.S.) than American ones would. So, the photos are perfectly free inside the U.S. They are also almost certainly fine in the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, India, and any other countries which base their copyright law off the UK version -- in short, such photos would be fine in most of the English-speaking world. Photos of sculpture cannot rely on that though; at best the U.S. situation would rely on the FoP situation in the country of origin (not a sure thing, but feasible, on different grounds than the architecture situation, which is a virtual certainty). But I had thought that PD-US-1923-abroad had long represented the copyright policy for en-wiki, and this template does not make sense in light of that. The decision on this template has no bearing on the situation with statues; that follows an entirely separate line of reasoning which is not incompatible with this one (using foreign law to determine the copyright owner of such photos, which case law indicates the U.S. does, but the U.S. will use U.S. law only to determine is something infringes, which photos of buildings definitely do not). This is not a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation; the reasoning on keeping photos of sculpture (which Commons has done forever too, despite also being constrained by U.S. law) is independent of this.Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to verify the validity of both cases (US FOP for French buildings and British statues) by taking photos of selected objects and submitting those photos to the United States Copyright Office for registration? Or would it be necessary to publish the photos in the US and ask the sculptor/architect to sue the publisher for copyright infringement to test this? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, no objections and this seems doesn't seem to be the convention used for prior years. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final Four 2010–2019 navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The policy I'll cite is WP:NENAN, but my rationale is that this navbox is superfluous. This does not need to exist when a more comprehensive, more appropriate spot for these articles can all be found in Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Final Four seasons. At WikiProject College Basketball we are trying to take a hard look at what truly warrants navbox consideration because we do not want to contribute toward the increasing tendency to use navboxes unnecessarily, which ultimately clog up page bottoms. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newbie-biting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Uw-bite)), and much less clear Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Blatant bad faith nomination in retaliaton after editor was warned in a friendly manner [1] for biting a new editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not biting him, I'm actually staying silent during his insults. And he's not a newbie, he's here since 2007. But do not change the topic: this discussion is about the template, which is redundant and less clear Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whack Cambalachero with a trout - This is not redundant, it is a humourous and light-hearted alternative. Salvidrim! 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, non-standard, obtuse, and redundant to the more widely used ((uw-bite)). Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why wasn't this an obvious speedy close? The nomination was done in bad faith and the template clearly has use. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, no, nothing obvious about it, users have differing opinions, and no evidence of bad faith nomination (ever consider that the reason the nomination came after you used it was because that's how he learned about it?). I have concerns about this template since, though I'm an experienced editor, when I saw it my first thought was "What the hell are you talking about?" It could use some rewrite to make its purpose more clear (you know, without the mystery meat navigation links). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:28, 29 May 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was procedural close, listed multiple times, see 2012 June 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox national sports federations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think that this template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template was created without consesus, out of standard and there's a template better than this: Template:Infobox Organization. See this discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2012 (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 28

Template:Currentlyactivevehicles

Template:SCOTUS-recentcase

Template:Georgian statehood

Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox

NatOrganicBox

Template:Mirror me

Template:Musician icon

Template:Multiride icon

Template:Mst

Template:Mountain box start

Template:Interstate 670 (Kansas–Missouri)

Template:Mktb

Template:Mh

Template:Mcyr

Template:MaximunValue for bit amount

Template:MarinersNum

Template:Mainpl

Template:Maidenhead grid

Template:Lyonrhonexpress

Template:Lnk

Template:Lmp

Template:List as parameter

Template:Link pre

Template:Lin-b

Template:Liberty ship categories

Template:Letterheader

Template:LDLo

Template:Lcf

Template:LBTMPtop

Template:Laf

Template:Key article

Template:Kerala in Malayalam

Template:TLS-H

Template:WikiProject Charlotte

Template:WikiProject Louisiana Tech

Template:WikiProject University of Oklahoma

Template:WikiProject September 11, 2001

Template:WikiProject Los Angeles Lakers

Template:WikiProject Durham NC

Template:SWD

Template:GKD

Template:YGT

Template:WikiQuiz

Template:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin

Template:WikiProject University of North Texas

Template:WikiProject United States presidential elections/editintro

Template:WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University

Template:WikiProject Notre Dame

Template:Pedophilia

Template:Qif

Template:CFL Stadiums

Template:Non-free architectural work

Template:Final Four 2010–2019 navbox

Template:Newbie-biting

Template:Infobox national sports federations