June 15
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. –Pomte 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Footer Olympic Champions 5000 m Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See the following discussion and comment there. — PrimeHunter 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Footer Olympic Champions 3000 m Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The 3000 m was last run in 1992 and was replaced by the 5000 m in 1996, so it has been suggested to merge these two templates together in order to show the records together (I'm not sure how a proposed template merge should be handled. I'm just trying to fix a mess from mergeto used incorrectly on the templates. I support the merge). — PrimeHunter 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nomination and by my previous comment at Template talk:Footer Olympic Champions 5000 m Women. GregorB 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the orginal discipline and its replacement should come together in one template. Something like "Footer Olympic Chamions 3000/5000m Women" (though I'm not sure about so much capitalization). Aditya Kabir 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Peru district
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox Peru district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused. Duplicates ((Infobox District Peru)). Author Walter Humala (talk · contribs) has not edited since 2 April. — Andy Mabbett 22:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support it's an exact duplicate of Infobox city, and Infobox District Peru is already working, the one on question here isn't linked to any article (unless it's been removed before this nom) --Andersmusician $ 04:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - redundant template. --Haemo 07:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cascade delete Also delete Template:Infobox Peru District (a redirect, not to be confused with the other two templates mention above). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox City Kosovo2
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox City Kosovo2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused. Was one one article, now replaced with the more common ((Infobox City Kosovo)). — Andy Mabbett 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a reason why the Kosovo cities cannot use the generic ((Infobox Settlement)) template? hbdragon88 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably not. I'm making a "first pass" through the list of infoboxes about places, getting rid of the unused or duplicate., Next, I'll be looking to see what can be changed as you suggest, or merged. Andy Mabbett 08:57, 16 June 2007
- Delete, redundant and not used. --Tone 08:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant. Forking is bad. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox District
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused. ((Infobox Settlement)) is used instead. Author Me iwan (talk · contribs) has not edited, since the day this was created. — Andy Mabbett 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - looks to me like a smaller, less applicable version of the other template. Redundant. --Haemo 07:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:2007 Cincinnati Bengals staff
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:2007 Cincinnati Bengals staff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single use; has been embedded into 2007 Cincinnati Bengals season instead of being used as a template. — Pats1 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many more of these NFL-related single-use templates do you have? Evilclown93(talk) 11:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the only other non-current staff template. It was created after the Pats' and Phins' went up for deletion. Pats1 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was just curious... If there were more, you can list all of them here. --Evilclown93(talk) 11:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Abovetube
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Abovetube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is orphaned and unused by any article. In addition, it is redundant because the primary banner of the Wikiproject, ((WP London Transport)), has the ability to be made "small" and thus mimic the appearance of this banner. TAnthony 13:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unused and presents itself at an unconventional (and unwanted) location on the talk page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per TAnthony andCpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) above. John Carter 15:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More AMA templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:AMA-listing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:AMA-request (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:AMA/IRC/Appr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All 3 of these templates related to the recently closed AMA project. A similar template was up for deletion on June 5th. They are virtually unused and not needed. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The 3 users who still transclude the first one have been notified. There are 3 other templates with prefix AMA. After examination, I would also like to nominate Template:AMA alerts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Even though it is transcluded on many user talk pages, the content of the template is intentionally made blank precisely because AMA is closed. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be more prudent to mark these historical as well? If not, then delete. –Pomte 08:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Ireland-IDF
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deletion, which also means deletion of images. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ireland-IDF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The license provided by this template is not suitable for Wikipedia as it does not specifically allow derivative works (only reproduction). That makes these images non-free and this tag is not particularly useful. There are only a small number (11?) of images using this template for stubby articles. If any of them are non-replacable, a fair use tag and rationale should be added otherwise they should be deleted along with the template. Kotepho 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's mainly used for tagging pictures of warships at sea, which would be difficult to replace (and impossible in some cases as ships have been scrapped). I find it difficult to envisage what sort of "derivative" work could be made of these pictures, and for reproduction purposes this licence is fine. I rather object to going the fair use route for pictures when we have a perfectly adequate licence. I also rather object to describing the articles on the INS' ships as "stubby" - the Irish Naval Service doesn't usually travel very far (except for one voyage to Tokyo and one to Buenos Aires), but there's no call to disparage their ships! :) -- Arwel (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an acceptable license. See foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which basically says anything not under a free license (which is defined as allowing derivative works and commercial use, neither of which is explicit and therefore denied by this license) must be used under fair use. Kotepho 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that link. I followed a link from there to the Definition of Free Cultural Works which defines what's free. I note the Foundations' resolution, but note that the definition of a free licence includes: "Permissible restrictions. Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered permissible restrictions." (my emphasis). I therefore conclude that the IDF's licence is compliant, as the only condition it imposes is attribution. I therefore maintain my opposition to deletion. (I will shortly be going offline and may not be able to respond to further comments for nearly 24 hours.) -- Arwel (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The attribution is not the problem. The problems are what I said before, derivative works and presumably non-commercial. Under the essential freedom's section you will see "The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." and "The freedom to distribute derivative works: In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below)." Reproduction for non-personal use does not equate with permission for commercial use and derivative works. Kotepho 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or repurpose as a source tag (even though non free source tags are mainly deprecated on Wikipedia). License does not specifically allow derivative works. -N 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Reproduction of material from this website is authorised for personal use." and it says nothing about commercial use or modification of the images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire)
- 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 page.
The result of the debate was speedy deletion (CSD G2). This is a test page. Jesse Viviano 08:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No content other than what seems to be a malfunctioning link/s to other templates. Should be deleted. — Anonymous Dissident Utter 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as test page for Portal:Atheism. Might have been mistaken for the sandbox Template:X3. –Pomte 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Excessive Stargate templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Lots of templates designed to be on single articles:[reply]
Designed for navigation across Stargate SG-1 episode articles, but perhaps minimally useful. Staecker 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're useful, slightly, but really excessive. I had planned to TfD them all today as they were being created for the sake of creating a template (ten templates like that on one article... well it's just silly :\)... so delete. Matthew 11:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The character articles are sufficient for navigation purposes. --Tango 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all (optionally categorify the episodes or list under the characters' pages) Even though I don't regularly edit articles related to Stargate SG-1, I do watch the show and participate TFD regularly. The show has 10 seasons, amounting to over 200 episodes. These characters have varying degree of importance from minor (Zipacna (Stargate)) to important if main characters excluded (e.g. Bra'tac and Jacob Carter). This kind of nav boxes borderlines indiscriminate collection of information. Look at Reckoning (Stargate SG-1) (an important episode). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Template:Jacob Carter Stories and Template:Jacob Carter/Selmak Stories are exact duplicates. This is bad. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Templates like Thor and Apophis are useful, it would work better as a category, in my opinion. But ones like Nerus stories, well those ones are mostly useless. Matthew 12:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Definitely excessive. The character's individual pages can include a list of which articles they were in just as easily. I don't even think we need to add categories to these episodes. Each relevant episode should contain a link to the page of the major characters that were in it, and those character pages should contain links to all the major episodes that they were in, so these templates aren't doing much except clutter. --Maelwys 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Create catergrise insted of templates all the templates are usefull but only really are needed on there p[age insted i purpose that a template should remain on each character page and a link to the character on each page by the catergrise would there be any problems from doing that. p.s. I created all of the templates. --Littledaniel 93 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and don't make categories. The only place where the episodes can be listed, is the article about the specific character. Looking at the characters, about half of them doesn't deserve own article, I did some merging some time ago, seems this needs more work. For example, on the WP:WPSG a consensus was reached some time ago that only Apophis, Anubis, Ba'al and eventually Yu are the only system lords that can have own articles. The others are to be merged. Or was there another talk more recently? --Tone 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - templates are sometimes are excessive and often contain only minimal content. John Carter 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
US transportation
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:USLightRail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:USSubway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Over-templateness. Navigational templates should link closely-related items together and sort them in a way that makes it more reader-friendly than categorization. These items are so far flung apart – run by different agencies across the United States – that the usefulness of this template is diluted. There are far too many items and it is presented with little context (i.e. for some of them, you don't know where they come from unless you click on them, like METRORail). If you have to add a lot of metadata on it (i.e. Houston: METRORail), then the template becomes too big and again, not useful either. It should be categorized if such categorization is useful, but otherwise I do not see the purpose of linking so many loosely-related items together. — hbdragon88 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I bring up only for information that the subway template has been nominated for deletion once before. Not that this should prejudice the result of this nomination, but the pros and cons over on that page should be read in the context of this discussion. As for me, I created the subway template, so I'm probably prejudiced, but people interested in metro systems as such, rather than particular metro systems in the context of their locales, may wish to quickly navigate from one to the other. --Jfruh (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to make it clear with bolds, if it isn't from the above paragraph, that my vote is Keep. Since I created one of the templates in question, though, I don't know what the Wikipedia rules are on my ability to vote on it. --Jfruh (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a problem. Good disclosure though. I admit biasedness too as I was originally nominated it back in December. As I went on vacation shortly thereafter, I could not respond to what the two keepers had said. I just believe that the bulkiness of the template overrides the ease of navigation. hbdragon88 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I can imagine readers interested in metro system navigating through them. And I don't see a problem of clutter. Most metro/light rail system articles will probably have two nav boxes: "Transportation in someCity" and the templates in question. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think these templates are acceptable in their current states, but also agree that they could use improvement; I disagree with the nom that the addition of city names would overlengthen the template (especially if it were collapsed), but that's an editorial judgment, and I'll agree to disagree. In any event, deletion is inappropriate. —CComMack (t–c) 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These templates do seem unwieldy, but they do give a one-stop portal to all such systems in the United States. HOWEVER, they should be organized by region to make it less unwieldy. --AEMoreira042281 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per consensus above... — BWCNY 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.