April 7
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 May 25. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * survives 14:45, 25 May 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 May 25. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused fb templates and with the amount of uses other FB templates generally have, seems to suggest that these have been replaced by other templates. Gonnym (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 April 20. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2019 (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).
Template:Copyright-EU
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 May 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2019 (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).
Template:Sub judice
- 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).
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This template is a cross between a WP:legal threat and a WP:DISCLAIMER. I encountered it at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings where -- as you'd expect if Wikipedia's disclaimer policy had been revoked -- people didn't want to look for evidence that the case was definitely under sub judice or that sub judice applies to unpaid users discussing news stories already published, but put up this "important notice" at the top of the page just to be safe. Even if they did have a solid reason for fear, to put up a disclaimer here would be in sharp contrast to an article like Tiananmen Square protests or Fethullah Gulen where we give no Important Warning to Chinese or Turkish editors. I don't think there is any legitimate use for this kind of thing: if there really is a sub judice concern, then it is a general Wikipedia issue and having people put it on a few selected pages would only provide false sense of security for people on others. And so long as the template exists and is in use somewhere, it is taken as license -- and mandate -- that it be used on more. And the end of that social process is Wikipedians seeming to beg to be hit with regulations that I doubt apply to them anyway. This deletion proposal likely implies a similar process for Template:Sub judice UK, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Bermuda, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Gibraltar, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Hong Kong, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Ireland, and Template:Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand, but I am not actually very familiar with the process for deleting things so I'm not sure I should get into that yet. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all of them. It was a nice idea in theory, but in practice editors still conflate "maybe editors in XYZ should be cautious" with "XYZ's laws violate WP:NOTCENSORED blah blah blah all aboard the AE train" :( TheDragonFire (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - as an editor subject to a jurisdiction with no clear cut free speech protections similar to First Amendment (Australia in my case) I think that this template is a valuable warning for editors to consider legal implications of what they publish on Wikipedia. Australian justice system has shown substantial amount of zeal in prosecuting perceived breaches of the suppression orders and it is not obvious to me that an Australian Wikipedia editor could not be a subject of such prosecution if they contributed to Wikipedia in contravention of the suppression order. Wikipedia is a high profile website, and targeting of individual editors as a deterrent is not unimaginable. None of this is to say that Wikipedia should compromise on WP:NOTCENSORED, but reminding affected editors of implications of their actions seems like a positive thing. And yes, extending such warning to talk pages of other sensitive topics (such as Tiananmen Square protests or Fethullah Gulen) seems to me like a prudent course of action. Melmann (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Melmann: Don't forget to label articles with Muhammad images, prosecutions sensitive to Vladimir Putin, or American political measures offensive to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia. Your vision of Wikipedia is one full of many, many notices as it seeks to be the key paranoid legal advisor to the oppressed masses of all the nations of the world.
- I am aware of some of the extensive censorship in Australia, yet the story you cite describes prosecutions only of key employees at major news firms. It even says that "Since then some of the less egregious alleged breaches, including items on the ABC’s RN Breakfast show and in Crikey, which confined themselves to a mention of the newspaper coverage, have since received letters to say the charges have been dropped." Since Wikipedia only publishes second-hand reports, it is still not apparent to me that editors here would be at a level of risk comparable to that involved in, say, criticizing ISIS, whose edicts have precisely the same level of legitimacy as those commanding censorship from any other nation. Wnt (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - as a UK based editor I believe that it is most important that all editors have the information readily available that the subject of the article is, at that moment, in the process of being tried / retried in a court of law within Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If then an editor places "information" into an article that might have a detrimental effect on the fairness of any future trial that generously may have been an accident, or not, but at least it was not from lack of contemporary knowledge. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I sympathize with the editors from Australia and UK above, but having a notice on the talk page associated with an article isn't going to give them the warning they want to have displayed, anyway. This would be more appropriately done via WP:EDN. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I can understand why some people say No disclaimers in articles, but legal systems such as those in the UK and Commonwealth countries do not offer guaranteed protection for freedom of speech where court cases are concerned. Care is needed in these jurisdictions. It is a useful headsup for talk pages and is not intended to limit article content.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless the function can be provided by something more accessible to general editors than wp:EDN. Perhaps the template can be changed so that any confirmed editor can add it to the talk page but in addition it sends a request to the administrator noticeboard for it to be replaced by an edit notice in the article space. TJRC is correct to the extent that it is a poor substitute for an edit notice but it is all we have right now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a note to point out that the situation referred to by the template is not hypothetical. I have been involved with several UK court cases on Wikipedia where users insisted on trying to add material that a judge had banned from publication pending or during a trial. Breaking the contempt of court laws could lead to a visit from Mr. Plod, as shown here. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per IanMackM, and that until every Wikipedia editor has protected freedom of speech wherever they do so edit.... ——SerialNumber54129 08:12, 7 May 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused version of ((Football box)). Created and edited once in 2015 and has since been abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused version of ((Football box)). Created and edited once in 2014 and has since been abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused version of ((Football kit)) or ((Football kit box)). Created and edited once in 2004 and has since been abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:30, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused version of ((Football kit)) or ((Football kit box)). Created and edited once in 2013 and has since been abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:30, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused fb footer template and with the amount of uses other FB templates generally have, seems to suggest that this has been replaced by other templates or just not used. Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:31, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused fb footer template and with the amount of uses other FB templates generally have, seems to suggest that this has been replaced by other templates or just not used. Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:31, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template and with the amount of uses other FB templates generally have, seems to suggest that this has been replaced by other templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:31, 8 April 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template and with the amount of uses other FB templates generally have, seems to suggest that this has been replaced by other templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:31, 8 April 2019 (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).
Template:Fb out player
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template and with the amount of uses other FB templates generally have, seems to suggest that this has been replaced by other templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:31, 8 April 2019 (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).
Template:Fb in player
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated with no more transclusions. This is one of the fb series of templates that some have been deleted or being actively replaced (see holding cell). Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:31, 8 April 2019 (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).