Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

Template:EWCrossings navbox

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template duplicates the functions of a pre-existing template ({{Crossings navbox}}). There is no need for this additional template, as the purpose of its creation was to allow for labels other than "Upstream" and "Downstream, " a functionality already present in the original {{Crossings navbox}}. VerruckteDan 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~'Keep~~' Speedy Delete (I hadn't studied the applications of the exisitng template enough, this one is clearly superfluous). --Keefer | Talk 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please see example of trying to make the pre-existing ({{Crossings navbox}}) work to these parameters at: Template talk:EWCrossings navbox. It won't. Thanks.~~ No, you're wrong, Keefer, it will! Thanks for bearing with me.--Keefer | Talk 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to duplication of an existing template, but with thanks to Keefer4 for putting in the effort to address what he/she perceived to be a problem. (Even though the functionality already exists, it's the thought that counts.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Military-Insignia

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are image licence tags. Their legal reasoning was questioned on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and no reason was found in the ensuing discussion for these tags to be correct. The discussion was advertised on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies for more than one month[1][2] and archived recently after two weeks without activity. This is the snapshot of the discussion just before it was archived.

Assuming that the reasoning in these templates is indeed wrong, there are four principal options for each image tagged with one of the templates:

Some of the images belong to governments which do not assert copyright on their works. This is, for example, the case for the federal government of the United States. It is, however, definitely not generalisable to most or all other countries. Such images should be tagged appropriately, e. g. with {{PD-USGov-Military}}.
Other images may be in the public domain due to age or due to incorporating so little creativity that they are ineligible for copyright. We have appropriate tags for these cases, but there is no easy or automated way to determine whether some image falls into either category.
Hypothetically, a government might release such material under a free licence.
The remaining images should be presumed copyrighted and non-free. Some of them are likely usable under our ~~fair use~~exemption doctrine policy. Where this is the case, a fair use template and a rationale must be added.

Except for the fourth case, there is no future use for the templates under discussion. Even there, we should use standard tags like {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{logo}}.

I therefore propose that the templates under discussion here should be deleted.

Disclaimer: I have done my homework in terms of reading international treaties that might potentially contain terms substantiating the claim in these templates (and found nothing useful). I understand how wide-spread the templates are and also how long they have been accepted. I know there is a similar template on Commons. I know many of the affected images are useful. I have considered these factors before this nomination.

—xyzzy_n 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International law concerning issues such as flags or insignia are intentionally vaguely written to prevent legal trickery. I do not believe there is anything out there concerning "copyrights" directly. Restricting combatant identification (via copyrights or otherwise) would prevent the distinction between civilians and military. I do not know if this was ever challenged in court. It might be better to have this discussion in commons - thats where the images are. -- Cat ^chi? 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don’t see why the distinction is prevented when copyright is asserted. —xyzzy_n 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Copyright is mostly a matter of national law, not international treaties, anyway. —xyzzy_n 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, Besides in a Number of Countries these insignia Predate Copyright Laws. The Canada Claim that they are "Queens Copyright" is a bit off seeing as they (like AUS and NZ) are Derived from British Inisgnia Dating back to the Crimean War and Before. Didn't the RAF loose a huge Legal Battle over the Roundel a year or two ago? It was in such common usage already. The Insignia Images I've added for Ireland are a. My Own Work, b. A 2d representation of a 3d object (Which nearly all insignia images on this board are), c. Not Copyrighted by the Irish Defence Forces. The Defence Forces Cap Badge Image was designed in 1913 and the creator died in 1916. So Copyright would have expired already. While I'm not advocating over use of the Images or Breach of Copyrigh I think it should be left alone until there is a definative answer to the Subject. Stabilo boss 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For images of items which are out of copyright (author died more than 70 years ago), please use {{PD-old}} and if you added something (e. g. if the item was three-dimensional and you made a two-dimensional image of it; in this case, your work is protected by copyright), please add an appropriate tag ({{PD-self}} to release your additional work into the public domain, or a free licence tag). I think it can be reasonably assumed that material from the Crimean War is in the public domain. However, works derived from public domain works, such as new insignia derived from old insignia, can still be copyrighted. —xyzzy_n 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats a bad idea. Insignia has local restrictions not related to copyright. A {{insignia}} should be used regardless of the result of discussion made here. For instance, you can make copies of rank insignia but you can't wear them [unless you are a servicemen with that rank] in some countries. Basically it can be tagged with both -- Cat ^chi? 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when do we give legal advice? If really necessary, this should be implemented in a new template, unrelated to licence tags. —xyzzy_n 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being user friendly is not against policy. As Cat points out, a lot of license templates about official insignia all carry similar warnings along the line of "The usage of coats of arms is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here" which is just a nicer way of saying "don't let the PD tag give you any funny ideas about using this image in any context where such use could be confused with something official." Impersonating government or military officeholders is very often covered by strict laws, and I have yet to hear of a country where such actions are not illegal. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I asked the original question (after a discussion in Hebrew Wikipedia) and I got my answer: The claims in the template are incorrect (at least as a general rule). DGtal 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I would like to point out the {{PD-flag}} template. Images under that weren't deleted but merely retagged. Flags are also military insignia. Military insignia almost always is kept to very simple designs so are PD-ineligible. -- Cat ^chi? 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding ineligible designs, see item 2 in the nomination. However, I do not think that such a blanket statement can be made about the images; for example, Image:Warsaw Pact seal.png or, for that matter, Image:Afg-050124-015.png don’t look ineligible (although the latter is probably {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}). Regarding {{PD-flag}}, that doesn’t seem to have worked very well—we still have a lot of images tagged with it and of a handful of those images that I checked randomly, none had a tag specifying their actual licence. Meanwhile, {{PD-flag}} contains no useful information. —xyzzy_n 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of rank insignias (such as insignia of a Colonel) and etc., not seals. Seals are no insignia (they are seals :P). PD-Flag is fine, PD-Insignia is fine but we can do better than that in licensing them as you point out.
    I believe this template should share the fate of PD-Flag. Would that be satisfactory for you?
    -- Cat ^chi? 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. PD-flag is badly broken—it is not a valid licence template (because it makes no sensible statement on the licence status) and has no information relevant to the image, but is nevertheless used as a stand-alone licence template (and nothing else). I have yet to see any reason (i. e. an argument of copyright law) why a ‘PD-insignia’ template deserves to exist. (As you point out, some of the files aren’t even insignia…) Meanwhile, there is simply no such single argument for all the affected images being PD. There is not even a single reason for those of the images which are actually PD, to be PD. It is really necessary to invest some effort into this matter and tag everything properly so that future users know what they can do with the files and why. On a related note, Image:Colonel insignia.png certainly has enough creativity to be eligible for copyright (the US government just chooses not to assert any). —xyzzy_n 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Misuse of the template is no reason to delete a license template. I do not believe colonel rank has adequate creativity. -- Cat ^chi? 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Absence of a valid argument for the claimed licence status is a reason; as for those insignia, ‘the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice’ (Feist v. Rural, [3]). —xyzzy_n 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Regadless of legal reasoning, don't delete untill images are re-tagged with a better template. Deleting this template now would lead to automatic tagging and deletion of hundreds of valid PD images. --Qyd 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So how can we tell when the valid PD images have been re-tagged? Given that images can be undeleted, I’d strongly prefer the automatic tagging and notification of uploaders. WP:CSD#I4 gives the uploader or, for that matter, anybody else, seven days to add a licence tag. Images for which, after a speedy deletion tag has been applied, nobody bothers to fix the licence information for that time seem to have little chance of being fixed in the near future without any stimulus at all. —xyzzy_n 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox performer

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 after merge. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplication of Template:Infobox Celebrity, save for changing "occupation" to "genre". FuriousFreddy 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge → Template:Infobox Celebrity. The template is not, as nominated, a trivial duplication of the Celebrity template. It is however designed against a topical subset that is covered by the Celebrity template. The persons who have edited the two templates appear to not overlap, so it is unlikely that the Performer template arose as a subtopic fork from the Celebrity template, which means there shouldn't be a problem arising from editing history to stand in the way of good faith discussions around a merger of the two. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, This is not about discussing merge as in Internet explorer 7. Please discuse that in the template's talkppageJer10 95 Talk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey... what do you mean? Merges are often the result of deletion debate discussions. Gracenotes ^T § 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AFD:Internet explorer 7 result is a speedy close because it dosent support deletion due to merging. Jer10 95 Talk 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have misunderstood a somewhat confusing rule. It is true that you cannot list an item for merger at AfD or TfD; that is a speedy close. But once an item has been properly listed for deletion, someone else can suggest a merger as a counterproposal. Xtifr _tälk 10:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, they're not duplicates. Each has at least one field that the other lacks, which may complicate matters. In particular, Infobox performer has an "othername" field. There's an obvious fix, but I don't think Infobox performer should be deleted until that fix is made. Xtifr _tälk 10:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{Infobox performer}} was created for performance acts not limited to a single person; would support merge if {{Infobox Celebrity}} can reflect this necessity. — ATinySliver | talk 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ahh, good point - that fact had escaped me. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Vermont City

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only used on two cities and redundant with {{Infobox City}} — MJCdetroit 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused now. –Pomte 08:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. - grubber 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. VerruckteDan 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Alberta municipality infobox

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a redirect of the TfD below this one: Template:Infobox Municipality of Alberta. — MJCdetroit 16:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't admins delete any redirects if the target gets deleted? –Pomte 08:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you're right, but I was just playing it safe. :) MJCdetroit 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this for sure. - grubber 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Municipality of Alberta

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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template and its redirect ({{Alberta municipality infobox}}) have been completely replaced with the more flexible {{Infobox Settlement}}. — MJCdetroit 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/deprecated. –Pomte 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. - grubber 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New York City Subway 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.

View the list of nominated templates (lengthy)

Discussion

The result of the debate was delete all. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC) The service templates are almost unused since being replaced by template:NYCS. NYCS 1 was already deleted. The color templates are also unused. --NE2 16:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as deprecated. Just make sure there are no transclusions. If there are, fix them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above -- Cat ^chi? 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as deprecated with a nod to the contributor who created all these before the age of compact efficiency. –Pomte 08:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WPKU logo

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 deleted per CSD G7. --Iamunknown 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template only contained data for a single image. It is somewhat controversial by nature (news article - Kurdistan). I do not see the use of this template. -- Cat ^chi? 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Must.^T ^C 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that Kurdistan is controversial is not as relevant, I think, as the fact that this kind of shouldn't be what templates should be used for (unless the source of the map is changing frequently). Gracenotes ^T § 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is deleting well sourced information in Wikipedia let alone violating the preference of a projects' members and their freedom. We call this one of the unsuccessful attempts to delete "Kurdish" related information in Wikipedia, please check it out, it has failed many times before [4], [5], accusing project members: [6]. Well done cat! Ozgur Gerilla 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blabbering aside, cant you just use the image without the template? -- Cat ^chi? 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the image won't be deleted, only the template. Gracenotes ^T § 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
,,the image won't be deleted"", Do you know about the function of this template? We need this. The logo template is conected with many other Kurdish templates. see here [[7]]. --Bohater 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? Just use the image! You do not need a template to link to an image. -- Cat ^chi? 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. A note to WikiProject Kurdistan: some templates, like Template:WikiProject:Kurdistan/Intro, and Template:WPKurdistan Sidebar, could and should probably be moved to a WikiProject subpage. This template is really only placed on, roughly, four items, so changing the image (if there is consensus) perhaps may not be a task difficult enough to merit a template. Gracenotes ^T § 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done --Bohater 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ozgur. - Francis Tyers · 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually checked the content of the template? The contents is merely an image and nothing else. -- Cat ^chi? 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be convenient to keep this until WikiProject Kurdistan settles on their logo, at which point the template can be substituted and then deleted. This should focus the editing changes to one template instead of several WikiProject-related templates. Using a controversial map doesn't seem like a very good idea, but if I'm wrong, then subst and delete now. Again, this is not an attempt to delete information because no information is being deleted; it's just not how templates should work here. –Pomte 08:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There can't be a non-controversial map of Kurdistan. Political details aside (its very existence is disputed at a diplomatic level), there is no agreement on borders. -- Cat ^chi? 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be delete now. I have moved to the subpage. Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan/logo --Bohater 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Once the issue of what to use for a logo has been settled (and I mean "logo", not "representative map to use in articles"), you can substitute all instances the page's transclusion, and tag it with {{db|reason=[[WP:CSD#G6]]; WikiProject doesn't need this page anymore. See discussion at <link>}}. Gracenotes ^T § 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your Suggestion. --Bohater 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User Kurdistan

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 after userification, when that occurs. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political userbox. Kurdistan is a controversial region and a wanabe country. This news article is the proof of its controversial nature.-- Cat ^chi? 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Bohater 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Must.^T ^C 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. -- Black Falcon 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Kurdistan is an official region in Iraq and a wider geographical region is known as Kurdistan in the academic field; please check history or war studies books and see that the term is widely used and it's notable. Aldo during the Ottoman Empire the region was official. How can something official be controversial? A person should have a little freedom to name their username as the region their interested in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgurgerilla (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nothing offical about Kurdistan that occupies parts of Turkey, Armenia, Greece, Syria, Iran, or even Japan. {{User Iraqi Kurdistan}} would however be fine just like how {{User Florida}} is fine. -- Cat ^chi? 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No that wouldn't be fine because according to your logic the same user has to have its username as U.S Florida adding the point that it is part of U.S. How isn't this interfering in users' personal preference. Ozgur Gerilla 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formal name of Northen Iraq is "Iraqi Kurdistan". And yes Iraqi Kurdistan is indeed a part of Iraq and this isn't disputed. "Iraqi" is to prevent confusion (just like how it is between {{User Mexico}} and {{User New Mexico}}). -- Cat ^chi? 12:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy along with all userboxes with the exception of Babel boxes. - Francis Tyers · 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Move to user space. —MJCdetroit 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy But also a heads-up for Cool Cat - calling Kurdistan a "wanabe country" is not very civil and could be interpreted as a personal attack on those coming from that region. Charon X/talk 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt claim to be a country, no one claims it to be a country. Some random people wish for a country which makes it a wanabe country. If anyone interprets this as a personal attack they ought to check their priorities. -- Cat ^chi? 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. - Nick C 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kurdistan has its own language, its own culture, and its own ethnic group, and its own flag. It may not be a country, but it does fit the definition of nation, like Tibet or Silesia. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tibet claims to be a country, Kurdistan does not, I do not see a reason why we should. I disagree with you. Kurdistan does not have its "own language", it does not have its "own culture", and it does not have its "own ethnic group". It does not fit any definition of "Nation". It is merely a geo-cultural region where many ethnicities such as Kurds, Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Assyrians, and god knows how many others happen to live. Original research has no place on wikipedia - not even in userboxes unless for humor. I do not believe this userbox is intended to be humorous. -- Cat ^chi? 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about countries, I was talking about nations. There is a difference. Tibet may well be a country in exile, but I was referring to its status as a nation. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I modified my post above. -- Cat ^chi? 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Be careful about labeling something as original research. Wikipedia has an article on Kurdistan. Also note that there is a Kurdish language, Kurdish culture, and Kurdish people. As a region and not a nation, Kurdistan does have other ethnic groups, as every region does, but the Kurdish people are the dominant group in most of it. I see no original research here. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Architecture see also

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 keep, nobody including the nominator now wants this deleted. --ais523 15:20, 16 April 2007 (U T C)

This template is insanely long and strongly inappropriate to be placed in see also section. Delete. — Jklamo 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn after change to nav box (Delete per nom). Arnoutf 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is acceptabe to me too, no need to delete any longer. Only do not place this one under see-also but further down. Arnoutf 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this template to help organize the many articles that are related to the extremes of building. When I stumbled on these article they seemed seperate and distant from each other, but with this template, you can clearly see the hierarchy structure of the Architecture extreme articles. It also gives links that I found these articles had in common. It does not have to be used on all the related articles, however, and is a good starting point when substituted into articles using subst:. It is also not in its final form and can be changed as is deemed suitable, so I see no reason whatsoever to delete this template.--Jorfer 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are currently 73 only marginally related entries in this template. I cannot imagine a single article that would benefit from the inclusion of such a long list. When there is no place for a template, it should be deleted (I voted above already). Arnoutf 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - why don't we make this into a standard navigational box, rename it to something like Template:Tall buildings, and put it in articles related to tall buildings, possibly including the lists? Gracenotes ^T § 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Category refinement. First, the title of the template isn't appropriate - it tells us nothing about the content. Second, the template was created as an organizational tool, as noted by its creator. I would suggest that refinement of existing categories would accomplish the same end. There already exist, for instance, Category:Lists of tallest buildings and Category:Lists of tallest structures, each of which have as a second level geographical classification. My feeling is the template adds relatively little that some refinement of the existing categories would not be able to emulate. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the list with a compact table, keeping mainly the lists as some of the articles are not entirely relevant to them. There are a lot more country lists, as well as cities and smaller areas. I'm not sure why there are lists of 1. buildings and structures, 2. buildings, and 3. structures. There's a merge proposal but I suspect this will be a long process, so this template can be unused and updated as that goes on. –Pomte 08:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that compact table looks much better to me. We can discuss about its content on its discussion page, but it is not deletion candidate now for me. --Jklamo 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After changing the template to a navbox type template both the original nominator Jklamo, and the only support vote (myself) have agreed the current version should be kept. Hence there seems now to be consensus to keep. I would be happy if an admin closes this discussy on keep. Thanks Arnoutf 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User Favorite Pokémon

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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox. Broken when we cracked down on FU images. Category deleted in September. Delete. Iamunknown 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For anyone who wants something like this, I have a userspace template like this hidden somewhere in my multiple subpages I created, delinked, and forgot about. -Amarkov moo! 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and broken. --Dweller 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify/delete -- Cat ^chi? 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if anyone is interested enough in the box to adopt and fix it, go ahead, otherwise in the bin it goes. Charon X/talk 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if anyone is actually going to use it, otherwise Delete. - Nick C 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dweller. Acalamari 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Db-snow

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 per WP:SNOW, because I can't resist a little irony, and more specifically because templates shouldn't misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-snow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Not a WP:CSD, though the situation may be covered under CSD G7. I don't understand how you could use the snowball clause as a deletion reason. However, there is no need for a non usable CSD template. Prodego ^talk 01:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created it. I thought it was on a my user subpage. I was waiting for a reply on how to propose the template to be used on articles. I created because of the Don Imus article. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is in the Template: namespace. You could move it to your userspace if you want, but it still won't be a valid reason for speedy deletion. Prodego ^talk 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no such thing as a non-admin tagging an article for speedy deletion per the snowball clause. Therefore, the template is irrelevant and should be deleted. YechielMan 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that! I thought it was in my userspace and I was going to ask how to propose a new template because of the Don Imus article. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To propose a new speedy deletion reason, start a discussion on WT:CSD. But this would not be made a new criterion, so I would advise just not bothering. -Amarkov moo! 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh hell, Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Resolute 04:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Uw-warn

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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this template for deletion because the notice may constitute bad-faith when placed on other users' talk page. I have tried this a few times after users reverted vandalism; however, the result was considered as a bad-faith edit. ^t_z 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my understanding, bad faith has to do with intentions, while this template only addresses actions, and specifically the benefits of communicating with other users when reverting their edits. How is that bad faith? Dar-Ape 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do get where you are coming from, this template helps by educating people about the warning templates they can use. Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the template can be perceived as slightly intrusive by some readers, and there's not much of a way around that. In cases like this, I would prefer to write the user a note "by hand", but the template is at least as good. YechielMan 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong process, but keep. It's patronizing when used on established editors who already know this, but so are all warning templates. -Amarkov moo! 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved from MFD to TFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - On condition that the official-looking graphic is removed from the template, and that it be worded to make it clear that the intention is to bring the user's attention to the existence of user warning templates, and to make it clear that use of them is entirely optional and that that may find them useful. Also, the template should should perhaps not include a "thank you" as this could suggest communication from a position of superiority. Agreement with their actions, rather than gratitute would put the message bearer on a more level footing, and would help to message to be accepted as that from an equal. It ought also be renamed from "uw-something" as use of this template is not in itself a warning, nor a precursor to one. --Rebroad 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made these changes now. Hope this is ok - it's common practice for a template to be changed while an AFD is being discussed, especially if it may help to change concensus to "Keep". --Rebroad 10:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that consensus was already keep... no matter, though. The uw- prefix is a standard part of user talk page messages indicating general information about process and policy; prior to it, template names were a bit less guessable (aka intuitive)... but that's a different matter. You could check out WP:UW/FAQ for more details. Gracenotes ^T § 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep → The template is useful, per Amarkov. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: userful and indicator template must be kept. Jer10 95 Talk 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for logic explored above; however, I would suggest keeping the image. No need to pretend that this isn't a pre-written template. If you don't want that pre-written template feel, write a custom message! Gracenotes^T § 01:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No pretense suggested. It's a pre-written template, image or no image. With image, I think it's a little pretentious and officious. Without image, it's more personal. This is my opinion. --Rebroad 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I think that the issue in question is whether to have images on user talk notices at all (not warnings, merely notices; information). How about this: whether your interpretation of the dichotomy is sensible (to the point of actionable) or not, I don't see the value of having a more personal template. All talk page posts that I have seen indicate, to me, that if editors become frustrated or turned off an impersonal template, it is not because those templates are impersonal. Gracenotes ^T § 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov. Acalamari 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, discourages WP:BOLD. If you don't like it when a certain edit isn't made, stop telling other people to do it and do it yourself. Tuxide 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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