Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5

Template:Campaignbox Chungju Campaign

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(Упражнение В!) 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used. --Wikimachine 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessary. Xiner (talk, email) 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a template is not being used does not automatically qualify it for deletion.--C J King 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are more generic templates for the same job. >Radiant< 13:26, 8 January 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 page.

Template:wdefcon

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 kept per my lack of understanding _→AzaToth 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As heard from people, I have got the impression that this template is redundant and obsolete, thus qualify for deletion. _→AzaToth 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I find this very useful when determining where to allocate my wiki time. With lower levels, I can devote my time to de-orphaning articles or other more advanced tasks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -I feel that it is very useful for checking my watched pages when vandalism levels are high. Big Boss 0 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per EVula. No valid reason given for deletion. -- Kesh 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Despite AzaThoth's rewording of the deletion request, there is still no valid reason given for deletion. -- Kesh 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as Wikipedians on IRC are not the only ones with opinions. Not a very strong nom, and I find this template useful. –Llama man^{sign here} 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- per I don't like it-"incredibly stupid" is POV. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Chrislk02 - if it's quiet, I'll find something creative to do, if there's a lot of vandalism, I'll fire up VandalProof and keep an eye on what's happening. This MfD wiil do nothing but piss off more people and make IRC even more unpopular than it already is. IRC is an incredibly useful tool for assisting in the improvement of Wikipedia but if people carry on with this sort of stupid shit, nobody is going to respect any editor or sysop who can be found on IRC. Total and utter shoot yourself in the foot job. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all the great reasons. It's NOT redundant OR obsolete...it's updated 5-10 times a day. P TO 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (and why on earth should this nomination be speedily closed, just because an IRC channel and a template has mobilised all the fans of this?) this is a hang over from the worst of the CVU-paramilitary days and is well passed its sell-by date. Vandalism isn't something to be 'fought' with silly flashing lights but dealt with simply by reverting and blocking. We don't want to allow vandals to present themselves as a serious threat, nor an 'enemy' (see WP:DENY). This isn't a war-zone it is a serious encyclopedia.--Doc^g 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What exactly is wrong with it? It's pretty clear that a lot of users typically involve themselves in more than one task. If I see the defcon to be at 3 or higher, I go on recent changes and fix vandalism. If it's 1 or 2, I usually do other things like work on articles and go to AfD or do other chores. --Wafulz 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't hear about it from IRC (which I'm almost never on). I found the TfD from my admin page, where it is one of the several handy items I use to help administer Wikipedia efficiently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's my point. We should discuss this. But, naturally, the fact that this is a template that its supporters all like and watch means it will attract a disproportionate number of supporters to this debate. That does not allow you to get a 'speedy keep' before the rest of the community gets its say. The call for 'speedy' is without any basis or reason whatsoever. The question of deletion or not we can discuss over the next number of days.--Doc^g 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I meant was that I don't understand your motive for deletion. Also, from my understanding, speedy keep can be applied to faulty nominations, such as this one where the nom has not said why the template is either redundant or obsolete. --Wafulz 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Doc, I have to say I'm surprised at your tone. To dismiss those who disagree with you as mere fans strikes me as elitist or worse. Intemperate language is no reason for anyone to agree with you. TfD tagging a template watched by many Wikipedians is enough to guarantee a strong turnout of those who find the template useful. Fans of silly flashing lights notwithstanding, there seems to be plenty of support for this eminently useful template. --Ssbohio 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'd like to point out that, at the time I called for Speedy Keep, the reason for deleting it was entirely substandard (as it is, I still find it wanting). If you can make an argument for its deletion without trivializing me as some loony fan boy, that'd be just swell. I don't see how it is obsolete, since I (and several others) use it as a guiding star, of sorts, for what we should pay attention to the most; when we're at 4 or 5, I focus more on article work, but any time we're above that, I usually focus more on blocks/deletions (and specifically any note saying "admins needed at WP:soandso"). Please present an alternative to the template, and I may reconsider its obsolescence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, Doc, I find the template to be silly and find it rather unnecessary. However, I still voted Speedy Keep because there was no reason given to delete it besides I don't like it. The proposed deletion gives no reasoning besides "a few people say it's obsolete." Despite my feelings about the template itself, the vote seems rather obvious to me. -- Kesh 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I check this template on my user page to gauge whether I should apply myself at RCP or elsewhere. --Wafulz 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep wow, have you noted how many uses use this template and its various others. I always to a quick check of the guage whenever I am off to vandalfight. It is extremely helpful to me and to countless others. — Arjun 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Evula. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid. There may well be good reasons for deletion, but the nominator has not given them. And it is time to start thinking very carefully about Wikipedia and IRC. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given good reasons. It glorifies vandalism and trivialises wikipedia.--Doc^g 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as it is useful, which it is. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful, warns me to revert vandalism.--�PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like to know why this template is deemed to be redundant. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Ineffective. Two obvious spelling errors went uncorrected for one hour: [1]. Either nobody saw it, nobody noticed the mistake, or nobody felt moved to correct it. Whichever the case, I don't think this template is accomplishing its objective. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perfection is an unattainable goal. Because two edits slipped through does not mean this template deserves deletion. One has nothing to do with the other. -- Kesh 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beg differ. The user who has edited the template just got blocked for vandalism. Your template was effectively vandalized for an hour without anyone lifting a finger. This doesn't bode well. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My" template? Note my comment above. I think it's a silly template and see little use for it. However, that is not a reason for it to be deleted. If someone resubmitted with valid reasons to delete, I would likely support the deletion. This isn't it. I don't like it is not a valid reason to delete something. -- Kesh 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for the template's deletion is based on the fact that there was an uncorrected typo? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep An impression of being redundant is an awfully weak & weasel-worded reason to delete. If the nominator isn't certain there's a reason to delete, then why should anyone delete based on this nom? Additionally, this template is useful to the administration of the project. I check it when I come on and use it to decide whether to edit or patrol for vandalism. Vandals will not disappear if we remove this template. In short, no policy basis cited to support deletion of this useful template, so speedy keep it. --Ssbohio 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Very useful for allocating time between "patrol" and "actual work". --science4sail ^talk con 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Incredibly useful. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - not exactly everyone has access to IRC, and this template allows excellent coordination of counter-vandalism activities, such as by mobilising and pointing vandalfighters in the right direction during high/topical vandalism periods, and directing admins to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD whenever a backlog builds up. Despite living in the wrong country, I was able to help out when that Colbert Report/Elephant stuff hit the fan, because I found out about it from wdefcon. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussions. Zsinj^Talk 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I find it very useful for knowing when vandalism levels are up. I tend to work more on spelling and other housekeeping chores. When vandalism levels are up, I like to know and respond. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep there is Wdefcon is INVALUEABLE to rc patrollers and vandal fighters. KeepKeepKeep! --B ezking ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Default to keep per complete lack of any convincing reasons on either side. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why are we going through this again when a recent TfD resulted in a resounding Keep? Again, this template is incredibly useful. I check it regularly to see when I should fire up VP and join the CVU on active patrol. I especially appreciate, per CaptainVindaloo, that the template can be easily updated and customized to direct editors and admins to where their efforts are most needed. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the levels to be useful. I don't usually do vandalism patrol, but when the level is elevated I often put my hand in. So this template helps me. Herostratus 02:23, 6 January 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 page.

Template:Contradict-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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new parameter to {{contradict}} that now allows it to be used for both articles and sections. I've updated the template page and the template talk page on that template to reflect my updates. --NMajdan•talk 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{Contradict}} can be used to get the same content as this template. –Llama man^{sign here} 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. --Wafulz 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a good reason not to replace with {{Contradict|section}} so people don't have to waste their time finding the other with parameter? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. I added a new parameter to {{contradict}} so now this template is redundant. the {{Contradict|section}} you mentioned was the parameter I added.--NMajdan•talk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant after revisions. TonyTheTiger 20:27, 8 January 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 page.

Template:GW characters

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(Упражнение В!) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with generic {{Infobox character}}. Cache load, consistency, etc. Same reasons as {{HouseCharacter}}, which was TFD'd on 29 Dec --The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest there is very little information in them, and it gets repeated in the article, so you might as well delete them, although keep the images. ISD 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only ~10 mainspace transclusions, and {{Infobox character}} is much more informative. The character's name, occupation, and actor should be expected to be mentioned in the main content of the article, anyway. –Llama man^{sign here} 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I seen no advantage to this over the standard character infobox. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:45, 8 January 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 page.

Template:toppostusertalk

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(Упражнение В!) 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete upon further consideration. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Force people to top-post in a system with builtin bottom-posting, strange... _→AzaToth 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing wrong with it. Many times new users/anons will post at the very top above the first heading and this just asks them to not. Koweja 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Er, this says to post at the top. Xiner (talk, email) 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koweja. Quite a few users have had a fair share of vandals/newbies leaving new messages at the top of user talk pages and not putting headers on them. However, maybe the template should be moved to a clearer name, as the current one is pretty confusing. –Llama man^{sign here} 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently says post at the top This turns to keep if its corrected to say post at bottom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently stands. It says (and has always said) to post at the top, which makes no sense (nor do the above keep !voters' rationales). -- Kicking222 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Contradicts the way MediaWiki works and so is likely to cause (harmless) confusion. There's no reason a user cannot ask to have new messages at the top, but they should probably just be educated to not use this template. —Dgies^t c 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bluntly, is it really hurting anything? If there is one stating "post new messages at the bottom," what's wrong with having a template that says to post them at the top? One may wish to simply have new messages posted at the top, to prevent having to waste time going to look at the bottom. If one should be deleted, then the other should be, in turn; such a talk page rule (post new messages at the bottom) should be well-enforced, if people are really and truly bothered by this template. BishopTutu 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as said, several keeps here seem to not be reading it properly: it says to post at the top, not the bottom. And to require users to post at the top counter-policy is both confusing to established users and horribly disorienting to non-established users. Delete. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:24, 12 January 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 page.

Template:YouTube user

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non notable Youtube userpage spamming template. --Illio5f 14:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. YouTube is a notable site. It's already quite well-known, so I wouldn't call it spam. There is also a somewhat weak and confusing nomination ("YouTube userpage spamming template" could mean it's spammed on Wikipedia userpages, spammed on mainspace articles with the link leading to the YouTube userpage, and probably more things). –Llama man^{sign here} 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aren't we supposed to avoid YouTube links? Besides, it's not used on any userpages. It's only used on articles, which makes it a tool for spamming. P TO 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Links to Youtube have been controversial and are deprecated because Youtube does not habitually provide copyright information and contains tons of copyright infringements. This might mean Wikipedia becomes liable for contributory infringement of copyright. It should certainly not be encouraged. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Links to YouTube should not be universally discouraged, but linking to a YouTube userpage is rarely needed. However, the current usages of this template seem fine from both notability and copyright viewpoints. -CarelessHair 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Initially I thought that this was a userbox, which I would Strong Keep, but if this is actually meant to be transcluded in mainspace, delete it. If the article subject is solely notable in the context of YouTube, like lonelygirl15, definitely include an external link to there, but we don't need a template to do it. Gracenotes^T § 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-necessary.--cj | talk 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unncessary. Xiner (talk, email) 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--C J King 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary template that could be simply typed into the page. This isn't what template space is for. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is useful to standardize the form of certain external links if we have a legitimate need for a lot of them. In this case we only need the link when the subject is notable, and they have an official/authorized account on YouTube. That is probably pretty rare. Otherwise this will just encourage NN subjects to engage in self-promotion. —Dgies^t c 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what the heck is wrong with it? If we have a YouTube users, then creating a link to their site is something we'd be doing anyway in the article. This just makes it easier. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:27, 12 January 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 page.

Template:Cocktail-expand

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 Deleted by admin Alai (per too-many-*FD-listings-to-mention). Non admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had first listed this at SFD since it was related to a similar discussion (located here). As I mentioned over there, this is non-standard usage of {{expand}} used specifically for WikiProject Cocktails ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I have listed all the articles in the Project to-do list and removed this template from all articles. It is ready for deletion. Thanks for giving me the time to complete the work. :-) --Willscrlt 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to user subpage~~ - First, let me state that I am not (yet) familiar with all the terms that were brought up as reasons to delete these. I will do so quickly, but let me explain a few things, and hopefully we can fix these rather than delete them outright.

These are all part of a massive cleanup project the WikiProject Cocktails is undertaking. It started in December and the cleanup project ends February 28th. At the very least, please do not delete these prior to that date. It has been soooo much effort to help categorize and tag all the articles, this would set us back terribly and just be devastating to the efforts of a small, but growing number of people who are helping to improve these broad section of articles. We have been making real headway, and these helpful tags and the related categories have been at the heart of organizing our work. If we did something wrong (and I'm sure we did since it's up for discussion here), please give us a chance to fix it.
The normal expand template does nothing to alert members of the WikiProject Cocktails that an article is in need of expansion. The tag we created does that by listing it in a category that is easy for project members to locate and use. This really helps us organize our efforts.
When I started this whole initiative back in December, I was fairly new to editing at Wikipedia. I have learned a lot since. I am flexible, and do like to follow standards. If something doesn't work, or if I do something wrong, I change and self-correct. I see that most WikiProjects use some form of categorization within the WikiProject Banners they place on talk pages. I'm completely fine with changing and converting the (apparently bad) system we use now to something like that, but if you just delete these outright right now, you will make that soooo very much more difficult to do.
These are not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has more guidelines and policies than the average well-meaning Wikipedian can possibly hope to learn in a short amount of time. But that does not give us an excuse, but I do ask that you give us the time to fix things.
If there is a better way to meet our goals and fall within established guidelines, please advise me. Then please give me time or help us swap out the currently marked articles to the new method so we can be within compliance.
Thank you for your consideration. Now I'm off to go read up on several policies of which I was unaware. *sigh* --Willscrlt 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Orderinchaos78 for the suggestion. I am making good headway on converting from these disagreeable templates to proper assessment standards for identifying these articles. It really, really would be helpful if the articles were not stripped of these tags or merged into the regular stubs category. These fit into neither category, but they do fit nicely into the assessment scheme. I have copied down the names of all the currently flagged drinks, but it would make editing faster and easier if I they could stay linked for a bit longer. I promise to completely eliminate both the template and category just as soon as I am finished (probably under a week). If that's not possible, so be it. It just would be very helpful. Sorry everyone for causing this disruption. And thanks again, Orderinchaos78, for the suggestion. :-) --Willscrlt 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close/keep Faulty nomination, belongs into TFD. CharonX/talk 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this is a template, but I was trying to keep it together with the similarly listed Category:Cocktails (expand) below. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE, this was MOVED from WP:MFD as in improper listing. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user subpage - this sounds exactly like the sort of thing I'd have as a subpage when working on a heap of articles. Per Wikipedia:Subpages - note that just because it's under your user page (or project page) doesn't stop others from editing or accessing it if you wish, but can't be "inbound linked" - see the previously cited page for guidelines. Orderinchaos78 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{cocktail-stub}}Just H 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - The deletion notice template was added into part of the template that transcludes onto various articles, leaving nasty looking deletion notices on the articles. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but it is a good reminder to be careful to place such templates within a noinclude block, not in the included part of a template. (Unless it really is the intention to ahve the articles look like they are about to be deleted, too.) I'm moving it inside of the noinclude tags for now. --Willscrlt 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{cocktail-stub}}. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 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 page.

Template:WPBrisbaneNotice

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(Упражнение В!) 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Brisbane=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned, obselete. –Llama man^{sign here} 22:31, 5 January 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 page.

Template:WPMNotice

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(Упражнение В!) 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Melbourne=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 18:26, 5 January 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 page.

Template:POEEJ

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(Упражнение В!) 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright tag whose license terms are incompatible with Wikipedia. This copyright tag is for the "Post Office Electrical Engineers' Journal", which copyrights its material and allows reprints of up to one-third of any article. That's not the same as releasing the material under a free license. --BigDT 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not clear that this supposed allowance covers images. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as spam. Wimstead 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotes non-GFDL-compatible copyright. Wikipedia is not simply "reprinting". Was created only yesterday, has been applied to 3 images. Orderinchaos78 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this tag. The POEEJ was the Journal of the Institution of Post Office Electrical Engineers, and it was considered a serious engineering journal at the time - a British equivalent of the Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ). It ceased publication in 1981. It remains a very valuable primary source for research into telecomms history. Up to one-third of an article obviously includes everything in that article - it's absurd to infer that the 'one-third' applies to text only when the journal itself says nothing of the sort. It's equally absurd to expect a journal that expired 26 years ago to release content under a free license. I do wish you guys would get a clue before sounding off, because dangerously uninformed wikicops and self-appointed wikicrats are pissing off people who actually write CONTENT in droves. I've contributed a hell of a lot to WP but these days almost everything I try to create gets messed around with by people who don't know what they're talking about. This is the last straw. Fuck the lot of you, I'm outta here for good. Harumphy 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a free license, and not a special case where the vast majority of examples would meet our requirements for fair use. --Carnildo 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sounds like rights were explicitly released so long as the one-third requirement is kept (not hard), and plenty of valid images on WP require attribution. No problem with mirrors either, as it's to everyone and not just WP. Lastly, since they're defunct, there is absolutely no risk of them changing the licesing terms later. Wikipedia is not evangelism; just because it's copyrighted/closed source doesn't mean that it can't be used. SnowFire 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It permits reproduction, which is only part of a free license. In order to be a free license, the license also needs to permit modification and distribution of modified versions. --Carnildo 21:34, 12 January 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 page.

Template:CANADA

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 being bold, redirected. Maxarre, if you want to {{db-author}} it, feel free. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely duplicates Template:CAN; only has one use --Mk3severo 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and redirect duplicates which are used -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold per Amarkov. Xiner (talk, email) 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be bold and boldly go where no man has gone before. (I don't get the "be bold" joke) Maxarre 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unaware of the existence of the CAN template when I made this one; I thought I had searched thoroughly enough for an existing template before I resorted to creating one. I updated the one page that reference this article by pointing it to the approved "CAN" template. Maxarre 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. - Privacy 03:49, 9 January 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 page.

Template:WikiMusicGuide

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(Упражнение В!) 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds an external link to the website WikiMusicGuide. The WikiMusicGuide article was deleted per WP:WEB (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiMusicGuide), so it's unlikely that a link to this website will meet WP:EL's standards for inclusion. --Muchness 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. Linkspam templates should not be used for things which do not have articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, nom and the fact it may confuse people into thinking it's affiliated with Wikipedia. Orderinchaos78 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. I created this template, but it is does not make sense to keep it if the article on the site was deleted. – Heave n's Wrath ^Talk 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Even if the article was not deleted, I don't think this template would be even the least bit necessary (no offense, Heaven's). -- Kicking222 13:56, 7 January 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 page.