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. Note that this debate was closed (abnormally) by the nominator - based on unanimous agreement to delete over the course of a month. --CBD 10:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Template:Babel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Template:Babel-2-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-2-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-2-6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-2-7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-2-8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-2-9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-2-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-3-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-3-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-6-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-L3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel left 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Most of these templates are not used at all, and the few which are appear only on a handful of pages. The functionality of those few uses (about ten in total) can be replaced by Template:Babel-X, Template:Babel-N, or other options. See User:Mdurand for an example of Babel-X being used to perform both 'left' placement and 'multiple columns' options like the templates above. The Template:Babel page itself is not a template at all, but just a list of Babel templates and will be redundant with WP:Babel and not needed if these obsolete variations are removed. CBDunkerson 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ((babel)) is sort of a userbox help file and should probably be kept (it is like Template:TestTemplates, another non-template) or redirected to somewhere smart (Wikipedia:Userboxes or Wikipedia:Babel). Delete the rest and update instructions accordingly. Kusma (討論) 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem I have with 'Babel' is that the same template name is used on other Wiki projects (such as Commons) as the standard 'Babel' template. Every so often a user tries to transclude Template:Babel onto their page and gets the list rather than the expected babel box. It also just won't be as useful once we have removed all but a few of the variations which are listed there. I was thinking that we could move Babel-X there, so it will work correctly for people transcluding 'Babel' itself, and still have the instructions on that page. --CBDunkerson 10:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Let's do exactly what you say and merge the instructions with the working Babel-X code. Kusma (討論) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Presumably this hasn't been closed yet because only two people have commented on it. I won't close it myself since I filed it. However, please note that when I added this TfD I put notices on each of the above templates such that they would appear on the pages transcluded to... and not one person has shown up to complain in more than two weeks. Chances are that the users who actually have these templates on their pages are long inactive or just haven't noticed. Nor would they notice anything when it is closed because I promise to update them (all ten pages at last count) to Babel-X so that there is no alteration to the display. --CBD 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - relics of the AUM wars, see also a prior Babel TFD and the hilarious effect on a template list. -- Omniplex 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Brownlee 11:38, 6 July 2006 (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.

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 -- Drini 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-ttl-U.S. Senator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's no longer needed. It was once used by ((U.S. Senator box)), but now it's been incorporated into ((U.S. Senator box)). —Markles 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Hera1187 07:33, 10 June 2006 (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.

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 -- Drini 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Template:Main Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Simply an inclusion of the Main Page into template space. Redundant and unused.GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apparently useless. Afonso Silva 14:21, 10 June 2006 (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.

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 -- Drini 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Template:Infobox Australian Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Unused and redundant. Template:Airport infobox now used (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/infobox). Thanks/wangi 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant.--cj | talk 05:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 11:50, 12 June 2006 (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.

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 -- Drini 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Completely unencyclopedic template. Should be userfied. And is made by an imposter of User:Deskana and a sockpuppet of User:1028 --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as crap from a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. (if 'intent to disrupt' is a valid speedy deletion criteria - if not, please consider this a Delete) — Nathan ^(talk) 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. --Coredesat 08:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind. Delete per Ardric47 and nathanrdotcom. --Coredesat 12:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy/delete per nom. -MrFizyx 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy per nom Adambiswanger1 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or Replace. If not userfy, this could be replaced by a generic "approved", with a variable. This would allow for Multiple, even possibly encyclopedic uses. LINUXERIST@ 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How curious that Anaksed is my username backwards, and that this template is connected to a user who recently vandalised my userpage. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per WP:TGS. If vandalism claim is true then frag the whole account. --StuffOfInterest 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: anyone who's interested, I blocked User:Anak'sed as a sockpuppet/impersonator of User:1028, who I blocked originally. I also can't see the similarity to my username being a coincidence. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A moral support Keep. ;) ILovePlankton 17:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Ardric47 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, do not userfy. Use of this template is borderline vandalism. Ardric47 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. No need to reward the hard work of vandals and sockpuppeteers. Clearly useless. Grandmasterka 05:40, 12 June 2006 (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.

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. Pagrashtak 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Non-commercial use only template, its inclusion on the image tag pages just confuses users wrt non-commerical image policy delete--02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to ((Noncommercial)) Jkelly 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and deprecate We cannot simply fool around with licensing tags; this has a legal effect. An image is uploaded with this tag; this is the license. We cannot retain images without licenses and we cannot alter existing licenses. The correct procedure is to deprecate the tag; alter its text to indicate this deprecation; and delete all images which do not acquire a new license tag (which change generally can be done only by the uploader). While this process continues, the template is a useful tool that links to all questionable images. When the template has been orphaned by this process, then it may be safely deleted. John Reid 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per Jkelly--Brownlee 11:17, 6 July 2006 (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:AlgeriaCopyright[edit]

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. Pagrashtak 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Old non-commercial image tag, incompatible with WP poilcy on the upload of non-commercial use images, only used on one image, Delete--Peta 02:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to ((Noncommercial)) Jkelly 02:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and deprecate We cannot simply fool around with licensing tags; this has a legal effect. An image is uploaded with this tag; this is the license. We cannot retain images without licenses and we cannot alter existing licenses. The correct procedure is to deprecate the tag; alter its text to indicate this deprecation; and delete all images which do not acquire a new license tag (which change generally can be done only by the uploader). While this process continues, the template is a useful tool that links to all questionable images. When the template has been orphaned by this process, then it may be safely deleted. John Reid 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Brownlee 11:16, 6 July 2006 (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:CrownCopyrightCanada[edit]

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. Pagrashtak 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) New image copyright tag, in specific violation of WP policy on non-commercial images, and has been deleted before as ((CanadaCopyright)) delete,--Peta 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to ((Noncommercial)) Jkelly 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I think we shoud keep this template, as it is not exacty the same as ((Noncommercial)). BTW: I had no idea there was a ((CanadaCopyright)). Cavenba 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read Wikipedia policy on non-commercial images, they should not be uploaded as of May 2005.--Peta 04:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, keep, it has important information on it.
• Delete per nom. —Mira 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Noncommercial)) to discourage re-creation. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As I now read WikiMedia could get permission from the Government of Canada to allow this work to be commercially published. Cavenba 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may be able to, but anyone taking our content and reselling it themselves would have to reapply. So it'd essentially be ((withpermission)). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and deprecate We cannot simply fool around with licensing tags; this has a legal effect. An image is uploaded with this tag; this is the license. We cannot retain images without licenses and we cannot alter existing licenses. The correct procedure is to deprecate the tag; alter its text to indicate this deprecation; and delete all images which do not acquire a new license tag (which change generally can be done only by the uploader). While this process continues, the template is a useful tool that links to all questionable images. When the template has been orphaned by this process, then it may be safely deleted. John Reid 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep SamFisher5 04:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Db-noncom)) to really drive home the point that such images are not welcome here. Jesse Viviano 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Brownlee 11:15, 6 July 2006 (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.