< July 22	July 24 >

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. IronGargoyle 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This does not work as a template; a category already exists for the subject -- Category:Indian models. — musicpvm 22:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - will not work as a template; the category is good. Excellent nom. --Haemo 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I just saw this template placed in one of the articles and went rushing to template page to nominate it for deletion and saw that it's already been nominated. Per nom. Gnanapiti 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—too many links to provide a useful navigation. While categories and templates are often redundant (this design is intended), a category is much more suitable for this type of information. Gracenotes^T § 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointless template. There is a category based on this. --SkyWalker 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Category is very much generalized, so scope is too high and Indian Model category already exists. Nadesai 17:47, 24 July 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.

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 due to the apparent lack of supporting evidence for CCTV images being in the public domain. The images currently using this template will be moved over to ((Non-free fair use in)). Mike Peel 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CCTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Essentially a non license, there is no proof or legal decisions that back up the statement that CCTV stills are public domain, apart from the fact that the reduced creativity means stills might be subject to the 'shorter rule' in some countries. that is still usually decades at the minimum, there is no US law or otherwise that states CCTV footage or stills is public domain. Bleh999 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Images from an automated process without creative input ARE pd-ineligible. Examples would be computer-generated random images (but not where there are input variables set) and monkey-drawn images. I don't see how putting in a security camera and leaving it there for several years counts as creative input. -Nard 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide proof as in laws or case law examples? Just because you think it should be PD it doesn't make it an irrefutable fact. I guess webcam stills should be PD as well. Bleh999 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't see how it counted as creative input. That is not a statement of fact requiring proof. It is an opinion, and it is obviously open to dispute. Your counterexample of webcam stills is not logical however, because people turn them on and intentionally do stuff in front of them. -Nard 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People turn security cameras off too? Even if pressing a button was the sole indicator of creativity, which I'm not sure it is. The reason I asked for proof because your statements do indeed require some proof to be taken seriously (from a legal standpoint) and I was hoping your arguments would be more than just personal opinions which aren't really useful for copyright discussions. Bleh999 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off him, the proof is the part where the law says "with no creative input", this has no creative input, therefore the law is proof. Your argument is like saying "There's no proof that a $rand-determined dot placement isn't copyrighted, because it's never been brought up in court" - the fact something hasn't been brought up in court is proof of how it's not even a controversial claim - nobody's ever had to prove a security camera recording was PD because nobody other than you has ever suggested it is. Please reconsider your armchair legal opinions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When there are potential legal issues, we don't do "it might be and it might not be". If legal scholars are debating it, as this template seems to indicate, we err on the side of caution and assume that security camera photos aren't intrinsically in the public domain. This doesn't even say that they are PD, it just says that they might be. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—see also previous TfD, nominated July 4 2006. Gracenotes^T § 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's useless to have an image licensing template that says "it might be public domain but might need a use rationale." That doesn't help us sort out our image mess, and doesn't help direct newcomers. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as said, these are all photos that are ineligible for copyright due to their lack of creative content. The wording probably should be tweaked on the template itself, but it's pointless to move these to ((pd-ineligible)) since then people would ask why...this answers why, and helps categorise the images by source. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Contains no original authorship' why can't an organization or government copyright things made with their equipment? Bleh999 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason that they can't copyright "any randomly-determined pattern of dots created within their borders", because that's not how the law works. The law says it must have creative input, thus a photograph is copyrighted because the photographer chose how to stage the scene, what lighting to use, when to snap the shutter, &c...a CCTV image however is not. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable and not legally tested, besides there is a big difference between CCTV footage, which is not clearly not a randomly-determined pattern of dots' I can see where US law considers a minimum level of creativity required for copyright such as Bridgeman vs. Corel, but that concerned people scanning public domain artwork and trying to claim copyright, its a stretch applying that to CCTV footage, your comparison about how the photographer chose to stage the scene, isn't relevant here, for example in Italy 'simple documentary photographs without creative input' enter the public domain 20 years after creation, so far no one has been able to prove such a law exists in US copyright. No where has anyone claimed CCTV footage is by default public domain, the claim was created here on wikipedia. Bleh999 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the notion that automated systems show "no creative content" is very much debatable. If an artist went to a street corner and set up a camera to record, and left it, the video produced would be a clear artistic work -- even if they left it for years. The same could be argued of a business or corporation. Since there is no clear ruling on the issue, err on the side of caution. --Haemo 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The argument that this template makes was also made in a recent deletion discussion on Commons that I had started, which resulted in the deletion of some media. This template is making an assertion that has no legal backing, based on on-wiki extrapolation from the decision Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, which was made on if faithful scans of images whose copyright has expired reset the copyright. Bridgeman v. Corel said nothing about surveillance cameras. I recognize that there is an argument to be made for the legal assertion, but this isn't about the validity of the argument, it's about if we can ignore copyright claims through use of these templates when we know that this hasn't been tested. Until such time that there is a legal precedent in Florida/U.S. law supporting this assertion, this should be deleted. As for the argument, "it's pointless to move these to ((pd-ineligible)) since then people would ask why", these should not be under ((PD-ineligible)). They should be under ((Non-free fair use in)) and I would consider an attempt to move them under ((PD-ineligible)) to be a blatant attempt to game this deletion discussion. - BanyanTree 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying it hasn't been tested whether the writings of Abraham Lincoln are public domain, "because there's been no court ruling on the subject of Lincoln's writings". What the law does say however, is that to qualify for copyright, a work must contain creative content - something a surveillance camera clearly does not. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a link to a any court decision that supports this position. Let's not break new legal ground on the wiki. - BanyanTree 05:04, 31 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crystalball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template isn't used at all (see [1]), and seems unnecessary; the term "crystal ball" usually refers to something being predicted. Checkuser doesn't predict anything. I don't really see the purpose of this template; ((fishing)) seems to cover them all.. SalaSkan 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (at least for now). I have a recollection, though I'm not going to be able to find a diff, that this template was requested by one of the checkusers (probably Mackensen) for a specific purpose. I don't think it's doing any harm, but perhaps it would be best to raise the issue on the WP:RfCU talkpage before bringing it here. Newyorkbrad 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a link to this TfD on that page. SalaSkan 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you'd better ask the checkusers. Post this at WT:RFCU, please. "Checkuser is not a crystal ball" refers to a particular class of requests, like, "I'm sure Thatcher131 is a sockpuppet of someone but I'm not sure who." I know it has been used in the past, maybe someone has been substituting the templates. In any case, even if the checkusers most currently active on RFCU don't use it, that doesn't mean they won't some time. On the other had, if someone really wants to send that message, it can be recreated. Whatever. Thatcher131 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't ((fishing)) used for such cases? SalaSkan 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, you say it "has been used in the past", but according to Image:Crystalball.jpg#File links, it hasn't. SalaSkan 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've definitely seen it used. Perhaps the formatting of the old case archives has been revised or something. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to the checkusers either way. As far as I can tell, there are no archived uses and the only previous discussion concluded that it might be possible to use it, but it was created as a joke. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm active in clerking for checkuser requests, just in the interest of disclosure. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive3#Indicator_templates includes some very relevant discussion on this particular template. Also, it seems likely that we'll be shifting at least partially toward ((CUI)) at some point in the future, anyway, so I'm not sure if this is really all that important, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until shift to ((CUI)) takes place. -Nard 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Once a shift to that is done, it won't matter, so why bother taking time to make sure the checkusers have no use for it? -Amarkov moo! 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait (Keep) As an active clerk, the template was requested by Mackensen, a CU, and I can imagine some cases in which this might be used. GrooveDog (talk) 22:29, 27 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Unnecessary redirect from quotes" is not a speedy deletion criterion. The closest thing to it is CSD R3, and even if this case were considered part of that deletion criteria, then the template is redundant to ((db-r3)). — Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question These are almost always created when an article mistakenly titled in quotes is moved to a correct title without the quotes. Probably the person moving the article does not generally realize that the redirect will be left behind. In general they're worthless, nobody searching is likely to use them deliberately, and any external search engine would find them perfectly well. personally, I'd consider it a case of R3, and the template should just be adjusted to indicate this. But if we do not agree about the merit of having the quotes, then it should not be speedy but go to RfD every time & the template should be modified accordingly. 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) DGG (talk)
• Comment - yeah, it seems like an R3 template. I'd suggest redirecting it, or whatever templates do like that. --Haemo 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not explicitly prescribed by policy. Gracenotes^T § 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not prescribed by policy, some arbitrary use on any redirect with quotes (such as "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, which is a common and perfectly correct version of the title of the work). Warofdreams talk 12:35, 27 July 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.

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. This encourages and streamlines the use of rationale and should also expose more editors to the WP:NFCC requirements. It also does not prevent a more detailed rationale being provided if necessary. No consensus yet for a rename (or at least not a rename target). IronGargoyle 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filmrationale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fair use rationale are always case-by-case. This template makes it seems that it's only about repeating some mantra. Every rationale should explain how the specific image is used in the specific article, why that use is necessary and why that use is not achievable by a free alternative. — Abu badali ^(talk) 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename template as Template:Filmposterrationale and limit usage to film posters that are used as identification for the articles' subjects. The ten-point criteria is applicable for film posters in "leading" the article, but for other images used in film articles, a unique fair use rationale needs to be defined, such as this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Very useful asset to film - especially to major contributors who frequently get their user talk pages cluttered up by image taggers. I though it was a great solution to mundane and repetitive tagging = most editors copy and paste an existing rationale from other pages anyway. The only problem I see is it doesn't include the specific title -modify it somehow to solve this - don;t waste people's time by deletion, The rationale clearly addresses all three of Abu's criteria "Every rationale should explain how the specific image is used in the specific article, why that use is necessary and why that use is not achievable by a free alternative" - it does exactly this on every film poster article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Erik's rename - Poster rationales (ones in the infobox, not anywhere else) are pretty much all the same rationale. Other images require more specific purposes within the text, but a poster rationale is going to stay the same from one film to the next.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - this sounds like a good idea - film posters trust me all need a standard rationale. Film character images or screenshots may require a different tag with more specific content -probably none at all is best for screenshots ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I don't think I'd like a standard template for general images on film pages. Other than a film poster, you aren't going to have the same image on each article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • I agree with Bignole. I don't believe that a standard template besides the licensing template is applicable to non-free images that are supposed to go with some content in the article. The explanation for identifying images are boilerplate, hence my vote to rename. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rename I think it would be best to rename it, but we can't limit it solely to posters. Some of the main images in the infobox include VHS covers, DVD covers, screenshots, and mostly posters. Use for other screenshots in the article would benefit from another template or from the uploading user declaring a detailed fair use rationale for that specific image's use for the article. I have already added the template to probably a hundred images or more and the vast majority of the ones that I added it to were the poster/DVD covers in the infobox. --Nehrams2020 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This fair use rationale is applicable to a wide variety of film images, but not all of them. -Amarkov moo! 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a comment, but User:Wikidemo is writing superior versions of these, using a standardized template. This will probably be redundant in a few weeks. --Haemo 00:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is precisely for the reason that often film posters can not be located and we often use DVD/VHS promo covers etc in the infobox that I thought the template:filmrationale was a perfect name as it covers the many different types of images. Filmposterrationale would seem silly on a VHS image wouldn't it and a bit of a contradiction. I really don't see what is wrong with it as it is ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Rename agreed with Blofeld though, so I say move to Template:Filminfoboxrationale instead. Alientraveller 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Per Haemo's comment above, please see Template talk:Album cover fur for more on this issue. — WiseKwai 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to cover what needs to be said just fine for film box art. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: No arguments to the contrary have been presented. Wikipedia is interested in providing detailed rationales for non-free images. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until we actually have a better. this guides people to do it right. DGG (talk) 22:39, 28 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TalkMTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template of Dead Wikiproject. The Wikiproject's MFD is located here.. SLSB talk ER 19:43, 23 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DWspinoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Template is used to add an unciteable statement of questionable POV to several Doctor Who spin off articles: "Like all Doctor Who spin-off media, its canonicity in relation to the television series is unclear.". -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject has been contentious and highly-POV and the template merely states the obvious - not everyone considers spin-off material canon - and leaves it at that. Without this disclaimer, people would be tempted to insert their POV regarding the caonicity of specific spin-off media. 209.180.36.94 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no officially recognised canon for Dr Who, and the use of this template is just a backhanded way of implying the spin-offs are less "important" than the TV series. Unless there's a citeable source to confirm that spin-offs are of unclear canonicity and the TV episodes aren't, this is just POV. Sheriff Bernard 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but modify: An official BBC "statement", or a "citeable source" regarding canonicity isn't necessary in the wake of actions taken in Series 3. The televised serials, Blink, Human Nature and Family of Blood obviously contradict earlier spin-off material, making the stories on which they're based at least redundant and at most invalid. Lungbarrow, too, sits quite precariously given several statements made by the Second, Eighth and Tenth Doctors about his familial past, not to mention the fact that Lungbarrow at least superficially contradicts An Unearthly Child and Invasion of Time. Many articles on Wikipedia, such as TARDIS, already read as unncessarily confusing precisely because televised and non-televised material has been jumbled together as if it all has equal weight. It simply doesn't, no matter what Paul Cornell and RTD's recent views might be. Cornell's recent rant on the subject, in particular, is just a tad self-serving, after all, because he has so much time invested in the spin-off material that of course he wants it to be considered valid. But when we as editors come to actually untangle the mess and try to write about it, statements like "it's all marvellous" are distinctly unhelpful. An explicit aim of an enyclopedia is to categorize, something almost antithetical to the goals of a fiction writer.

I think, therefore, a middle path should be taken in which articles should have a section detailing information solidly from the television show and then a second section should be allowed in which material from secondary sources is presented for those who wish to delve more deeply. Because of the proper assertion that there is no "official" canon in Doctor Who, this tag might be modified to the more neutral, "Like all Doctor Who spin-off media, its relevancy to the television series is unclear." Alternately, we might go with the stripped-down: "This seciton is derived from non-televised Doctor Who fiction."

To me, the lightning rod in this tag is simply the word "canonicity". Nothing's canon, so everything can be canon, if an individual chooses. But obviously not everything is taken seriously by the production team, much less fans. Otherwise, Susan is the Doctor's granddaughter, Barbara is the Doctor's granddaughter, Susie is the Doctor's granddaughter, Gillian is the Doctor's granddaughter—and yet Time Lords have no family structure that would allow for the word "granddaughter" to mean what my dictionary says it means. Likewise, without some "sourcing" of statements according to heirarchy, the Ninth Doctor's statement that he's never looked into the time vortex, and the Tenth Doctor's statement that he "ran away" from looking at it whilst a child on Gallifrey, can't be squared against the Eighth Doctor's final comic strip story where he looks at, becomes one with it, and very nearly is consumed by it.

Trying to believe that the whole of Doctor Who fiction can be knitted together into a coherent narrative is the way to absolute madness. This tag, though imperfect, is a useful organizing principle. CzechOut 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only need I can see a statement in this kind of area fulfilling is to imply that the spin-offs are less important, relevant, canonical, whatever than the TV series. That isn't an encyclopaedic need, but a fan one. Do chocolate related articles have a template adding "Like all peanut-based confectionary, its relevancy to the Snickers bar is unclear"? Sheriff Bernard 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — contrary to the assertions of some editors here, this statement is not intended to denigrate the spin-offs, or to suggest that they're less important than the TV series. Some fans think they are, some fans think they're just as valid (canonical, whatever) as the TV series. The coopyright holder (the BBC) has never made an official statement on the matter. Therefore, Doctor Who editors decided that the NPOV course of action would be to include information from the spin-offs, but always note the source when it is included and remind readers that it does come from a source some may consider less valid. This template is an attempt to side-step the canon debate, in order to get on with the encyclopedic matter at hand.
  
  That said, I would not oppose a reworking of the template to avoid the word "canonicity" altogether, as suggested by CzechOut. The subject is so controversial and ill-defined that it probably causes more trouble than it's worth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary fancruft that only bewilders the casual reader. The Sheriff's Snickers analogy is spot-on. Since some people already have strong ideas one way or the other about what story fits or not (and no clear answer is correct), placing this statement everywhere will not set the record straight with anyone. Furthermore, every story that is not from TV series appears to have this template. But all of these articles ALSO have an infobox of some sort saying what type of story it is (audio, novel, etc.), with links to information about the series (eg. Virgin New Adventures, Big Finish Productions) where the canon issue is discussed. Plastering this template everywhere is therefore also redundant. - 52 Pickup 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a boilerplate disclaimer concerning a common issue with Doctor Who episodes and related media. It is not limited to use for articles on spin-offs, as several episode articles use the template inline. (see Inferno (Doctor Who)#Primord for an example) A more neutral rewording might be in order, but this is a disclaimer about a very relevant and very important issue with regards to Doctor Who fiction, one that must be stated in most articles dealing with spin-off media in order to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It implies, incorrectly, that there is any class of Doctor Who story whose canonicity is clear. As others have noted, there's no such thing, because there's no "canon" as such. The TV series has always cheerfully contradicted itself, the new series being no exception. The books, audios, comics, short stories, films and stage shows problematise nothing that wasn't already problematic. And, frankly, the opinions of fans on whether something "counts" or not have no place in an encyclopedia one way or the other.
  By all means note that Human Nature (Doctor Who episode) is an adaptation of Human Nature (Doctor Who novel), but to suggest that that gives either one primacy over the other is to give into the concept (erroneous, unique to fans, and of no interest whatsoever to the encyclopedia's general readership) that such a thing as primacy exists in this context. Otherwise, describe the relevant collaborators, the plots, the publication details, the production process in factual terms, and leave the value judgements out of it.
  They're both Doctor Who stories. There's no such thing as a canonical Doctor Who story. It's nonsense, and pointedly fanpolitical nonsense at that, to suggest that there is. Phil PH 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Phil, I agree with everything you've said about the concept of "canonicity" — but that's exactly why I think that the template is required. In the past, we tried to include content from all the different versions of Doctor Who indiscriminately, but a vocal minority of users continually removed any content that wasn't from the television series, claiming "it's not canon!" This template says that we don't care about canonicity, and we're including this information anyway. We're allowing the reader to determine what does and doesn't "count". Without this template (or words to its equivalent), Wikipedia editors are forced into these sorts of fannish disputes. By acknowledging that there's some dispute over the matter, Wikipedia doesn't have to get involved in it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox non-denominational Christian leader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

YDelete Unused; redundant to ((Infobox clergy))? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:23, 23 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United Methodist Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Unused; redundant to ((Infobox bishopbiog))/ ((Infobox clergy)). — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:00, 23 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Japanese city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Actually it is 'OLD' and not used. Nothing much on talk page — MJCdetroit 13:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - 52 Pickup 13:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant unmaintained orphan MrZaius^talk 01:39, 28 July 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Le Havre weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally a speedy candidate, but I think it belongs on TFD. Template is used only in one article and probably has no potential to be used in any others. Thus, delete — ugen64 05:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template appears to have been substituted here; no transclusions currently, delete. Gracenotes^T § 06:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gracenotes. - 52 Pickup 13:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This should use ((Infobox Weather)) instead of substituting manual code. —MJCdetroit 13:22, 23 July 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.