< June 24	June 26 >

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! 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. It was a 'succession box' on 1980 African Footballer of the Year through 2006 African Footballer of the Year, that were merged into African Footballer of the Year — Nabla 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no longer used; articles in question have been merged. --Haemo 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template should be deleted for 2 reasons. The first being that the template is not in use, and the second reason that is should be deleted is because the articles that it could be used on has been merged. It is not logical to keep a template that is not in use and that will not be used.--†Sir James Paul† 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not used, so no need to keep it. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:14, 30 June 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused, and is an overly-specific infobox, permitting the inclusion of only one instance of the production. Delete — MusicMaker 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We have a newer infobox that the project has agreed on. -- Ssilvers 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --omtay38 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MJCdetroit 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:09, 30 June 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 all. IronGargoyle 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All consist of only a single wikilink. Subst and delete all. There are other templates along the same lines, but with flags - for example Template:CHIru (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Templates). I'm unsure about what do to with these, hence I have not nominated those here. Mike Peel 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly useful on rugby-related articles, where quite often several such templates (as well as several similar field-position-related templates) ar needed in any given section of text. Of great use to editors - and yes, they are normally used subst'ed. These serve just as much purpose as the tiny image-link flag icon templates, and are just as useful, but any suggestion of deleting them would be soundly rebuffed. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - These templates are very useful and used in Super Rugby related articles info-boxes and please see the 2007 Super 14 article to see how much it is used and the the PfD tag is making the article look ugly..These template are very important as Grutness has pointed out and I'm not sure why its wikilinks isn't working but those templates are very important for our project..--Comet styles 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are these used instead of plain text? The cut-down in length and time is considerably small. --Teggles 10:28, 28 June 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, unused and user request. Nabla 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and no apparent use. Delete — Mike Peel 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the creator states, parameters don't work inside <math> tags. See Help:Displaying a formula#Syntax. –Pomte 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it please. (I'm the creator of this template) -PegasusRoe 22:07, 25 June 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cute template, which only shows a link to an article if the article exists. However, it's a bad idea - red links show that a page is wanted, both to people reading the article that the red link is in and to people doing Wikipedia:Most wanted articles (see also Wikipedia:Red link). As such, Delete Mike Peel 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adding square brackets is really that simple. TheBlazikenMaster 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very interesting! You could use it to link in-universe articles and the links automatically get added as the articles are created! -N 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't know we had this. I'm glad we do, & I'll give it a try. DGG 21:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's good as long as it's used in the right way. For example cult films that are likely never to get an article. --Steinn inn 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of good usage is a new actor with a small career. Even an experienced editor can't predict if he or she will gain bigger roles in the future and get an article of it's own. Maybe a longer explanation in the template itself would do the trick. --Steinn inn 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But certainly there will still exist search engines in the future. Note that I understand (or I think I do) the good uses you mention. But almost any word has the potential to be a future article, so this template has the potential to be (ab)used wildly. - Nabla 03:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before we have thousands of those aroud, making the wiki even less wiki (i.e. user friendly). If you're an inexperienced edit you won't know this, if you are an experienced editor you are certainly able to decide to link or not to link - Nabla 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate redlinks as much as the next guy, but this is not the solution. Shalom ^Hello 05:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for some things this really is a better solution. For example in the wiktionary, this is used for Latin and Icelandic declension tables, a wonderful way to solve that you can link to some noun forms (most often genitive or nominative plural) and not link to those for whom an article does not exist. I.e. here and here. This is absolutely NOT an easy solution for red links, mind you! --BiT 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Steinninn above. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Adding a bit of aesthetic nonsense that will confuse editors and discourage the creation of new articles sounds like a very bad idea to me. IronGargoyle 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redlinks are good. If an article doesn't exist, we want to encourage its creation. If we don't want it to exist, don't confuse things with a template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If an article shouldn't be created, don't link it and/or remove any existing links to it. Otherwise, let people know that the article needs to be created. I think Nabla's point about usability is an important one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:23, 4 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not used, and it is redundant with ((Future game)). — Brandon Dilbeck 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New pokémon comes every 3 years or so, and we don't need template that are only used every 3 years or so. Oh and I'm too busy to put this on the noticeboard, could someone to that job? TheBlazikenMaster 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessarily specific and redundant to ((current game)). –Pomte 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over-specific, and redundant as per the above. --Haemo 01:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not in use and it is redundant.--†Sir James Paul† 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly every pokemon template is redundant. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The pokeproject doesn't need templates for everything. Now I am going to nominate their FUR template. FunPika 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - you know brandon, as the original creator and sole contributor you could have just added a speedy tag to it, save the red tape for wrapping xmas presents! -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I skipped over that criterion (G7). Sorry to waste everyone's time. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:05, 30 June 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 The result of the debate was speedy delete. An admin handled the deletion, not me. --Evilclown93_(talk) 00:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably analogous to doing ((subst:template)). Unused. I can't imagine any real use for it - can anyone else think of any? Delete. Mike Peel 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)-->[reply]

Delete Just tested it and yes it's useless. TheBlazikenMaster 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dunno why I made it... _→AzaToth 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this template be speedily deleted, then? Mike Peel 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's clear to me that this template was made to be analogous to ((Template self-reference)) as a message in template documentation alerting users to not subst any given template. –Pomte 21:42, 25 June 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template, not used on any article page. Made redundant by Mediawiki. Subst. remaining usages and delete — Mike Peel 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete as deprecated. Using the subst parameter ((subst:wikilink|1|2|subst=subst:)) ought to work. –Pomte 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe after subst. Wikipedia:Template substitution says should not be subst, but that warning might be obsolete. I think the template Wikilink is obsolete due to some quirk in the parser having changed its behavior. (SEWilco 03:17, 26 June 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per two discussions. These are talk-pages of two persons, one of them created the template, and one of them tell why it shouldn't exist, and I agree with the one that says the template shouldn't exist. TheBlazikenMaster 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and less useful than ((Infobox Family Guy Season 1)) through ((Infobox Family Guy Season 6)). –Pomte 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pomte. Existing template system is much better. / edgarde 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks nice, but does not facilitate ease of navigation. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Unnecessary, already enormous and sure to grow in size. Captain Infinity 02:17, 2 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All this template says is that the article contains information on a defunct company or a discontinued event and that it therefore may contain "historical information". It seems that this tag could be so broadly applied (as many companies no longer exist and many events are no longer held) that it would be useless. It also adds articles to Category:Passed events, which is also so broad that it is useless. The tag is currently used on two articles (P.R. Mallory and Co Inc and Crompton Parkinson, but it conveys little information on them. When used, it looks like a warning tag, even though it is not a warning. It would be best just to delete this thing. — Dr. Submillimeter 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Conveys no useful information. Otto4711 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly inclusive and uninformative. –Pomte 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A template is not an excuse to write a bad article without making its point clear. What would you say if we put this template on Pan American Airlines or United States Football League? It just makes us look stupid, if I may be so blunt. Shalom ^Hello 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like someone was making a subtle argument about Template:Current, about which I feel roughly the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.60.189 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 June 2007
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:59, 30 June 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 all but ((Dis)). IronGargoyle 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several disambiguation templates that are currently not in use, or are only used on one page:

Template:Dis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Disambig-Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Disambig-television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Forsong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Songdis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Town-island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems to be consensus among dab editors to only use one of the very few dab templates that already exist (see MOS:DAB#The disambig notice). These here are not listed in the MOS, and they also aren't in use (very much), so they might as well get deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, ((Dis)), is meant to be substed to seed a new disambiguation page, so it wouldn't appear to be in much use, but might be, and it isn't contrary to the MOS. I'd leave it; the rest could be deleted. -- JHunterJ 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((Disambig-Film)), ((Disambig-television)), ((Forsong)) are orphans. ((Town-island)) and ((Songdis)) are used once. Delete. No opinion on ((Dis)), I don't know if some people use it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak delete ((Dis))) as above. No particular point or use in these. --Piet Delport 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the television and film ones as possible potentially useful templates, but I was mistaken, and as such is the evidence that they have not been used, those two, you are most welcome to delete. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except first The first template in question is a handy way to save time while making a disambugiation page, so I don't see the template as harmful in any way. The second and the third template won't really server any specific purpose, as the normal disambugiation tag does the same job for film/television related aswell, and these two templates are rarely used. The last three templates serve no specific purpose, and Template:For plus Template:Two other uses could be used in place of those templates aswell. ~Iceshark7 17:32, 28 June 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This template is supposed to be used to navigate between articles on specific "types" of nebulae, but unlike other astronomical objects, nebulae are generally not divided into specific "types" of objects. The divison of nebulae into different "types" is unclear. Some astronomy books may list a few different "types" of nebulae, but no formal classification system exists. Although some objects may be defined as specific types of nebulae (such as planetary nebulae), most nebulae are diffuse objects that can be described using many terms, such as emission nebulae, reflection nebulae, dark nebulae, molecular cloud, diffuse nebula, HI region, HII region, molecular cloud, intracluster gas, etc. Moreover, a wide variety of terms are used to describe nebulae. Either the template could be left woefully incomplete (in which case it is not useful for navigation) or all of these terms could be added to the template, which would then make the mass of links too long and too difficult to read. Ultimately, this template is unclear and misleading, and as a professional astronomer involved in education, I know that this template will confuse and harm my students. It would be better to use Category:Nebulae for navigation and to delete this template. (Note that this is the second nomination for deleting this template; the first discussion closed with no other real comments to keep or delete this template.) — Dr. Submillimeter 10:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was previously raised at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 14#Template:Types of nebula. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I included a link to the previous discussion in my nomination, but I suppose that the link was not marked clearly enough. Dr. Submillimeter 12:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not useful. — JyriL ^talk 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the Nebula astronomy article, as there are only...what? 4 or 5 types of nebula? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How does merging this template into nebula help? Dr. Submillimeter 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Mike Peel 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WilliamKF 16:42, 28 June 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now orphaned, due to it being replaced by this template ((WikiProject Rugby league)), so I request deletion so it is never used again. ^Special_Windler 21:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deprecated/unused. –Pomte 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as depreciated and orphaned. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league informed at time of original listing and no objections raised. matt br 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ChoChoPK: no need to relist an uncontroversial delete. From WP:DPR, "There is no such thing as quorum. If after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template, it can simply be deleted." –Pomte 21:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as depreciated. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:43, 30 June 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. I agree with Tony and Wibbble. This violates WP:AGF, and frankly anybody that is going to be adding poor quality edits probably won't be reading the talk page either (but then maybe I should assume good faith... hmmm...) IronGargoyle 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a self-reference template (WP:ASR). We don't require perfect spelling or grammar -- maybe it's because this is an international project, or simply because this is a wiki (anybody can fix a mistake). Sourcing bit also duplicates "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" from the edit screen -- if people ignore that, then they're unlikely to heed a template as obtrusive as that. Matthew 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It has received approval here, and will encourage users - but mainly anons - to make better contributions to articles in the wake of their subject's broadcast. Too many editors are spending time reverting these edits, rather than making valuble additions themselves.--Rambutan (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it received "approval" from a person, err: lawl. You crack me up to be honest, with your "Somebody agrees with me, therefore I have consensus" comments! Heh. Matthew 08:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh delete. It pollutes the articles unnecessarily during the few hours after an episode is broadcast when everybody with a computer comes to the article and starts typing rubbish in. I don't think it's going to stop them. --Tony Sidaway 08:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aside from the bad faith that this ridiculous notice is, this user needs to learn that approval does not equal consensus. One person siding with you doesn't justify your actions when five other people have told you that you have WP:OWN issues with these pages. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope this ~~article~~ template was meant for the article-talkpages, and not the articles themselves. Sticking maintenance templates on top of articles is exaggerated already, making articles look even more amateurish than what they really are. But even if it was meant for talkpages, the entire content is pretty useless. The admonishments of check your spelling, no original research, and verifiability apply to all articles in general, and there is nothing unusual about this class of article. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, he wants this in the article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... After looking at the discussion preceding the implementation of the template I am even more convinced that this thing should never have been created. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and permit usage on talk pages only, not in articles. It really states the obvious regarding MoS, and pollutes the article page as others have noted, but there's no issue with "polluting" talk pages IMO. Shalom ^Hello 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if restricted to talk pages. A template as obtrusive and bad-faith as this one doesn't belong in the article namespace. It probably wouldn't be very useful on talk pages either, but it doesn't do any real harm to allow it there. Terraxos 04:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails at WP:AGF and WP:SELF. It's also hugely patronising to editors who will read and take wikipedia seriously, while at the same time useless for deterring people who will just click and edit without looking twice. I think it's more likely to put the good editors off improving articles, leaving more work for those who'll have to clean the articles up. Wibbble 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's very Newbiting, and anyway, surely one of the main things about Wikipedia is Be Bold; if you make a mistake, someone else will be happy to fix it. Laïka 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete'Delete'Delete'Delete'Delete'Delete'Delete'DeleteIt is rude and unnescessaryAlanD 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wibbble above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. A template that seriously suggests that somehow "fans" are more prone to spelling and grammar mistakes when writing about television episodes is nothing short of offensive and should have been deleted on the spot. I'm deeply ashamed that any editor sees this template as even somewhat reasonable and anything but incredibly rude and absolutely unnecessary.--KR | T 02:30, 1 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is. If it's a license, it's not free enough. If it's an assertion of fair use, it is duplicative of U.S. fair use laws and needlessly asserts compliance with Australian laws. Furthermore, its only possible use is on images of politicians, and as living individuals all of those images are replaceable with free images. — -N 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's written permission from rom the copyright holder (the Commonwealth of Australia) to use what are essentially official portraits on Wikipedia. It covers images of Members, Senators and Governors-General from current and past editions of the Australian Parliamentary Handbook going back to 1915, which inevitably includes individuals who are no longer politicians and/or now deceased. Use of those images outside Wikipedia is not Wikipedia's problem. Maybe it's a question of wording in the template? Dbromage 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is unacceptable as a license (restricts redistribution, especially commercial redistribution, and does not allow for modification in any case). It is unnecessary as a fair use notice (we already have plenty of those, and we generally don't require the permission of the creator for fair use). It is useless for future images because of the fixed date. Moreover, it is being used for images of living subjects, where content under a free license can be obtained to replace them (such as Image:JohnHowardCrop.jpg). There is no need to keep it. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - While I absolutely believe the creator of this template has the best intentions, it is unfortunately just an Australian Parliament-version of the depreciated ((Noncommercial)). --Kralizec! (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a remnant from the good old days when Wikipedia editors were more concerned with improving the quality of Wikipedia and making sure there weren't copyright violations in pictures, than is the case nowadays given the "free content" obsession where not even non-reproduceable historic images seem to be allowed. The user who created this template was absolutely in good faith, by attempting to make sure that we were not in violation of Australian copyright law in uploading these images to Wikipedia. Unfortunately accordance with the law is not even good enough. This shows the misunderstanding that those who write Wikipedia's copyright policies have about the situation in Australia - it is VERY hard, in some cases all but impossible, to get free images of many of our (federal) politicians and judges; something that simply would not happen in the US because of their Public Domain licensing. I think the fact that we can't even get a free-licensed picture of our immediate past Prime Minister really says something. While I'm happy to abide by WP's licensing policy, I think it's a shame and regrettable that this has to be deleted. JRG 03:31, 1 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 userify. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encountered this userbox while looking at an ANI complaint. Given the mass amount of edit warring, incivility, and POV pushing on this subject, the box is inflammatory and divisive, and conveys a polemical statement, all of which are no-nos for templates and userboxes. However, I don't expect that speedy deleting it per T1 would go very smoothly, so I've brought it here. —Core desat 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy it's not that inflammatory and divisive, given that the article it links to has reliable sources. -N 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Harmless userbox, just not meant to be on template space.--Hús ö nd 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The user who created this has a rather kooky and POV definition of "genocide" which he's tried to impose in various articles, resulting in much inflammation and division. Fortunately, however, this userbox doesn't go into such details so is pretty safe in its present form. —Psychonaut 13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. I have nothing to add. Shalom ^Hello 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. I also have nothing to add. --Haemo 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know what "userfy" is, but I vote keep and do not delete. Bosniak 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy means to move it to userspace. See WP:UM. --Core desat 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Husond above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:33, 30 June 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.

June 25

Template:AFY

Template:Infobox Musical 3

Rugby Union templates

Template:ColumnVector2

Template:Notred

Template:Newpoke

Template:Nosubst

Template:Wikilink

Template:Family Guy episodes

Template:Past

Several disambiguation templates

Template:Types of nebula

Template:RugbyleagueWikiproject

Template:Fandom

Template:AustralianParliamentaryHandbook

Template:User Against Srebrenica Genocide Denial