< February 12	February 14 >

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 WTF, not again, nuke it. — Feb. 20, '06 [00:52] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Template:ParentalAdvisory[edit]

Template:ParentalAdvisory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used on any pages. I checked this through backlinks to the template and to the image called within the template. The only page to ever use this template[1] has Subst'd the template. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant with Wikipedia is not censored. Angr/talk 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not redundant, contradictory. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pern Angr. Chairman S. 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already subst'ed, no need to keep, and per Angr.--Alhutch 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angr. Mikker ^... 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --D-Day 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what's stated above. Wikipedia isn't censored. Douglasr007 07:22, 19 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country alias Viet Nam[edit]

Template:Country alias Viet Nam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
duplicate of Template:Country alias Vietnam EdwinHJ | Talk 16:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are different name templates for "Czech Republic"/"Czechia", "East Timor"/"Timore-Leste", "Taiwan/"Taiwan (ROC)"/"Republic of Cina (Taiwan)". This is for "Viet Nam," it's consistent and (more) appropriate. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Unless someone can come up with a really good reason to keep this, it and all other country-name templates should be deleted. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Forgive my naïveté, but exactly what are these supposed to be used for? Ardric47 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently for use as a meta-template inside the ((country)) template. I agree with Cuivienen that all the country templates should be deleted. Angr/talk 07:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, changed to Strong Delete as a meta-template. Die, meta-template, die. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what the difference is between that and simply typing "Viet Nam". Can users somehow customize Wikipedia to their own spelling preferences or something? Ardric47 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is standardized as "Vietnam," but, as with East Timor and the more accurate Timor-Leste, some users (me) would prefer to be able to display the alternate spelling. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. -Justin (koavf), talk 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:AMT has recently been qualified by developers; not all meta-templates are evil. I ask the votes above which are primarily based on this misconception to reconsider, since the country templates are very useful and widely used. —Nightstallion (?) 08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep. —Nightstallion (?) 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then explain why this template is more efficient than typing "Viet Nam"? It doesn't have any text other than the country name, and inserting it into an article takes more text than typing the country name. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's used in ((ViN)), the same way that ((Country alias Vietnam)) is used in ((VNM)). —Nightstallion (?) 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't fully understand how that template works, but I'll give this template the benefit of the doubt. My apologies. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe nobody understands how it works...=/ Ardric47 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll try to explain. When you use something like ((VNM)), it calls upon ((country|flagcountry|Vietnam)), which in turn gets its input variables from ((Country flag alias Vietnam)), ((Country shortname alias Vietnam)), and so on. ((ViN)) does the same for Viet Nam, and ((Country alias Viet Nam)) is used therein. —Nightstallion (?) 09:31, 16 February 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 KEEP. Note that the final two comments here are considerably off-base. No image was ever going to be deleted, and it's not a matter of deletionism to seek correct tags and wording in tags, and removal in case of complete error. Namecalling does not help, Irpen. -Splash^talk 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian copyrights[edit]

This applies to the identical ((PD-USSR)) and ((Sovietpd)). These tags state that any work published in the USSR before 1973 were in the public domain outside the USSR because the USSR was not party to any international copyright treaties before. This reasoning is wrong; please see this extended discussion. Both tags should be deleted, and all the about 600 images using it (Category:Pre-1973 Soviet Union images) need to be re-evaluated. Lupo 08:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: See also this old discussion from March/April 2005. Lupo 09:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, more than 600 images are about to be deleted because a couple of copyright nazis decided so? Did they discuss the Soviet copyright on Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board? Did they discuss it on Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board? Did they discuss it on Wikiproject:Soviet Union? No? Then go and discuss the matter with more knowledgable people. If you want to keep Wikipedia afloat, please find something more useful than deleting other peoples' hard work. So, Strong Keep. --Ghirla | talk 16:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, you just lost the argument as per Godwin's law. Seriously, there is no need to resort to unfounded and childish personal attacks. Read carefully what I wrote: the templates should be deleted, the images should be re-evaluated to see whether we can use them under some other, correct scheme. Pre-1973 is just wrong. Lupo 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong in your personal opinion, but have you heard what others have to say? I don't see what's the point of adding hundreds of images according to established rules, when one day there appears someone who unilaterally declares all the rules wrong? I've already seen some pre-1917 Russian photographs being deleted by copyrights paranoiacs. Now we'll lose half the images pertaining to the 20th-century history of Russia and Ukraine. There is only one solution: move them to Commons, where paranoia is not so rampant. Or just tag {PD-self} every image you download, no matter how old it is. Sorry for my tone, I'm so frustrated with your frivolous nomination. --Ghirla | talk 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are too many images linking to these templates to just delete them outright, especially when WLH is broken and there's no telling where they may be lurking. I say, rewrite the templates to reflect current knowledge regarding the copyright status of works created in the Soviet Union, even if it's just to say "The copyright status of works created in the Soviet Union before 1973 (or before 1954, or before 1948, or whatever) is uncertain." Angr/talk 16:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. --Ghirla | talk 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The images should be all in the category. Lupo 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While Ghirlandajo could indeed better be more civil, he does have a point. The linked in discussions are written in near-legalese, and have no conclusive statement that can explain the point to common mortals like myself. Furthermore, they're adorned with numerous IANAL remarks wherever somebody does try to make a point. I believe that I can follow what's in there, but I can easily imagine an equaly conclusive near-legalese persuading me to take a different point of view. And, of course, it's really strange that you haven't run it through the projects/portals mentioned by Ghirlandajo, this could probably fetch you some expertise in the local specifics. If and when the said projects support your reasoning, you should re-try TfDing this. Until then, KEEP. --BACbKA 16:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it equally strange that none of the editors who frequented aforementioned notice boards apparently ever read the talk pages of the templates in question (I posted a notice on both long ago), nor do they seem to read other pages on Wikipedia relating to copyright issues. With hindsight, it would have been an idea to post notices at these notice boards, but, stupid as it may seem, it just didn't occur to me. Anyway, I have yet to see anyone make a clear case for that 1973 date. Lupo 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The templates seemed correct and stable, so no reason to add them to my watch list occurred to me. Seems it would have been a good idea. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 17:30 Z
• I am not a lawyer, (and Lupo states that he is not) but I do not find the previous discussions referred to by Lupo as in any way conclusive. In fact they are in many ways impenetrable. I find nothing there to convince me that a wholesale change is needed. Therefore Keep.--Smerus 17:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This mess should by all means be sorted, but until then keep the tags.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and edit the text of the template to reflect the currently-presumed copyright status. The justification for deleting the copyright tag from hundreds of images at once seems unclear to me. Let's not knee-jerk delete them all at once, and it would take some time to evaluate them all. Since the status of any particular image is not clear, make the templates reflect that (and maybe merge them?), and lets get to work on sorting this out. Once we know what kind of image is definitely covered, create a new template to label them as safe. Once we know what kind of image definitely isn't covered, we can start dropping those and perhaps finding replacements from other sources. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 17:30 Z

Agree with Keep and edit for the reasons stated above. Wikiolap 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and rewrite. We need, as Michael says, two templates. One, a new one, would be for Soviet images from before 1954, which are definitely PD. The current ones would be rewritten to strongly suggest that the copyright status of images between 1954 and 1973 is not certain. We could move the early ones as we find them; once there are fewer images with the disputed tag they'll be easier to deal with. There's another issue here, though, which is that many of these images have no source. I've dealt with this before both here and at Commons, that many people think that claiming PD as a Soviet-era image means exemption from providing a source. The template should also have the text, "You must provide the source for all images, whether public domain or not, or they will be deleted." Chick Bowen 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Michael and you have stated that pre-1954 images were definitely in the public domain. I presume that this is some effect of some Russian law of 2004. That might then apply to Russia, and indeed make certain works PD in Russia. If (a) we can figure out what kind of works (all, or just photographs?), (b) determine whether it's "published before 1954" or "author died before 1954", (c) figure out whether it's "January 1, 1954" or "July 28, 1954" (copyrights typically expire at the end of the year, so I'd be surprised if it were July 28), and (d) find an authoritative source for the interpretation, I think we could reword these templates to state that such works were PD in Russia. That doesn't mean that such works were PD elsewhere, but at least that would give us a reasonable template. At least pre-1954 would minimize the false PD declarations. We would still need to re-evaluate the images to make sure they fit the bill and figure out what to do with the rest. As for the "elsewhere" part: if "pre-1954 is PD in Russia" is true, it probably also holds in the European Union (honors the "rule of the shorter term"), but for the U.S., probably only pre-1946 or pre-1942 works would be PD (the URAA date 1996 minus 50 or 54 years). Lupo 08:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and de-copyright everything else Copyrighting is by far the worst paranoia ever, and in an international encyclopedia and it is wrong to have vintage paragraphs being attacked by clowns who know this is going to cause a massive scandal. Moreover it is a direct insult to the thousands of users who uploaded these images. Some are so dated that it is impossible to find out the source, others are simply precious. In all cases when I upload vintage Soviet fotographs I always give the source from where it came, however there are times when the original source is lost (E.g. the site closing down) and thereby permanentely losing the photograph. IMO - a waste of time even starting this discussion. -Kuban kazak 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and find a more productive use for your time (like writing articles) isntead of assaulting good articles properly illustrated by properly used images. Raise the issue of rephrasing the tag separately and close this unwaranted discussion about deletion. --Irpen 18:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is a commonly accepted that all the Soviet-published images published before 1973 are PD (see Commons for an example) outside the SU. What is happened was it challenged in a court or what? There are literally hundreds (or even thousands if we include Commons) of images with this tag, their removing would be a strong blow to Wikipedia coverage for all the xSU topics and should be avoided if there is a slight possibility. I think it is a good idea to have a separate tag for pre-1954 Soviet images that are PD everywhere including fSU countries. It might be useful for the Wikipedia-based commercial products sold in Russia and Ukraine abakharev 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, none of the people voting keep seem to have presented any argument that these are in the public domain. I think that keeping and rewriting the tag isn't a great idea, either. We still have lots of images tagged with ((PD-Germany)) that aren't PD. JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  But we don't know that they are not in the public domain either, and, as others have pointed out, we don't know of any copyright-holders challenging use of such images in Wikipedia, or anywhere else in the world. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 23:38 Z

  • When in doubt, we should delete. Copyright compliance is important to the project. I appreciate the efforts of both Lupo and some of the people below to attempt to resolve this unclear issue. JYolkowski // talk 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the discussions below, I have rewritten the template, citing relevant laws. There is still one missing piece in the template that needs a citation. If someone can fill in that one missing piece, then keep, otherwise delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and rewrite per User:Chick Bowen above. We can't just delete the templates, but they need to be clarified. ~MDD4696 23:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this deletion attempt utterly ridiculous. By ignoring international copyright conventions Soviet Union published enormous amount of foreign literature. I bet the quantities were much higher than the original language editions. And now you are trying to hint at some retroactive rights. If Russia wants to "inherit" some dubious Soviet copyrights, let her pay off Soviet copyrights ingringements first. mikka (t) 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the international convention is dicussed at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html#17, but I still need to find the exact agreement so we have something to go by here. Also, article 28 of the Russian copyright law says that any piece of work that did not enjoy copyright protection in the territory shall be in the public domain (1993 law). If there were some work that was made PD during the Soviet Union, then it should be PD in the Russian Federation. And, if it is PD in the Russian Federation, then it should be PD elsewhere. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And, if it is PD in the Russian Federation, then it should be PD elsewhere." — that statement neatly sums up the core of a common misunderstanding about PD works. It's not true. PD means "not copyrightable in the first place, or copyright expired". Copyright expiry is different in different countries, and a Russian (or Soviet) work may still be copyrighted outside Russia or the USSR (e.g., in the U.S.) even if its copyright has expired in Russia or the USSR itself. It's sad, but that's the way it is. Lupo 08:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the Soviet copyright office was the VAAP, so we could search for that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/treaties/ucc.htm for the text of the UCC. JYolkowski // talk 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing: If a Soviet work is PD in the former Soviet Union, it does not necessarily follow that it is PD in the U.S. The UCC appears to apply to works that were published before its signing as long as they have not fallen into the public domain (see article VII). Because the U.S. doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term, Soviet works that weren't in the public domain in 1973 could be protected in the United States for a period of 95 years. IANAL, but that's my interpretation. JYolkowski // talk 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm says that from 1923 until 1977 if the photo is "In the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996," then it shall be in the public domain in the United States. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, that only applies if the work falls under the conditions described in 17 USC 104A (h). Having said that, I think that my previous comment was incorrect; 17 USC 104 (b)(2) says that works are protected if they were "in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party". So, it would appear that these images would fall under the conditions described in 17 USC 104A (h) and would be in the public domain. JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Oh, do you have a citation for the fact that works published in the USSR before 1973ish were PD in the USSR at that point? That's the only thing keeping me from changing my vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewordhttp://active.wplus.net/copyright-monitoring/en/problems.html says "And, it is necessary to consider the political situation at the time when the USSR signed the Geneva Convention. It was the peak of the "Cold War", which only lost its intensity at the end of the 1980s. The USSR's signing of the Geneva Convention marked important progress toward establishing international ties that allowed cooperation between this country and the free-market world. Prior to May 27, 1973, no foreign intellectual property had been protected in the USSR." and http://www.iipa.com/rbc/1998/rbc_belarus_301_98.html echoes the same thing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that's a red herring. It means that non-USSR works published in the USSR pre-1973 were not copyrighted in the USSR, but we care about the inverse here! Lupo 08:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/18.html says that works that already fallen into the public domain should be kept that way, and http://www.iipa.com/rbc/1998/rbc_belarus_301_98.html says that in Belarus, all works prior to May 27, 1973, shall be protected under Article 18 of the Berne Convention (eg. they have fallen into the public domain and have to stay that way). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That again has to do with the status in Belarus of foreign works published pre-1973 in the USSR. Not what we have to deal with here. Lupo 08:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least that gets us somewhere. I think most of the work we have been dealing with has been Soviet-work made before this time period, but with some of the information I posted, that should get us on the right track. And, since this is a Wiki, we can always modify the templates later on changing the copyright status. I already merged Sovietpd into the other template (PD-USSR) due to the point you brought up earlier Lupo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As per Ghirla. The value these pictures give to wikipedia is phenominal, if there is doubt they should remain.--Colle||Talk-- 03:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ёzhiki. KNewman 06:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sashazlv 06:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the deletion didn't fly. Lupo is free to propose modification, but I think we can safely close the vote. I am removing the TfD note from the template's page. Please xontinue discussions on the proposed changed at the template's talk or wherever. --Irpen 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote, but a comment: We should never delete a copyright tag simply because it is incorrect, while there still exist images that reference it. We should also not reword a copyright tag; whether the statement it makes is correct or not, it is the statement that users uploading under this copyright tag agreed to when uploading. We can add a statement that says that we are unsure if the claims made in the tag are legally valid. We should create another copyright tag with a statement that we believe is legally valid - whatever the discussion about Russian copyright terms and PD decides is the actual legal case - and migrate images to that as we validate that they actually qualify. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the tag needs to be modified do so. But it is ridiculous to delete all those valuable pictures. John Smith's 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists may continue a separate debate on how to modify the tag, but the delete vote has been up for over 5 days and its result is clear. --Irpen 08:48, 20 February 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast food advertising[edit]

Template:User BurgerKing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User McDonald's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User TacoBell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. I can see how listing one's favorite food or dietary habits can be somewhat informative. But these templates don't really say much about anyone as a person, let alone as a Wikipedian. This is little more than advertising. Feel free to mentally fill in the obvious slippery slope argument that one can make here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gee, I think we can say what we'd like to about ourselves, just so long as it isn't TOO out of bounds (i.e. like the old "User Paedophile" template). The images used are better-than-fair-use images that are therefore allowed on there. Other than that, I don't see why we shouldn't express who we are or what we do in this sort of way. Who would ever think these restaurant-preference userboxes go far out-of-bounds? --Shultz 08:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oh my dear Lord! A McDonald's template! Good heavens think of the children! This is Satan's work! --D-Day 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify and keep. Remove images with logos to avoid copyright/advert trouble. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pastricide, those are either Public Domain or GNU FDL images. Therefore, they're OK. --Shultz 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. A "this user eats fast food" (or, more accurately, "this user eats grease-covered styrofoam commonly advertised as food") template would be fine. Catamorphism 04:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing wrong with saying you eat certain restaraunts foods. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of those user boxes are pretty useless. On top of serving no goal, this is advertisement. Caesarion 14:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three as advertisement, cleverly worded though it may be. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; lots of other user boxes can be interpreted as commercial, such as all religions and political parties. That's nonsense. Clossius 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep. I, personally, find them to be childish and inane. I also agree that they constitute free advertising for companies that certainly don't need free advertising. In fact, I like Catamorphism's suggestion. Trouble is, I'm afraid that deleting it might start a firestorm of people insisting that such templates as ((User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox)) and ((user browser:Netscape)) should be deleted on the same grounds. Most people probably aren't going to want to use fast-food userboxes, anyway. Discretion is the better part …, and all that rot. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all three. Some people like whoppers, some people like a Royale with cheese, some people like a taco. What's the problem? (Ibaranoff24 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• keep per Shultz Mike McGregor (Can) 16:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment this seems to be along the same lines as the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16/Masses of userboxes (perhaps not the intent, but the type of boxes...) the result there was a speedy keep.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Userbox deletion is disruptive--God of War 17:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all three It helps people know what people like to eat. Simple. Hohohob 08:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all three whats the difference between liking a whopper burger and liking fruit juice? Honestly??? Mostlyharmless 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, "advertising" like this - from a non-affiliated party acting on their own with a little box - is different from really "advertising" - turning your user page into a page all about your commercial site advertising your product. Agree with CKA3KA. --AySz88^-^ 06:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not really advertising. You're not selling a product, you're just simply claiming that you like to dine at [insert dining name]. I could see a difference if the userboxes had some different wording. Also, was the "Feel free to mentally fill in the obvious slippery slope argument that one can make here." comment really necessary? Come on. Douglasr007 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If you're going to delete these, you might as well delete every other userbox with a brand name attached to it. The Kids Aren't Alright 21:12, 19 February 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jimi Hendrix[edit]

Template:Jimi Hendrix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Exact copy of Template:ExperienceHendrix, which is ugly enough anyway. - MightyMoose22 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Delete Template:ExperienceHendrix instead as that template name is more confusing. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cuiviénen, change vote to keep but delete Template:ExperienceHendrix. Mikker ^... 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cuiviénen. 203.51.172.162 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per per Cuiviénen. Chairman S. 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Errr, move? - why is this even here? No discussion on either talk page, so impossible to form an informed opinion; was there some third template that preceeded the creation of both on 12 Feb? -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as far as I know. Unless you count the Cream one they were initially based on. I did make one of them into a redirect for the other, but thought that's pretty much pointless & it would make more sense to just delete it. So I listed it here. Quite frankly, I don't see a point in either, and would rather see it just left up to this page. It's mostly there anyway. - MightyMoose22 00:15, 17 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. Not much point relisting. Colours are horrific though. -Splash^talk 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SimonGarfunkel[edit]

Template:SimonGarfunkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Little more than a discography and some seemingly unrelated "related bands". - MightyMoose22 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems useful. It can always be altered... Mikker ^... 03:46, 13 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. Another one with outrageous colouring. -Splash^talk 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SRV2Trouble[edit]

Template:SRV2Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Little more than a discography and some seemingly unrelated "related bands". - MightyMoose22 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems useful. It can always be altered... Mikker ^... 03:47, 13 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TPHeartbreakers[edit]

Template:TPHeartbreakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Little more than a discography and some seemingly unrelated "related bands". - MightyMoose22 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems useful. It can always be altered...Mikker ^... 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like random advertising and unecessary clutter. (Unsigned comment by User:24.33.233.128 21:57, 2006 February 16)
• Keep per Mikkerpikker. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:36, 22 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indian Army Regiments[edit]

Template:Infobox Indian Army Regiments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by ((Infobox Military Unit)). —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. --Loopy ^e 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. 07:35, 13 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox British Army regiment[edit]

Template:Infobox British Army regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by ((Infobox Military Unit)). —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. --Loopy ^e 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SoLando (Talk) 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:49, 16 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Questions-DE[edit]

Template:Questions-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is big, ugly, and unnecessary. It creates its own section, and has some sort of CSS error. Should be deleted. JW1805 (Talk) 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This template is useful in reminding potential contributors of the need for contributions and the basic ground rules. It also serves as a quiet reminder that there are people watching these pages. It is a suggested way to address these issues. If it is big, ugly, or has a CSS error (?) edits to cure these are welcome. It is useful, harmless and should not be deleted. Hopefully members of the community are willing to consider creative attempts to address the problems we all face and work to refine them rather than reject them out of hand. stilltim 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really appropriate for use on articles; we should avoid self-references wherever possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A wikipedia article should not discuss its own editing process; to do so is to suggest that process matters more than content, whereas the whole point of this encyclopedia is that we really can produce an encyclopedia, not just a really big wiki. This is the main reason for the guideline Christopher mentions. Stub templates are acceptable because they are unobstrusive and, by definition, they don't go on our best articles. This template, though I recognize that it was well-intentioned and I appreciate the desire to welcome new contributors, is neither necessary nor beneficial--every Wikipedia page says that anyone can edit it. Chick Bowen 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could be replaced by a Cleanup tag. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant with the wiki process. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:06, 15 February 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.