< July 21	July 23 >

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 to redirect. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright tag used for four images. The tag says, among other things, "However they ought not to be used in any commercially unreasonable manner which would disparage or discredit Aeronautica Militare." To me, that violates free use and thus, this tag should either be deleted or possibly redirected to ((PermissionAndFairUse)). If it is kept, someone needs to make it into a real copyright tag - it was just plain text - I have put it into a red border as to not look weird on image pages - but if it gets kept, it needs to be improved. BigDT 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigDT, the problem with this template is that the images "should not be used commercially," which Jimbo explicitly forbade in May of 2005. I suggest a redirect to the non-commercial template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "should not be used commercially", it is says "ought not be used in any commercially unreasonable manner." I have no idea what that means exactly, but I don't think it prohibits commercial use, unless any commercial use is commercially unreasonable. It sounds like the sort of standard warning that the US government puts on their logos — i.e. can't be used in a way which would make someone thinks the government endorses it. In any case, as I wrote below, I think the vagueness of this license makes it non-free for our purposes. --Fastfission 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ((no license)). The terms aren't clear enough to pin it down to any particular unacceptable license. ("ought not to be used in any commercially unreasonable manner which would disparage or discredit Aeronautica Militare"?) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "commercially unreasonable manner" means, nor what they mean by "disparage or discredit". I suspect that neither of these conditions would be legally binding in a US court, but in any case their legal vagueness makes them sufficiently unfree in my book. --Fastfission 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((no license)), per Simetrical. --Bchociej 07:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "they ought not to be used in any [...] manner which would disparage or discredit Aeronautica Militare" - this may prove awkward if the history of the Aeronautica Militare 1940-1943 is ever expanded beyond the present two liner :-).

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.

This was simply created to promote a candidate's request for adminship. It is not something other editors would - or at least should - ever be using for the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is insanely complicated, which is perhaps why it's also virtually unused. I'm not even going to try to get Pearle to parse it; other templates are easier to use and more active and seem to be getting the job done. -- Beland 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (the well-reasoned and -explicated) nom. Joe 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Complicated? In what way is ((fix)) more difficult to use than ((fact)) or ((fix|box|July 22, 2006)) harder than ((cleanup-date|July 22, 2006))? General idea was to create a framework for standardizing/simplifying the various 'cleanup' templates which seem to have multiplied beyond count. I make templates for new ways of doing things and leave them out there. Most 'catch on' though it sometimes takes a while (((Babel)), ((day+1)), ((Infobox character)), ((Navbox generic)), et cetera). Is it hurting anything? Would it really be a bad thing if this did help lead to better standardization / organization? --CBD 21:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The code behind the template may look complex, but using the template is rather simple. I would much rather have one template to use than have to remember all the different template names, a few of which already create output that looks the same and link to the same places. Slambo (Speak) 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how exactly the syntax for templates should be, but this one seems to be nonfunctionalJianLi 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonfunctional. Neil916 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Zoz (t) 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no function. --Bchociej 07:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-test. The Image:Example.jpg and the fact it transcludes itself are giveaways. --ais523 13:24, 31 July 2006 (U T C)

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 to keep, likely to be clean up. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too big a box for narrow topic. Not visually pleasing either. --CharlotteWebb 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second. It adds nothing that cannot be found by starting at the article on Classical Guitar. And it clutters short articles. ElMosca 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems that most of the versions of this template have been bulky and not very useful. The formats that were easier to read unfortunately overlapped other things on small pages (at least on IE). Personally, I think it should be scrapped and the amount of effort being put into it should be put into making the categories and links better (lots of the new pages are not even in a single category!). --Amazzing5 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This template is very useful to find an article in the 190 articles of the classical guitar series. It’s impossible to find most of those articles from the article Classical guitar.

Strong Delete If we already have 190 useful articles related to the classical guitar, but you cannot find them starting at the article Classical Guitar, then we should fix the article. This box is full of redundant information and is not organized in a manner that will allow a serious student to find his or her way around it. In the time it takes you to locate what you're looking for in that box, you could have just searched the terms you need. Having such a large cumbersome box on every article related to the Classical Guitar accomplishes very little. As mentioned, shorter articles are often dwarfed by the dimensions of this box.

Conditional keep, pending cleanup and organization. --Bchociej 07:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected. the wub "?!" 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Template:Glasgow stations. Very few uses. Erath 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to note that this template was already copied and merged into the "Glasgow stations" with my permission and help. Maybe this page should be a redirect. Simply south 11:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is now a redirect and I'm hereby withdrawing this nomination. Erath 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state non-encyclopaedic Errabee 09:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete and unused variant of ((copyvio)); I don't get what the name is supposed to refer to, so I don't see the purpose. Mango juice^talk 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what's the point? --CharlotteWebb 17:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked in the history to find the reason this template existed and found that the previous occupant of this template title was a ((nothanks)) derivative, ((Cobocopyviowarn)). And what I found in that template appears to reveal its purpose: These templates, apparently, were to be used for a bot, Cobo (talk · contribs), which never got off the ground (only one contribution, to create the bot's userpage). That was almost a year ago. Since the reason these templates exist never happened, this should go. (Why are they in the template namespace, anyway? These would belong in Cobo's userspace...) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WCQuidditch. Neil916 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too big; can be better handled by browse links in the infobox. --SPUI (T - C) 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, per nom, the box is rather large and redundant now that the infobox will have browse capabilities. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 07:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --CharlotteWebb 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this with the intent to provide a navigational box for the MI state highways, but now that the infobox are being used, I prefer them over the navigation box. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
Delete per author acknowledgement. Neil916 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per author??? Someone correct me if wrong on talk, please. --Bchociej 07:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#G7 was at odds with ((db-author)) for a while, until ((db-author)) was amended to match the policy. G7 deletions are now only possible if the page creation was a mistake in addition to the only contributor request (to prevent bad-faith G7s when authors get annoyed with Wikipedia and want their contribs deleted, although obviously that hasn't happened here). --ais523 10:26, 3 August 2006 (U T C)

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Michigan functionality of ((infobox road)). Compare [1] with [2]. --SPUI (T - C) 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't finalized the design, but it's not a problem. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 07:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Michael 09:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SPUI. --CharlotteWebb 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per template author's vote to delete, above. Neil916 06:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected and protected. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Public domain resources#Canadian Government, among other places, works of the Canadian government are subject to copyright. As far as I can tell, the claims of this template are incorrect - both this template and the images using it need to go. BigDT 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So misleadingit should be speedy deleted, along withcontent tagged with it. Thetextis a copy-paste from the US government PD tags. Circeus 03:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:No license, please don't delete. Deleting will make it harder to find the images that use it, and ((no license)) correctly describes the status of the images this is on. See, e.g., Template:PD-CAGov; bad image copyright licenses are redirected, not deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; protect the redirect. --Carnildo 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the said template, since Alberta, along with the rest of Canada, uses Crown Copyright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. --Bchociej 07:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 22

Template:Italian Air Force website copyright

Template:Vote Crisspy

Template:Fix

Template:Person

Template:Classical guitar

Template:Glasgow city centre stations

Template:Baseball player infobox

Template:Cobocopyvio

Template:Michigan state highways

Template:Infobox Michigan Hwy

Template:PD-ABGov-DOT