< March 12	March 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 keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TrollWarning[edit]

Template:TrollWarning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All discussion pages might contain trolling, so this template is irellevant. _→AzaToth 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Survived TfD a month ago. TacoDeposit 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, helpful template. Reminds me to remain calm every time I see ignorant comments placed below it, and I'm confident that others silently benefit from it as well. — Mar. 13, '06 [22:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep useful and not enough time has passed to renominate.JohnnyBGood 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, all discussion pages might contain trolling, but this is for pages that are particularly vulnerable to trolling. See Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy for an example. MiraLuka 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I never liked this template anyway and I'm glad it's finally up for deletion. There's just no point to it; it simply adds more clutter in the form of pastel boxes to the top of talk pages. It's very subjective to say which talk pages need this and which don't. Besides, it's negative ... as an psychologist knows, you don't warn against the negative as that will get people thinking about it, you encourage the positive. A better template would encourage civility and thoughtfulness, not discourage trolling, because you know that's just going to egg some people on. --Cyde Weys 03:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does encourage civility and WP:DNFT, in everyone else. Septentrionalis 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MiraLuka. --Terence Ong 07:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep, already survived TfD not long ago, and it's very useful. - Eagle^talk 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This was discussed month or so ago. An useless TfD renomination. jni 09:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Homestarmy 13:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy keep. Some pages are more likly to contain trolling then others, so it's good to mark them out. Gerard Foley 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Discussion cannot be constructive when you start out insulting the participants. I am embarrassed for Wikipedia that this template exists. The moment someone adds this to a page, they are explicitely giving up on assuming good faith, and dismissing comments by others. Time to grow up, kids. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Keep - whilst it may be sad that sensible editors might need to highlight controversial topics' talk pages this way, this is not so much a warning to the trollers themselves (who by definition are not responsive to requests to WP:Verify & WP:Cite their sources and discuss in a WP:Civil manner), but rather a warning to other editors to not take all the talk pages comments to heart and not to "wade in" risking further trolling. There are many controversial topics whose talk pages remain civil, despite strong debates, but trolling is deliberate disruptive behaviour and wikipedia has no need for this and is right in highlighting the worse of trolling excess. David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally feel trolling is a horrible problem on many of the more controversial pages, and this serves as a good warning to people who have not encountered the problem much in the past. Posting this on every talk page would be strongly against the assume good faith faith principles of Wikipedia, however, since it used on so few pages it remains a useful tool against trolls.--SirNuke 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful warning to others, we have lots of trolls here, and this is good for the most vandalised pages as lots of trolls will write things on the discussion page of the article. --Terence Ong 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A paraphrasing of this warning is, "assume bad faith". While editors may, on a personal level, decide someone probably shouldn't be responded to, to tag an entire discussion as having trolls is bad form. Think about what this would look like from the point of view of a new user. Maybe they say something that is ignorant of other policies, and for that reason no one responds (this happens all the time). Then they see this warning and assume people think they are trolling. Or they express themselves in a way that is overly inflammatory for any number of reasons (culture, language, education). This template encourages you to assume bad faith, and I don't see why we should be supporting that. - cohesion^t 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this template urges violation of WP:AGF. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The simple fact is that some pages are more inflammatory than others. A "play nicely" sign never hurt anyone.--Esprit15d 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful for pages prone to trolling. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems benign and helpful.--MONGO 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subjective, but useful as a good-faith warning. WP:AGF is important, but it's overuse of this template that would violate it... so it's really editors, not the template that compromise AGF. Mangojuice 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rephrase. If it does contain obvious trolling (i.e. GNAA style), the troll comments should simply be removed. Otherwise it's not obvious, and shouldn't be called trolling.--Eloquence* 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Subtle trolling is most often more disruptive than obvious trolling for the very reasons you have just stated. I agree, if it's obvious trolling, just remove it, but if you're not quite sure, use the template. — Mar. 18, '06 [07:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
    • And you don't consider it problematic in terms of Wikiquette and WikiLove to potentially label someone who is acting in good faith a troll? It's less of a problem with a huge talk page like with the Danish cartoons, but with few participants, it seems like a very direct violation of Wikiquette and AGF to me. If you substitute troll with "asshole who should be blocked", that becomes very obvious: "This discussion page may contain comments by assholes who should be blocked. In order to prevent further assholian behavior, just ignore them. Oh, but do assume good faith." But what are trolls, if not assholes who should be blocked?--Eloquence* 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful to probe whether a complaint such as at Talk:WOWO is genuine or just a rabble-rouser trying to start a fight with an unsubstantiated condemnation. —optikos 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this can be used on talk pages with especially high levels of trolling. -- King of Hearts ^talk 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really do not like the term 'trolling'. That said, this should never had been voted on again:) --Andreas Müller 20:36, 21 March 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 redirect to Template:Infobox Country. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grenada infobox[edit]

Template:Grenada infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformatted to the Template:Infobox Country form and expanded. MJCdetroit 17:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, singleuse metatemplate. --Golbez 21:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)*Delete per nom. CG 09:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --naryathegreat | (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect. Cf. my vote above. My vote shall be the same to all similar nominations. — Instantnood 21:51, 21 March 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 moot - speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warcraft Stub[edit]

Template:Warcraft Stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Inferior) Duplicate of Template:Warcraft-stub (unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a criterion for speedy deletion). TimBentley 06:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Warcraft-stub. Easy and cost-effective. Proto||type 12:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Proto. Chairman S. ^Talk 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly named stub (and move the discussion to WP:SFD. ^BlankVerse 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Proto. --Terence Ong 16:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It was speedied and recreated as a redirect (which in hindsight I should have done). TimBentley 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just speedied it again. Malnamed and malformed unused duplicate stub templates aren't recreated as redirects - as per WP:SFD, which is where this nomination should have been taken anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 14 March 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. And may I add that the template text doesn't even begin to make sense: "The copyright of this image is held by [WMO], which [...] is provided on a free and unrestricted basis." The arguments against the fuzzy legal theory advocated by this template are convincing. Moreover, just a single image is currently tagged as ((WMO)) and that image is orphaned. So for all practical purposes, this template is effectively not in use, and thus won't be missed. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WMO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is image tag used on only three images from the IPCC. I know for a fact that the IPCC claims to hold copyright over their work, and so the legal theory advanced here seems unlikely. The text of the cited "resolution" does not seem to apply, and to the extent that it does apply it seems to be non-commercial. Recommend deletion and taking the three figures with it. Dragons flight 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you "know for a fact" IPCC claims to hold copyright over its work perhaps you could point to a statement of this on the IPCC/UNFCCC/WMO sites. While you are about it, you could show that IPCC had a coporate existance in 1990 rather than being an ad-hoc panel of larger groups. Then you could show that three little charts are not fair use. The truth is that you and your friends are trying to supress evidence about William M. Connolley's attempts to mislead other editors. --Facethefacts 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IPCC routinely makes copyright claims like, [1]:

© Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The burden is on you to show otherwise, and a resolution regarding the noncommercial distribution and use of meteorological data sets, does not cover it. Also, under Wikipedia fair use policy, no image can be kept under a theory of fair use unless it is used in an article, which none of these are. Dragons flight 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have just speedied 2 of the 3 images as reuploaded content previously deleted as copyvios. Dragons flight 07:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the cited document is a commitment by the organizations involvedto do what they can for the free and unrestricted flow of information: the equivalent of a Wikipedia guideline, not, in itself, a legal release. Septentrionalis 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Septentrionalis. The word "copyright" is not mentioned in the document. Mangojuice 16:57, 17 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AllChrist[edit]

Template:AllChrist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This cleanup template was only used on one verse with no supporting info on talk page, created by an editor for a project he planned but seems to have dropped. Rich Farmbrough 01:39 13 March 2006 (UTC).

• Keep - As the original author, I'll admit I have had less time of late, but I did mean to tag a lot more articles. It was created mostly because I've noticed a lot of Christianity articles are high biased towards conservative protestants. I'll now type up a draft on the AllChrist Talk page about how to remove such bias. A J Hay 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template seems quite useful, if used on more articles. Chairman S. ^Talk 05:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite good intentions, the issues raised by this template are IMO better addressed on the talk page than with a one-size-fits-all template. Some articles specifically Christian topics just don't need to represent a world-wide view (does anyone care what Jews, Muslims, and atheists have to say about Maundy Thursday?). And restricting the wording of the template to the Abrahamic religions plus atheism is itself POV, but adding agnostics, Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, Wiccans, Flying Spaghetti Monsterists, etc., to the template is also not a solution. Fighting bias in articles is important (and my experience here is different from yours -- in my experience Christianity-related articles usually have a strong Roman Catholic bias), but I don't think this template is the way to go. Angr/talk 10:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points, I doubt that the template should stay the way it is. What would you suggest to address the issue?? I was thinking about this and I figured that one option was to create a Wikipedia Guide to NPOV Christian Articles with links to a variety of resources (eg catholic encyclopedia), and to change the template to say "This article does not sufficiently represent the variety of Christian viewpoints, see the talk page and the NPOV Guide". So far though, I'm still for keeping a template, if only because we shouldn't pretend that many articles are in need of a specific NPOV template. A J Hay 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for addressing the issue is to bring up the problem on the talk page of the problematic article. I don't see the need for any template at all, but if one must be used, the general ((POV)) should be sufficient. Angr/talk 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are many, many articles that fall into such the "Christian non-NPOV" category, and I would like to write a guide. Should I (and those willing to help) write a guide? We can delete this template, and when the guide is peer-reviewed as useful, then find some way of getting people to use it.A J Hay 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a Wikipedia entry, I'm guessing it should change location, but check it out: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (Christian articles). So, if you can see where this article is heading, do you think it's a better alternative to the template? A J Hay 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Angr MiraLuka 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.JohnnyBGood 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 09:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts ^talk 02:22, 19 March 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 redirect to ((no license)). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This document, paper, letter, map, book, photograph, film, sound recording, electronic data‑processing record, artifact, or other documentary material was produced by the State of Ohio, which does claim copyright in the work." This is not a copyright license, and is definitely not public domain. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ((no license)) to provide hint that this is not legit. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what's been done with other spurious PD-[location] tags, incidentally. Always a good move. Shimgray | talk | 00:52, 14 March 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 moot: We cannot settle what is essentially a legal question by a debate, much less a vote, among non-experts with no direct stake in the outcome (after all, it's the Foundation that is most exposed here). I'm not inclined to say that either side in this debate is completely or obviously right. However, since we should rather err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright, the mere fact that there is a problem here should tell us that we need to re-examine the images currently tagged with ((PD-CAGov)) to see whether there are suitable replacements, whether their continued use can be justified under a different rationle, etc. Since a credible argument has been made that casts doubt on the images tagged with ((PD-CAGov)) being in the public domain, let's do the following: redirect this template to ((no license)) for now, and remand for review. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complicated than the above (Ohio) one. For example, the Caltrans site says "© 2005 State of California" at the bottom, but the conditions of use says that "OWNERSHIP In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law." The ability of the state to copyright the web site in the first place contradicts the statement on the template that "This image is a work of a State of California employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, and is consequently in the public domain." Discussion on Template talk:PD-CAGov has given nothing definite. It is possible that the "considered in the public domain" is an informal way of saying it's not classified or a trade secret; either way, the template as it stands is misleading if not completely wrong. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - People employed by the state of California are under the impression that their works are in the public domain (see cited talk page). For that reason alone this template should be kept. If it is not a legal certainty, then more research should be done instead of deleting the page straight away. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a legal certainty that works of the state of California are not necessarily public domain. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPUI, can you explain how you reached that conclusion? Because I'm not following. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the Caltrans site says "© 2005 State of California" at the bottom" --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is contradicted by the "ownership" statement, which is clearly talking about copyrights. The next sentence after your quote is: "However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." This indicates that yes, the statement means "public domain" and not "public records". Also, it is likely that an outside web developer placed the copyright statement at the bottom of every page out of habit or without knowledge of the public domain requirements, since this is expected by non-government clients. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is the most likely interpretation. The lengthy legalese is clearly the work of someone with legal knowledge, and they would not be confused about what "public domain" means. Boilerplate at the bottom of a webpage is most the product of an ignorant website contractor, or even autogenerated by some software package. Perhaps someone should email Caltrans, see if the website changes shortly thereafter... Stan 13:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't underestimate government bureaucracy. :) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The wording in regards to works produced by employees of the State of California is almost exactly the same as the wording for Work of the United States Government. The reason for the copyright on the website is most likely that it was produced by contractors with the rights then assigned to the State. ^BlankVerse 13:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But no one has found a state law that actually says that works of the state are public domain. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 16:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Strong keep. The statement basically means, "The content on this site is public domain unless stated otherwise." howcheng {chat} 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this is too complex for someone to understand I suggest they get off the internet before they hurt themselves. This template is self explainatory and very useful. (disclaimer: This is not a personal attack on any user of Wikipedia as has been asserted by User:SPUI in his continuing vandalism of this vote.)JohnnyBGood 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I checked http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html and I did not find any copyright law specific to California (which I happen to live in). Since it is a Wiki, it can be recreated at any time, but according to the same links y'all are providing: the design of the website is copyrighted, but at the actual terms of use, all information (except for pics and otherwise noted information) is in the public domain. To be safe, I would launch an email to the copyright holders of the specific images and find out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This does not, anywhere, actually state why CA government materials are public domain, it just claims they are. I've looked before, and looked again now, and I simply can't find legislation which states it. There are very strong indications that CA state material (with some exceptions, like the UC system) is PD, but the California state code seems to be pretty much silent on the issue. Ho hum.
• On an unrelated note, if this is kept, I'd strongly recommend removing the "subject to disclaimers" - none of our other copyright tags have this, and it's good practice to avoid adding extra links to disclaimers on a semi-arbitrary basis, since it can be construed to imply all the others are somehow more valid. Shimgray | talk | 01:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework. While I must admit that I haven't found any state law in the California Civil Code or elsewhere that would say so, I still believe that it is correct to consider information published by California state agencies on their web sites to be in the public domain unless otherwise indicated. Do a Google search for +california +"public domain" +site:.ca.gov: you'll see that virtually all state websites do have the identical ownership statement saying "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." (emphasis mine) and "However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." This means the information found on such web sites is indeed in the public domain unless otherwise indicated. And in fact they do indicate when they publish something that is copyrighted, see e.g. [2] (for the Downloadable Earthquake Catalogs) or [3] (for the California Driver Handbook). Finally they virtually all say "Furthermore, the unique branding of the site and various official seals and marks may not be used without permission of the State.", which just means that the web site design is copyrighted. However, it may be necessary to rework the template to match more closely what we know: information published on websites by the State of California or its agencies is in the public domain unless otherwise indicated. We do not know that any image taken or made by a state employee during the course of the person's official duties was automatically in the public domain, which is what the template currently says. Lupo 08:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to those looking for legislation, it might be the case that the material is not public domain by legislation, but rather some other means. Perhaps by the Constitution of California (lengthy due to numerous amendments), or perhaps by a judicial decision. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework - I have also looked for some statutory justification for this and have failed to find any. Absent some guiding law or principle, I think the best we can do is say something like: "This image comes from a specific website operated by the government of California that declares that the content of the website is in the public domain. This does not apply to all works of the government of California, but only such material where a specific dedication to the public domain has been found." Dragons flight 15:51, 14 March 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. Angr/talk 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1930s bomber aircraft by nation[edit]

Orphaned, replaced by other more flexible templates. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Okay, I'll buy that. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:49, 19 March 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. Angr/talk 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User queerrights[edit]

Template:User queerrights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominated for deletion under CSD T1, but I think a debate probably needs to take place on this as it isn't strictly political, and no one has complained about its diviseness. Harro5 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to delete. MiraLuka 07:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely comes under T1. 'Queer' is a perjorative term. Would it be okay to have a box that says 'This user is in favour of nigger rights?'. No, it would not. And, if it is kept (which I don't think it should be), it should be called gayrights, if anything, as per Gay rights etc naming convention. Proto||type 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether or not "queer" is considered a perjorative term or not, we can always rename it to something that everyone can agree on. There is nothing wrong with saying that you support gay/queer rights. On a side note about the "nigger" comment you made, I would suggest not making it again. Moe ε 20:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on whether to keep or delete, but rename per Proto if kept. — Mar. 13, '06 [22:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep and rename Keep based on it's not divisive, but rename. Moe ε 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nice userbox that is purely positive.JohnnyBGood 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gay people have "reclaimed" the term "queer", and use it to make a statement. Why should we be telling them they can't? PeteVerdon 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. "Queer" is used as an adjective by the GLBT community, particularly in academic and political contexts. Iamvered 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral In homosexual political circles queer and gay aren't exact synonyms. - cohesion^t 09:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Iamvered especally, et al... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template is clearly neither divisive nor inflammatory. Ibn Abihi 11:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a notable opinion, knowledge of which on the part of other editors would lead to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wow, this TfD hits on multiple complex topics. Although I have historically considered the term queer right up there with other harsh epithets against blacks, Jews, and various ethnic groups, it has in recent years been embraced by that very target community as a way of dismantling the epithet (much as Purdue University adopted Boilermakers as their athletic moniker after it was used as an insult by others. The positive use of queer in this template is clearly neither divisive nor inflammatory. Conversely, a hypothetical opposite of this template that would state being against homosexuality that used the term queer would be quite offensive, divisive, and inflmmatory and would need to be altered to be respectful in expressing disdain. This template proposed for deletion is no more offensive to me than one which states that the user is a member of the Republican Party or of the Communist Party. It lets us know what that user holds near & dear to their heart. Nor should that template be forcibly renamed (other than by majority-choice of those displaying in their user pages), because that community has a right to name themselves whatever they want without impediment by those who disagree with them. —optikos 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Moe Epsilon's side note above, I consider User:Proto's rhetorical question and negative answer to be 100% within bounds of this respectful debate, just as much as having a respectful, factual nigger historical article is within bounds for an encyclopedia and just has having a respectful, factual queer article is within bounds for an encyclopedia. I nearly wrote nearly the same n-word example myself (or the k-word for Jews or the s-word for Hispanics), but opted for my more oblique language. —optikos 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template is perfectly OK. Besides, this TfD is making my user page ugly. Please speed up the vote process. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nice userbox that is purely positive.08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr/talk 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-PakistanGov[edit]

Template:PD-PakistanGov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It appears that someone mistook a Freedom of Information Act as a dedication to the public domain. --Carnildo 20:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.JohnnyBGood 02:03, 16 March 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.