May 29, 2006
- 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 - now on deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User no notability[edit]
Template:User no notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not included on any userpages --Lkjhgfdsa 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- thats not a reason to delete... see my userpage. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 00:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Give it a few days to see if others use it before pushing for deletion. --StuffOfInterest 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. --70.218.3.206 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill with fire. If this won't be used for votestacking my name is Petunia. (And it's not.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Terence Ong 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's just a userbox like "this user is an inclusionist." Sophy's Duckling 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks like I just just found a new userbox. --Disavian 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Who deleted this with two kill votes and didnt even update the TfD page or subst? Undelete this now!' -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- by the way, this userbox sums up whatever that admin did:
- Ok I put it back as a milder version so no one could outright break process. I don't think ignore applied here, nor did WP:SNOW. Quick, subst: it! Just kidding. Could someone repost the tfd tag? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--cj | talk 07:38, 4 June 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. IceKarmaॐ 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Illegalparty[edit]
Template:Illegalparty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template has been renamed by Rex the first, and all POV traces removed. This vote should now be closed. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. A user has started the processes of labelling certain party-types as illegal through this NPOV template. This template assigns a NPOV jurisdictional bias upon certain articles. Sumkidz 12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possible Speedy. – Xolatron 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. --Coredesat 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, per nom. TheJC TalkContributions 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I created this as I wanted to merge Freetekno and Free party but due to cultural differences they couldn't be merged. The template was meant to encompass all raves/free parties/doof. I have been asking for suggestions to change the name but have not been able to find another common feature (except from the majority being illegal) and to be fair these terms to refer to illegal parties.Rex the first talk | contribs 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Actually, I don't think illegal is NPOV at all, but the best resolution for all would be to rename. I suggest 'Free party' or 'Rave' or 'Underground party'.Mujinga 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or Keep These parties are often referred to as "illegals", which quite obviously means juristic and not moral legality. Sprung 18:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or Keep. I'd recommend renaming to Raves.Rob 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong delete per nom. Not-NPOV. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must point out that this template is hardly inflammatory and therefore does not qualify for a speedy delete. Also I have given links above showing that Free Parties and Squat Parties are illegal in the UK and are partly illegal in France also apart from the most recent, all CzechTek have been illegal. On top of that if the name offends then the people working on the free party/teknival pages have agreed to a rename. Would you please give a more illuminating explanation on why this should be deleted? Rex the first talk | contribs 09:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Illegal is open to interpretation, what is illegal somewhere may be legal somewhere else. And I changed vote to strong delete, you have a point, doesn't qualify for speedy. Also, you can easily create a different more NPOV template and use that one. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed Illegalparty to DIY PartiesRex the first talk | contribs 09:04, 10 June 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. IceKarmaॐ 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution[edit]
Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Swedish Governmental photos do not enter the public domain automatically in any way. The can release photos of course, but it would be the same as if it were released by anyone else. This would be the same as ((PD-release)), which should be a preferable template as it avoids the notion of Swedish governmental photos being PD. Fred-Chess 10:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) currently using 212.247.86.72 and doesn't want to log in from this computer[reply]
- Delete Could use ((PD-release)) for photos in the public domain. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 01:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nick C. --Terence Ong 14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but perhaps improve. The PD-release template doesn't require that the photographer's name should be stated, which is a requirement for publication of pictures released by the Swedish government, in accordance with the Berne Convention. I don't think the wording of PD-SwedGov-attribution is such that people can be mislead to think that all pictures published by the Swedish government are automatically PD. The sentence "This photographic picture has been released by the Government of Sweden" clearly refers to a specific picture and not a general rule. It is very different from PD-USGov, where the wording "This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal Government" makes it obvious that it refers to a general rule. Also, please note that the PD-SwedGov-attribution is a copyleft template and NOT a total PD template, i.e. the Swedish government does retain some rights. Thomas Blomberg 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody seems to care about this anymore, so I'll just add a small clarification and then remove the delete line in the template. Thomas Blomberg 10:14, 12 June 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. IceKarmaॐ 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Yacht rock[edit]
Template:Yacht rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used only by Yacht rock; TfD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacht rock Closeapple 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could subst the template if article does not get deleted. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and Delete if the article doesn't get deleted. If the article gets incorporated back into Yacht Rock (show), and there is no longer a need for the template, delete. TheJC TalkContributions 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like this template is no longer in use after the restoration and redirect. TheJC TalkContributions 06:08, 9 June 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 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sectioninuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete. This template looks like it is never used. If it was rephrased it would likely be redundant to ((underconstruction)). TheJC TalkContributions 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no benefit to labelling sections as opposed to entire articles as in use, since edit conflicts occur even if someone edits a different section. Although it's impossible to say so with certainty, it appears that this is utterly unused. --RobthTalk 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Robth. -- cmh 01:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rob. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – Xolatron 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Also likely to be redundant to ((Inuse)). - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep helpful when you gotta run somewhere quick and are working on one section. That way others can edit everything else without fear of edit conflicts or messing with the work. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 23:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and alter ((Inuse)) to say "This article or section" instead of just "This article". -- Zawersh 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Zawersh--larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:52, 31 May 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 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Moved to Wikibooks[edit]
Template:Moved to Wikibooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Virtually unused template indicating that an article has been transwikied to Wikibooks. (By virtually I mean, only used once, and that instance is one I recently prodded.) Articles that have been transwikied should be prodded (or cleaned up), not replaced with a boilerplate that only states that the article is now on Wikibooks. TheProject 17:29, 29 May 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.