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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Airplaneman ✈ 04:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Montenegrin Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see what purpose this serves. ((Lang)) within the article text should suffice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, looks ok however redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka govisky (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ummm, did its being a ((tmbox)) not suggest what it's used for? It's for people to put on their user talk if there's a chance that some of the discussion will be in Montenegrin. If it's inappropriate it's because of our talk page guidelines saying to use English at all times. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I saw that it was transcluded to two user talk pages, but it was also at the top of Talk:Montenegro, which is even more confusing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per cogent remark from Chris Cunningham. And I have seen many uses of "foreign languages" on userpages - we would bneed an RfC if we really wish to establish monolingual as the standard. Collect (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Airplaneman ✈ 03:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Flatart-Nosource (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((PD-Art)), odd representation of policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the source for any PD-art image is the original artwork itself. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Explicitly covers some material not covered under the other template, and does not cover some covered under the other template. Collect (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Roundart-US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((PD-art-US)) Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Roundart-70 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((PD-art-life-70)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Roundart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((PD-art)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NASA logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and unused addition to ((PD-USGov-NASA)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NYPL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as previous submission. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep: No reason is given for deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you talking about? Same as the submission I gave right before this one. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which submission would that be? --Carnildo (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The one about a millimeter below, submitted two minutes beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-8BS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; PD-release or PD-author should suffice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Airplaneman ✈ 04:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Public domain" basically doesn't exist. All software (that I'm aware of) under a free license is more restrictive than outright PD. In fact, all of the images marked with this tag are improperly marked (some grossly so) or at very least improper explained. In the rare instance that a truly public domain software program runs, there should be a ((PD-because)) tag with a more proper explanation such as ((PD-self)). Full disclosure, I removed this tag from three pages: [1] [2] [3]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Public domain software exists; see our article public domain software and the related category Category:Public domain software. You've probably even got some of it on your own computer, in the form of the SQLite database engine embedded into Firefox or some other program. --Carnildo (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from SQLite, as Carnildo said, you've also got any "work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 17:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:File-Sintel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused license template. WOSlinker (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EXPOCENTRE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only transcluded in one place. No need to have as a separate template. Should be subst'd into article. WOSlinker (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a no-brainer; it's just an image and caption, inserted wrongly into an article via a table. Just stick the image and the accompanying text into a proper thumbnail (or even better an infobox) and be done with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Three other uses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((About)) does the job better. This one differs from about only in the case it has exactly three parameters where it automatically adds 2 more to show a disambiguation page. About can much easier be handled, making this one unnecessary. diff. (About supports more parameters making addition of new pages piece of cake). Magioladitis (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - maybe redirect if technically sound and nominator's assertion that this is redundant to ((about)), but leave the redirect, and leave the existing transclusions alone. –xeno^talk 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI Magioladitis (talk · contribs) took the liberty of orphaning this template prior to initiating this discussion [4] (see also). –xeno^talk 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not ideal, and I would expect Magioladitis to know better. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm wondering why ((two other uses)) wasn't included in this discussion, since that's eessentially the same as this one. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be me, but I do not see any WP policy or guideline reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep/redirect (thereby preserving backward compatibility and the integrity of past article revisions in which the template is transcluded). Given recent discussions, Magioladitis was well aware that his/her actions contradicted both policy and consensus. At this point, I struggle to assume good faith. —David Levy 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I sent ((Two other uses)) too: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_16. I didn't claim that we have to delete the template here due to low number of transclusions (which was less than 200 anyway) but due to the fact that it's functionality is already covered by a well-established, better-coded template like ((About)). This was supposed to be common practice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have orphaned the template. After you did, it was dishonest to not disclose this. (You are well aware that users commonly look to the number of transclusions when evaluating a template's usefulness, regardless of whether this pertains to the nominator's stated deletion rationale.)

Yes, it's a common practice to delete templates that are redundant to others. But if redirection is feasible (i.e. the syntax is compatible with the target, or the target easily can be tweaked to accommodate it), this usually is vastly preferable. You need not agree with this, but please stop feigning ignorance of consensus. —David Levy 06:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmm. Am I right in thinking that the auto-addition of the dab link is actually the useful feature over and above that provided by ((about))? I'm thinking of the best way to make this easy for people in future. Possibly a dab=yes parameter? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea but "About" already provides many tricks like the use of the word "and", empty parameters, etc. Most of the disambiguation cases are covered by ((Other uses)) which is another well-established template. I'll come with a more solid proposal on "Other uses" probably next week. There is something more: It's always better to have the whole pagename visible both in wikicode and the shown text. This helps editors identify it. It's one of the reason we don't pipe wikilinks in dablinks. Moreover, in my opinion, we need "parameter-free" dablinks. Parameters is the strong disadvantage of ((Other use)) (along its name which is similar to "Other uses"). -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, templates are there to make things easier for editors and more consistent for readers. Having to get everyone to type |other uses|foo (disambiguation) every time to get the dab link is a loss both ways. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three other uses saves this only as 5th and 6th parameter. Not much gain and if you see only a few number of articles needs this as a third pair text/link anyway. In most cases ((Other uses)) is enough. Try also to use ((About)) with only one parameter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Full disclosure: I created this template a long time ago. I would have waited to orphan a template that has 200 instances of use before nominating it for deletion and awaiting the results and an examination of the potential consequences. Also there are still a bunch of instances of this template still being implemented in the mainspace. 3 uses is still before the threshold of needing a disambiguation page. I would not want to change the functionality of "about" might have other consequences and I think "two other uses" and "three other uses" should remain undoable, as per David Levy above. I honestly don't know what will happen, and I defer to those who know template coding better than I, but I think a fallback is never a bad idea. Valley2city^‽ 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big advantage of the template is supposed to be the case where one of the three choices is the dab page. No dab page, no advantage. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Move to the userspace of the creator. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sims Public License (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused tongue-in-cheek template. Templates created by licenses named after our own Wikipedia users should probably remain in the userspace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Invalid license. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was substitute and delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprecated license PD-Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has only one meaningful transclusion: ((PD-Russia)). It should be subst'ed there and deleted; single use templates are... well... useless. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. I will also leave notes on both templates' documentations recommending the use of other licenses. Airplaneman ✈ 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WTFPL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WTFPL-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This really isn't a valid license. It is used on very few images, maybe it could redirect to ((pd-self)) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses, "A release under the WTFPL achieves the same freedom as a public domain release, even in countries that do not recognize an ability to release works into the public domain." Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This license has also been approved as suitable for free content by the Free Software Foundation [5]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If valid it could use an ((imbox)) makeover to match the appearance of other license tags. PC78 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...which I've just done. PC78 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as this silly stunt would be better off having never gotten out into the wild, we'd be on shaky ground simply interpreting it as another license considering that there are substantial works (not on Wikipedia mind) which use it. I don't think we can safely get rid, though there should be a note strongly admonishing people to either use "proper" PD or a real license instead for new works. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Filmcam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox camera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Filmcam with Template:Infobox camera.
Yet another camera infobox that can be upmerged into the more generic ((Infobox camera)). Only 11 mainspace transclusions. PC78 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—neither is particularly well documented, and they each appear to have parameters that the other does not. Hence a merge would probably be a good thing, as would a solid explanation of each parameter.—RJH (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marquette Golden Eagles current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Current Roster" templates are not used for college basketball. A very small number of college players are notable and such templates encourage creation of articles of non-notable athletes. Keep in mind that templates are meant to navigate articles of notable people. Similar pages for Syracuse and Illinois have been deleted within the last few months. Rikster2 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough notable players to warrant a navbox. _wjemather^bigissue 07:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delet per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator. -- nips (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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