The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BC Highway Shield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in mainspace and superseded by SVGs in c:Category:British Columbia Highway shields. Rschen7754 23:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Consenting to speedy deletion as creator. --  Denelson83  00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as superseded and unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 10:00, 24 February 2023 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there is consensus to make it clear this is not a valid stand-alone license template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Copyright notes Iraq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template misrepresents policy. Wikipedia honors the copyrights of non-Berne signatories per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as page creator.

1. This template does not misrepresent policy. At the bottom of the box: "This is not a valid license; a valid license template must accompany this tag or this file will be deleted. Files from Iraq that are copyrighted in Iraq and that have not been released under a free license may be deleted, unless an appropriate non-free license and a Non-free use rationale is provided." We can always make that message larger if that would help.
2. As that message notes, this is not a license template. It is an informational notice copied from c:Template:Copyright notes that some reusers may find helpful. We can have a discussion about whether it's actually helpful -- if not, let's delete -- but there is no contradiction between the language here and Wikipedia policy.
3. @Magog the Ogre: please add ((Copyright notes Iran)) to this listing, as doesn't make sense to keep one and delete the other. Wikiacc (¶) 20:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it needs to be much clearer. The large majority of pages linking to this template have a public domain license attached (I've nominated them for deletion if you don't see them). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it should be clearer, but we should keep it in some shape or form since it is otherwise not clear why a PD US notice is not required.

Ideally this would be written as a PD-US notice, with the advice that due to Wikipedia's ruling on non-Berne convention states, a PD-Iraq notice is necessary in addition. Alternatively, we could add text to this effect to the PD-Iraq template itself? Felix QW (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding text to PD-Iraq is a very good idea. The other use case for this template, though, is when the image is copyrighted in Iraq but meets WP:NFCC. (Perhaps we could do as you suggest for PD, and then rework this template just to handle the NFCC case?) Wikiacc (¶) 01:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an excellent idea. I've just seen that commons:template:PD-Iraq is doing that already, so maybe one can orient oneself on their layout. Felix QW (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We need an Iraqi copyright tag and a US copyright tag. This acts as the US one. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessarily confusing. This looks and feels like a copyright tag, but isn't (even confused me until I read the text), and will probably result (or has already?) in editors using it as a copyright tag and then getting burned by it. The info contained in the tag belongs on its own Wikipedia namespace page, with maybe a link to that page from the ((PD-Iraq)) tag -FASTILY 20:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in some form. As currently constructed, the template looks like a license template, and unless one reads the small print, one would not realize that it advisory in nature and not a license template. However, the information and advice is useful even if it may need some rewording. Perhaps it shouldn't be in a template and should be an informational page. Or perhaps refactored to make it very clear this is not a licensing template and informational only. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with moving the information to an informational page is that people who look at a file which satisfies the tag's requirements won't find the informational page. Some information needs to be presented on each file information page. I agree that the template needs to be improved, although I'm not sure how to best do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a good point. Some form of improvement to the template would make it more obvious that it is not a copyright license tag and make it easier to understand. -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2023 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fb cs ex header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fb cs ex footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fb cs ex staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused football templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2023 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AC with n elements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused category template. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2023 (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).