Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18 edit

Template:Infobox:Children's TV Show Ratings edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not in use, and duplicate to {{Infobox TV ratings}}. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Mike Peel 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be in use, and there are better infoboxes to use. --El on ka 00:03, 20 February 2007 (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.

Template:Power Rangers 2 edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was an attempt to create a sidebar topic template like those found on articles such as Evolution or Judaism, however, it was subsituted for the longest time until I found it through a Special:Whatlinkshere for one of the articles linked through it that I cannot remember. Now, the only edits to it are short term edit wars over the image within, switching between a fair use image and a crappy logo that I made myself that's GFDL and cannot be construed as fair use. Seeing as the template was phased out for the longest time, I see no reason that it can't be phased out completely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Mike Peel 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - I see no reason for it to be deleted. RangerKing 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any reason for it to be kept, other than the lack of a reason (in your opinion) for it to be deleted? Mike Peel 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rather lengthy but accurate nom. JPG-GR 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 24.7.217.221 18:36, 22 February 2007 (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.

Template:Bus Terminals in Moscow Oblast edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the pages contained in the template are now redirects following a merge performed per this AfD. Thus, the template is no longer in use. -- Black Falcon 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or if there's an appropriate page for the content of this template, then subst there before deleting. Mike Peel 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most users supported keeping these articles, not redirect. And nearly all who supported redirect also supported keeping hence I have no idea why these articles should be redirects.--Dojarca 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination is largely procedural. If you can create the articles with more content, please do so. If you intend to recreate the articles (with more content) in the future, please note so here and I will ask the closing admin to userfy the template. I am all for there being individual articles on the bus terminals (and thus, in support of there being this template), but until such articles do exist and this template is in use, I think it will be deleted. -- Black Falcon 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were valid stubs and I think they should be expanded by those who live in those cities. If we did delete all stubs, we would never get articles on Moscow Metro stations for instance. Or should all stubs be deleted? Ok delete Ryazan Central Bus Terminal and Moscow Central Bus Terminal then. Second, it seems that the vast majority of users (including you and me) do not support turning those articles into redirects and seems that the closing admin made his desision unfairly and ignoring the will of the community. I see no reason why the template should be userfied if it is possible to keep it. --Dojarca 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the template can't be kept if it links only to one article (the main list of bus termainals). I agree that the decision should probably have been no consensus keep rather than merge as a supermajority of editors argued for keep or keep/merge. However, the problem was that the articles did not do enough to establish notability, which even stubs should do. If the template is userfied, it can always be remade as a template if the redirects are ever turned into articles once again. I have tagged all of these redirects as {{R with possibilities}}. -- Black Falcon 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability is a property of a topic, not of an article, isn't it? Anyway each article may say that the Bus Terminal is the principal bus transport hub in the city. Is it enough to establish notability?--Dojarca 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        True, notability is a property of the topic and I believe the bus terminals were notable. However, to prove notability, it is necessary to provide multiple, reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial manner. -- Black Falcon 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, then the creation of any stubs is impossible.--Dojarca 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, because stubs too should try to establish the notability of the topic via, I would say, at least one source. Besides, the histories still exist. You can revert and expand the articles at any time. And if this template is userfied, it can be restored at any time. However, the point is not whether the articles should or should not have been deleted. It's that this template cannot remain in the template-space as long as it only links to redirect pages. I think this is a good/useful template that should exist, but only if it links to real articles. I think it's safe to say that if you turn even just one or two of the redirects into stub-class articles (hopefully with one or more sources so that it's not automatically changed back to a redirect), this template could and should stay. I will research some of the bus terminals tomorrow to see if I can find multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources to establish notability. If I can find such sources, I will recreate the articles myself and withdraw this nomination. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation if the now-redirected stubs become full articles. --Iamunknown 19:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. I just now noticed that I had not specified my desired outcome in my nomination. Although it should be clear from the above discussion, I support userfying the template prior to its deletion from the template-space. -- Black Falcon 23:46, 24 February 2007 (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.

Template:World Leaders in the 2000s edit

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 subst and then delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was used on one article page which is now deleted. Only remaining transclusion is in user space. Could be userfied or substituted, and deleted. It would be almost useless as a navigation template in its current form. Gimmetrow 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst then Delete - as per nom. Mike Peel 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst then Delete. This information is actually quite useful, but would serve better as a list article rather than a transcluded template. Pomte 10:35, 25 February 2007 (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.

Template:Infobox Big Love episode edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox is not in use. (probably after most of it's articles were deleted as copyright violations???). In case new articles are created, {{Infobox Television episode}} can easily be used TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Mike Peel 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - {{Infobox Television episode}} is sufficient. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:13, 23 February 2007 (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.

Template:Colored infoboxes of television episodes edit

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 no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these infoboxes are duplicate with {{Infobox television episode}} with the exception of carrying a color in it's headers. Since I cannot find enough concensus for adding a color option to {{Infobox television episode}} (people seem to fear it will result in skittlepedia, even after I found a way to keep it consistent for a series). This leaves me with the options of either ignoring the huge amount of duplicity in showspecific infoboxes, for the sake of color, or simply removing the color from all these pages. This can be seen as my attempt at the latter option.
Note that more episode boxes have colors, but these have additional issues, such as information from the fictional world or plot elements contained in them, which makes them unsuitable to treat them here in this discussion. This is part of a larger effort to remove duplicity in episode infoboxes. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least until we've made the addition of the colour variable to the primary infobox. Also the Desperate Housewives infobox uses a more logical idea of linking "Episode chronology" rather then a link below the "Now/Next" so it isn't a 100% fork. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but add that color variable to the main one. If one of them uses a more logical idea, then surely that should be introduced to the main infobox? -Amarkov moo! 16:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a color variable is added to the primary infobox. --Maitch 16:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems more logical to me to add the color first then delete the infoboxes. Inline with that: keep. Cburnett 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia should be consistent and professional. That means no different coloring or fonting due to the matter of subject itself, in which case we'd probably have a lot of mess. I'm also strongly opposed to the idea of creating duplicates to bypass consensus. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's worthy to point out that, some of these infoboxes were created long before the more general "Infobox Television episode" was created. As such it's not bypassing the concensus, it's maintenance to get them replaced with a newer template, which doesn't provide 100% feature compatibility. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we can get a color field in the standard TV ep infobox. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary forks. The colours add nothing to the articles, so we're losing nothing by losing the colours. Mike Peel 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the color option is added to the standard box. Hotstreets 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the one who redesigned the M*A*S*H template, I'd like to point out that while they look the same, I redesigned the box to add missing fields from the standard box, but while not breaking every existing use of the template. Therefore, in the event that this template be deleted, a good deal of maintenance would need to be done to synchronize the fields with the standard box to avoid busted infoboxes. Hotstreets 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons these boxes need to go. It's a problem maintaining so many of them, while they all actually wanna carry the same information. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is really trivial to put in a color option, so why say "keep until it's done"? It will take like a minute. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template talk:Infobox Television episode - we have had consensus there for a lifetime, there are a few dissenters however who got upset. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They contain useful information on each of the episodes. Cheater1908 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you didn't read the nomination correctly. It's not about the information in the boxes that will be deleted, it's about replacing those boxes with a more standard one TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he means the colour conveys useful information, I believe it does as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fork. >Radiant< 11:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with the primary infobox, after the color option is added to it. There's no reason to have several infoboxes, when one will do. --El on ka 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep till a colour option is added to the main infobox. Stickeylabel 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add colour option if necessary, though I'd neutral on that. Just add the colour option now, no need to keep until its added. --Iamunknown 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to my original comments: I still support deletion. This is a fork, and an unnecessary one at that. If their is consensus to add color options to the main template (Template:Infobox Television episode), then add it. If not, then don't. Please note that with the proposed template additions on the talk page (i.e. style="{{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|color: {{{{{Series}}} colors|headertext}};|}}background: {{#ifexist:Template:{{{Series}}} colors|{{{{{Series}}} colors|header}}|#DEDEE2}};) every single ''Template:{{{Series}}} colors'' template would have to indefinitely protected from image vandalism, which would be incredibly easy with background-image: and some resizing magick. The forks should be deleted, the content dispute should be dealt with on the talk page, simple. --Iamunknown 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"*Delete. It is true that color can convey information, but in these cases, it does not convey anything useful or interesting. There are thousands of television programs, and if each program has its own semi-arbitrary color, any attempt to discern meaning is doomed to failure. Before any colors are used, a scheme for assigning colors should be devised. Otherwise, it's simply arbitrary, and, well, meaningless. For a good example of colors used properly to actually convey information, see {{Infobox Album}}. The Album Wikiproject could have allowed each artists albums to have a common color, but that would be foolish and pointless, just as these color assignments are foolish and pointless. Xtifr _tälk 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally. These are episode infoboxes, but the color would be consistent per television series by use of a template color table. So Simpsons yellow on the Simpsons articles could be possible. The use of templates could simplify deleting a colortable by simply putting it trough TfD/MfD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above noms and in the interest of consistency and simplicity. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a colour field added to primary infobox. -- Mattythewhite 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what purpose? Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - can't color be just an option in the template if it is sooooo important? — Indon (reply) — 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a color option is added to the main template. Lots of non-episode related infoboxes have the option, and no one's Ěcomplaining about them. Once the option is added, then deletion would be okay.--Narlee 05:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Narlee. We should keep these until a color option is added to the main template. Once the option is added, then deletion would be okay. Johntex\^talk 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all colour should be used only when there is a reason--to clarify a really complicated box , or as an analogue of something.DGG 01:09, 27 February 2007 (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.

Template:MWRInfobox edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created for only one team, is a duplicate of {{NASCAR_Owner_Infobox}}. The only difference is a manufacture space, which requires a logo, which I doubt is fair use in a template. This template isn't necessary, therefore, strong delete. --D-Day 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary fork. Mike Peel 15:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and unnecessary. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:17, 23 February 2007 (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.

Template:Sheen kicking edit

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 per author's request. —Dgies^t c 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template does not seem to be used anywhere. Ozhiker 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. --D-Day 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Mike Peel 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting quote, but delete. I don't think there is anyplace where that couldn't be easily substituted with two lines of text. -- Black Falcon 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolindigo 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creator (me). This was an experiment in transclusion I made a long time ago, then abandoned. --Uncle Ed 11:10, 19 February 2007 (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.

Template:Groups supported by Islamic Republic of Iran edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV inclusion template. Moreover, the labelling of PLO as 'Sunni' is bizarre. --Soman 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the main contributor to this template is User:Patchouli who is recently banned indefinitely for his anti-Iranian POV Pushing. see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive204#POV_pushing--Pejman47 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I have included abundant sources in the template's talk page. As far as I know, PLO is predominantly Sunni. If there is a small error, then you can fix it. Deleting the well-researched template altogether is wrong.--Patchouli 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could probably be speedy deleted ("Templates that are divisive and inflammatory."). However, it may be worth turning (or merging) into an article. Mike Peel 15:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There could be (if there isn't already) an article discussing allegations of Iranian involvement in foreign politics and aid to political factions abroad. However, its highly unsuitable for a template. What would be the reaction to 'Template:Groups supported by the CIA'? Or a template branding PUK/KDP as recipients of Israeli aid? --Soman 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however the distinction between Shia and Sunni groups is unecessary and somewhat misleading. --GHcool 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful template and we can edit its content.--Sa.vakilian 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Soman and Mike Peel. This template links groups that have nothing in common, like the PLO and the Afghan Northern alliance. It should be turned into an article.Raoulduke47 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly not call this template "well researched", but it is still a concept worth noting. The "Sunni" and "Shia" groups are obviously related to geographic locality so sorting the groups by country would be better. However, because of the current inflamitory nature of the template I would say delete. Recreate in a more NPOV way later if you prefer. M i c 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, it is a POV fork created just for demonetizing Iranian government.--Pejman47 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Soman and Mike Peel, as well as Raoul. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad idea for a template, and incredibly bad precedent. What if we tried to do this for all governments? Many groups would have more templates than text! And as for calling it well-researched...pah, it doesn't even include the UN! There's probably hundreds of other groups that the IRI supports that aren't listed here. And then repeat for the other nearly-two-hundred nations on Earth....no! Bad idea. As Soman suggests, there might be a basis for an article in here, but NOT, for Vishnu's sake, a template! Xtifr _tälk 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr above and Soman. An article about the subject might be justified (perhaps as an extension of a "Foreign policy of Iran" article, but not a template. -- Black Falcon 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr — if we maintain this template, then we should maintain a template for every other government as well, which is not appropriate. Claims such as these require meticulous sourcing. A template is not the appropriate place for that. --Iamunknown 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep
- If the issue is the POV/content of the template, there are proper wiki channels to ensure NPOV.
- If the issue is "What if we tried this for every government", what is the harm? The groups sponsored by various national governments have been of global political importance from the days of English Privateers to mondern day Sandinistas. We have templates on other important political, economic, and social issues (for many governments.) Why not this?
- The groups listed all have large articles of their own.
- Yes, the Sunni, Shia distinction is bizarre. So fix it -- that's why wiki is open edit.
- The template is useful as it can lead a reader to other groups that he/she was unaware had affiliation with said government. Of course, if a group's inclusion to the template is contested, there are proper wiki channels to address it.
Djma12 22:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so go find a NPOV, reliable, verifiable source that lists which countries support every other country, and then create a list of countries that support each country, not a template, because its going to need quite a few citations. --Iamunknown 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per users above. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:39, 25 February 2007 (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.

Template:Cephalosporins edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) I think it's a duplicate of Template:CephalosporinAntiBiotics. --BlakeCS 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm saying delete because it does appear to be a duplicate of the template listed by the nominator, as-well as this the original template seems to have more existing interwikis than the duplicate.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not used in any articles; seemingly replaced by Template:CephalosporinAntiBiotics. Mike Peel 15:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unorganized as well as a duplicat; the CephAnti template is much better and should be used. --Doctorcherokee 19:42, 23 February 2007 (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.

Template:PD-ES-Photo edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive that this template is patently false. The citations justifying the 20-year copyright date are from the Argentinian government site, not the Spanish government site. Please read commons:Commons:Licensing#Argentina and commons:Commons:Licensing#Spain for more information. It was deleted at Wikimedia Commons for this same reason. It should be deleted here (with its associated redirect) and the single image using it should be tagged with {{no license}}. --Iamunknown 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Neutral Id rather move it to PD-ARG-Photo, and swap flags and "Spain" with "Argentina". -- Walter Humala Godsave him! ^{(wanna Talk?)} 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one image transcluding this template, and it doesn't even have a source... deleting it won't be a big loss, and will arguably be a big gain in clarity. --Iamunknown 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) For the record, I've tagged the image for speedy deletion as it does not indicate a source. --Iamunknown 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is already a Template:PD-AR-Photo --Iamunknown 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all incorrect copyright templates. At the least, the redirect has to be deleted after it's moved. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's incorrect, if something is in the public domain then the appropriate template should be applied before upload. If this template was correct I might say keep but its incorrect.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:26, 18 February 2007 (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.

Template:A.F.C Bournemouth Youth Squad edit

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 template was created for A.F.C. Bournemouth Reserve & Youth and it isn't needed at all. I suggest it be deleted. Govvy 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These youth players are unlikely to pass WP:BIO, and so should not be linked by a template. Oldelpaso 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oldelpaso. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not required. MRSC • Talk 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no place here. Punkmorten 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. -- Mattythewhite 17:55, 25 February 2007 (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.