Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7 edit

Template:Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup Seasons 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template does not link to any articles and even if it did, County Cup season articles are not notable.Delusion23 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County cup season articles aren't notable per the precedent set at a number of AfD's (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009-10 Cheshire Senior Cup and others), therefore this template is most definitely redundant. —BETTIA— ^talk 12:15, 15 March 2011 (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.

Template:Promotional singles 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promotional singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that appears to have no purpose ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:40, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:Unicite 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The number of links that will be affected is small. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused; last update was November 2009. Redundant in concept and implementation to {{citation}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TfD noincluded ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for historical purposes. Deleting it screws up several MOS archives and other archives. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this true of all deletions? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the archives specifically discuss this template, where to place commas, how to improve the template, bring it in line/fork from {{citation}}, etc... rather than merely linking to the template or making use of it. If the template is deleted, the archives won't make any sense. There is nothing gained by deleting the template, but much will be lost. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a good one and I don't entirely disagree. However, this argument has been rejected by the community, at least for now. (Please see WP:Perennial proposals#Deleted pages should be visible). ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That concerns articles, and the main reason for not making delete page visible are things like BLPs, spam, attack pages, nonsense... which all are irrelevant here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. None of the templates on this page are "BLPs, spam, attack pages or nonsense". Most of them are referred to in archives. Most of them have been discussed on talk pages. Your argument could apply equally to any one of the templates on this page. You need to make an argument that shows why this particular template is different from the rest of the templates nominated for deletion. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made the argument that the argument for deletion was WP:Perennial proposals#Deleted pages should be visible, which is says pages with are deleted should not be made visible because of concerns for BLPs, attack pages, higher overhead on admins, etc... It has absolutely nothing to do with deleting templates. Nothing is gained by deleting it, but deleting it does destroys archives. If a deletion serves no purpose, and harms Wikipedia, then it should not be done. It's as simple as that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your sole objection is the loss of archived discussions, then you can copy them to a user subpage and update the relevant links. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which would give the same problem on twice the ammount of pages. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace, and update links. There are not that many links. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{citation}} and do not move to userspace and update links. It is not necessary to worry about red links on archive or talk pages. — Bility (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (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.

Template:HaPijamot 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one blue link in this entire lime green navbox. Raymie (t • c) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:All-Ireland Winning Team 2006 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All-Ireland Winning Team 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Kerry Football Team 2006}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:Alsancak-Aliağa 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alsancak-Aliağa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by route map at Northern Line (İZBAN). Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:YouTube artist 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. lifebaka++ 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTube artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is designed to bring you to a list of videos on youtube by the artist in-general --> to copyrighted material - the template is not designed to link to an artists official page - violates WP:ELNEVER, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:LINKSTOAVOID - say we nip this in the butt before it gets out of control

Side note: lots of reverting to do if deleted. Moxy (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Sooo much. Here, Let me rub some lotion on your hands as you toil away so that they stay supple and soft.--Lashuto (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This template is being used by a this newly created single-puprose account to add these links to literally hundreds of articles. The vast majority of the videos listed on each "artist page" are clear copyvios, and the "biographies" are superficial blurbs which add nothing of value to the articles. Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have worked on that template. The artist pages list some videos, but they do not play them on that page. They are designed to present information about the artists and clearly. they present information on behalf of those artists that are still commercially active by providing links to their official YouTube channels or their corresponding VEMO channels. They also provide high-quality examples of the works of classical composers and historically important deceased artists. In general, the videos they select seem to be short (i.e. not full-length bootleg concerts like you might find at ever-so-many other web sites) and tend to be older material of little commercial value. Note how they carefully date each video based on when the content was released. I get impression that YouTube does not want to become the next Napster and that they have constructed these artist pages prudently. I suggest that the videos they list are safely within the current reality of fair use.--Lashuto (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a service "on behalf of artists" it is a service on behalf of YouTube to drive more advertising revenue to their site. Pavarotti is a prime example. I checked the first five videos listed on that page—all privately uploaded copyvios. They do not comply with "fair use" at all—they include entire tracks from copyright cds, DVDs etc. Some artists, record companies, etc. do have official youtube channels. But these "Artist pages" are masquerading as something official. I've asked an administrator who is very experienced in copyright issues on Wikipedia to advise on this. I'll be happy to change my opinion to keep, if there are no copyright issues. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?: So like, when WP runs its advertisements at the end of each year for money that is so different? Look, they are just providing navigational aids so that people can find what they were looking for. Please stop being so mean to YouTube. They didn't wanna hurt nobody.--Lashuto (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. You are misrepresenting the nature of the videos listed at http://www.youtube.com/artist/Luciano%20Pavarotti . I would suggest that this obsession on tracks is appropriate for the pop music industry, which depends on radio play and music videos. Classic artists depend on record sales, concerts and longer works such as symphonies and operas. You are applying to all genres the standard of shallow pop music like the "tracks" of stuff that Metellica makes its money on. You know, it is not like Pavarotti had one definitive "track" of Nessum Dorma that made or broke him. Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/artist/Ma_Rainey . They are playing the entire track of "New Boll Weevil Blues". How does that merit as a copyright violation that adversely impacts the artist? Where else on the internet are you going to find such well-organized knowledge about that subject?--Lashuto (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to Wikipedia to guess whether it adversely impacts the artist; you are welcome to ask Pavarotti's representatives to license the content if you think that they would like to have them linked here. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto; it is somewhat irrelevant whether the copyrighted material on Youtube adversely or positively affects the artist. Our only concern is the copyright issue, and that we do not allow linking to it. This has nothing to do with Napster etc. but is our established (and one of our stricter) policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto, I'd also add that tracks are not irrelevant to classical music at all. Radio and television stations have to pay royalties each time they play a track from copyright classical recording. No royalties are paid when users pirate CDs and DVDs and upload them to YouTube. The only one making money out of this is YouTube through advertising. I repeat, you are mass-linking on Wikipedia, not to the official recording company or artist channels such as the official DeccaMusicGroup channel, but to YouTube's latest venture, i.e. organizing the videos so they are easier to find and click on. Note also that many of the classical videos are pirated from Metropolitan Opera DVDs. The Met has an official YouTube channel [1], link to that, where relevant. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked less than a 100 pages so I could see how it looked in a wide variety of musical genres. So how is {{Last.fm}} legit and this template is not? Compare http://www.last.fm/music/Ma+Rainey (where they provide long audio "tracks") and http://www.youtube.com/artist/Ma_Rainey and tell me which one is more of a copyright infringement and why. You extremists have simply deluded yourselves into thinking that YouTube does not enforce copyright. You are wrong: YouTube *does* enforce copyright in a rather reasonable (and useful) manner that is welcomed by the artists. It was those dumb, extremist punks at Napster years ago who were wrong and I have to wonder at what web site that are at now.--Lashuto (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they do enforce copyright, after they receive an official "take down" notice from "a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."([2]) If not, well.... :/ This is an approach quite at odds with Wikipedia's. We act on copyright concerns no matter who discovers them. And we don't presume that the artists are happy to have their content pirated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(You expanded your content while I was typing mine; Last.fm is a royalty-paying online service that licenses content from rights holders. They're not comparable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Actually you added the links to well over a hundred pages [3]. That particular example of Ma Rainey may not be copyright infringement due to the age of the singer and when the original recordings came out, but as Moonriddengirl points out, lastfm is not comparable. The point is, each decision to link needs to be made individually, not via a template which in 99% of the cases will link to copyvio material. As I said, I would change my opinion to "keep" if the advice and consensus here was that this complies with Wikipedia policy on external linking. So far everyone but you has argued that it does not comply. If you want to change Wikipedia's current policy on linking to copyright infringements, then you should take it up with the Foundation. Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong: count it via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:YouTube_artist and you will see that it is less than 100. As far as these "individual" decision, let us work that out. I will start by removing the template from all of the living/active artists and others like Pavarotti and take it from there. But let us leave Metallica in for now.---Lashuto (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there were less than a 100 links by yesterday afternoon was because several editors had already removed your additions from articles. To link to YouTube artists pages in the very few circumstances where this might be appropriate, simply do it individually. There is no need for a template to do this. Voceditenore (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per specific policy on this website. I agree the link doesn't immediately take the reader to a video but see here, it lists them. Also I don't think the artist profile has information that can't be found in the Wikipedia article or easily somewhere else. Also, if we are to use YouTube sparingly, a template shouldn't exist for the site.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary, use the direct link if that is adding to the page, no need to template this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the templates violates our policy because of the link it produces - the direct link would also not be allowed for the same reasons.Moxy (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; an attempt to be useful, but the links are ultimately to pages that violate the external link policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to stop it being recreated, its a copyright violation nightmare. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was alerted to this conversation by Voceditenore, as he indicated above. I agree that this is a major issue per WP:ELNEVER. I doubt that the use of the videos would constitute fair use; certainly, they don't conform to our own standards for non-free content. My comment is to suggest that perhaps a bot could be used to help out? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia's standards are based on what went on with Metallica and Napster ten years ago. The music industry itself has changed to some degree in the mean time. To apply those same standards to all genres of music now is inappropriate, as I mention above.--Lashuto (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that some genre of music is exempted from copyright law, the burden is on you to prove that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons that {{YouTube}} was kept. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see the difference; for all intents and purposes any page linked to by this template will fail our WP:EL policy. Whereas {{youtube}} can legitimately be used to link to properly licensed/used video. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For people interested in this Keep rationale, that discussion is here. I also don't see the comparison as a correct one as per ErrantX's comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with ErrantX and Off2riorob - when you use the {{YouTube}} template, you have complete control over the material you choose to link and can avoid copyvio material, whereas you don't have that control with this template and you have no way of avoiding copyvio material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we shouldn't have templates to external links that generally aren't appropriate to link to. This includes the Twitter, Facebook, and Myspace templates as well. The presence of the template only encourages these links to be used more often by editors unfamiliar with our external links guidelines. Them From Space 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Template:Find a Grave is the one being missed used the most - and perhaps something we should consider taking about here some day in the future.

Strong delete This template is being used to add links to videos that clearly fall under the heading of copyvio and that fail to add anything significant to the Wikipedia articles themselves. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per ELNEVER and copy. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - encourages linking to copyright violations. As an aside, many of the dates on the YouTube page that was recently added to the Mahalia Jackson article, where I've just encountered this template, make absolutely no sense, since she died in 1972. Graham87 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the copyright and WP:ELNO reasons given by others (and the idea that it's OK to break copyright law for classical music is ludicrous). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the unavoidable WP:LINKVIO problems. We need to be careful about copyright violations, and this mass-linking approach is anything but careful. (In the unlikely event that it's kept, it, like all links to YouTube, ought to contain a "(Flash video)" warning.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Graham87 and B!sZ above. I found this template on Otis Redding - added by lashuto. Otis, sadly, died in 1967.--rgpk (comment) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template encourages linking that fails WP:EL (the template exists, so it must be ok to use it as much as possible). Given the very high likelihood of misuse (what percentage of videos that could be linked to actually should?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok then -shall we get a bot to remove this additions - and perhaps make a proposal to black list this links.Moxy (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How lazy can you get?!? Moxy, there is about 50 pages that use it. While it is clear that this os WP:SNOW, but like the page says: please "allow discussions". I have already changed all uses of this template to a combination of {{Last.fm}} and {{Discogs artist}}. Still, I think that the YouTube pages are pretty nice. Maybe the last.fm pages will start to provide links to the YouTube artist pages...--Lashuto (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little concerning are you now planing to spam {{Last.fm}} and {{Discogs artist}} on ever artist page here? Would be best to improve the content of the encyclopedia and not link spam to music you like. Moxy (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto, I agree with you regarding YouTube. Why then are you carrying out deleting the yt links? Check out my edit I just made to Jackie Evancho. Either the Discog artist should be fixed or deleted for this article. Maybe the discog template itself is defective?1archie99 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1archie99: I would prefer a more strategic approach. I intend explore the possiblity of creating some sort of template for any "major recording artist" to present a box with a list of links to appropriate range of music info sites. (Whatever "major" means these days...just so that the entries show up on a lot of music sites). The intention is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE but to present a selection of information resources. You know, sort of like http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?params=42_N_78_W . It can incorporate what we have learned so far from last.fm, discogs and other templates. It might provide vivid evidence that a moderate selection of longer samples is appropriate in 2011 and that YouTube is not very different from some of these other sites. Who knows? Maybe a YouTube link will show up on my new template at some time in the future (and work properly most of the time) along with all of the others and we can all get together, break bread, sing a few hymns and then partake this amusing little cat fight again. It might be even more fun than Thanksgiving with my spouse's relatives. And then the mega-template will be TFD'ed and "protected" from the person who created it and I will be called The Evil One and la-de-dah.--Lashuto (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1archie99: I am ready to call it quits on this template. I have moved on to {{Musician-info-footer}}.--Lashuto (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashuto - Template:Musician-info-footer is not allowed - Navboxes are for internal links. Could you please read WP:SPAMMER and Wikipedia:External links. Thank you Moxy (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If adding a YouTube link with copyrighted material in the external references of an artist's article is against the rules then what the hell is this?
NewYork1956 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2011 (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.

Template:Altline light blue 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Altline light blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Altline dark blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unused meta-templates. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:Anime by decade category header 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anime by decade category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Manga by decade category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Animanga by year category header|Anime}} with further appropriate parameters. No longer used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no longer needed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:05, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:Arabic language2 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arabic language2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Slightly outdated version of navbox at Arabic language. Not needed as a separate template. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:Architecture of Sikkim 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Architecture of Sikkim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a personal view of the history of "architecture" (in a broad sense) in Sikkim. Not needed. The links are not specific to architecture. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2011 (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.

Template:Non-free with permission 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free with permission (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia appears to decline the "permission" for the image to be used. A fair use rationale and tag is still required. Therefore, this tag might not be necessary. Note that this template is from 2005. mechamind 9 0 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously nominated for deletion:[4]

Keep it should be used with a FUR template, so make that restriction apparent. 65.95.15.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Editors have sometimes gone to great trouble to obtain the permission of the original creator to use their work(s) on Wikipedia. There is no reason to throw away their efforts. Additionally, this tag helps avoids time wasting deletion discussions for works which are used with permission. LK (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While only a supplemental license template, it does make it clear that some form of permission has been obtained and so the image automatically meets WP:NFCC#2. This is of particular interest when the image is originally from a commercial source, see the second bullet point of WP:CSD#F7. Further, as indicated in the previous deletion discussion, while we certainly attempt to hold our use of non-free content to stricter standards than required by fair use, there is always the possibility that we have erred in some manner and documenting this sort of permission heads off legal copyright claims. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2011 (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.