Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19, 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus in all cases. All have been closed; please do not vote there any more. Angr/talk 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes from DRV[edit]

Looking for these? See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19/Userboxes instead. -Splash^talk 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neutral[edit]

Quite similar to the templates deleted last June, this one seems to have been missed. Using templates to cast votes invites vandalism and has never been supported by consensus. Made even worse by the fact that it uses an image. Read the old vote for more verygood arguments against this. -- Netoholic @ 10:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the arguments from last June are largely invalid. Brion has already clarified the server load issue, and has basically said not to worry about it; if it becomes an issue they'll restrict image use via technical means. He also rightly pointed out that community space images (which includes User-space and Wikipedia-space) are a small portion of the overall load (and I quote (from my link above)– "Community space is a small fraction of total hits, and stock images that don't change much are not terribly expensive to serve. Definitely not an issue."). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Locke Cole, your pushing it with your quest against these templates. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pushing what? Are threats really appropriate here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Netoholic has been pushing against some userfied versions of these templates lately. See User talk:Netoholic and User talk:Jtkiefer. Also see WP:DRV where he opened a deletion review of the old templates (somehow attempting to apply any verdict reached there to the userfied templates). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. JYolkowski // talk 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relic of an otherwise long-gone & deleted system. Should the system ever return (which does not look likely to ever happen at this point), I will be fine with it, but for now... it should go. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hated them then, I hate them now. Server load issue or not. Broken Segue 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this thoroughly ungood template. It may be denying reality to think that votes aren't important or common on Wikipedia, but there's no reason to have tools laying around encouraging that sort of nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... I don't see how this encourages anything. It's harmless. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems unneccessary. What's the point of having the image since the votes are grouped anyway? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" unnecessary. I see no point in having it Sauron 13:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a visual method of stating ones opinion. This (and the other two templates like it) were mostly used on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the same as we did we the {{support}} and {{oppose}} templates. Voting should not be done using templates since it emphasises voting and discourages discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you've said this, now can you back it up? How does it encourage voting and discourage discussion? Because pardon me for being ignorant, but there sure seems to be a nice parade of Delete and Keep "votes" on this very page, all without a template. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the "voter's" viewpoint there is no trouble in adding three apostrophes rather than two curly brackets on each side of "support" or oppose". From the closer's viewpoint, whether that be an admin closing an AFD or a bureaucrat closing a RFA, the templates distract from the comments given. The things I close are AFDs, and if there are some good comments provided they should not be overshadowed by little green, red and neutral circles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came across this template the other day when I was testing out some templates. I stumbled onto Template:Neutral, thinking it might be NPOV related. I looked at it and thought "weren't these templates deleted?" The others were deleted and this should be deleted. Little pictures don't enhance the discussion. Discussion enhances the discussion. --Optichan 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Come on now...what is wrong with this. I've used them and they are actually quite useful. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R to Wiktionary[edit]

Crosswiki redirects haven't worked in forever, which leaves this as an ugly, cryptic, redundant clone of {{wi}}. —Cryptic (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deleting that thing, but if it's redundant to {{wi}}, why not just redirect it there? -- grm_wnr Esc 14:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Template:R to foo" indicates that it's a redirect-classifying template, which wi is not.

Delete and/or redirect to {{wi}}, whichever seems better. Regular redirects (the ones created by using #REDIRECT and then the page name) are to other pages on the wiki you are on, not to another wiki's page. Otherwise, use soft redirects like {{wi}}. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace affected links with {{softredirect}}. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Redirects shouldn't be crosswiki. -- User:Docu

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NOGov[edit]

Template:PD-NOGov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete this template is not acurate. §9 of Norwegian copyright law states that only "Legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities" and "proposals, reports and other statements which concern the public exercise of authority, and which are made by a public authority, a publicly appointed council or committee, or published by the public authorities." are not subject to copyright. It also spesifies that "Literary, scientific or artistic works" are copyrighted unless they where made explicitly for use in one of the aforementioned official publications. So in order words the text of a report produced by a "public authority" is not subjet to copyright, but an image included in such a report is subject to copyright unless it was made spesificaly for the purpose of beeing included in said report. Guess we could re-write it, but I believe only a few graphs and charts would actualy fit this rather narrow criterea. --Sherool (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This template would be virtually impossible to police, and {{PD-because}} provides an alternative. Physchim62 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, misleading and doesn't seem useful if clarified. JYolkowski // talk 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War[edit]

Delete. Redundant. JimmyTheOne 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Naval[edit]

Delete. Redundant. JimmyTheOne 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Second Congo War[edit]

As the creator, I support this deletion as I cannot for the life of me remember why I created a blank template. - Banyan Tree 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Seven Years' War: Naval[edit]

Delete. Redundant. JimmyTheOne 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish-American War[edit]

Delete. Redundant. JimmyTheOne 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox World War I Naval[edit]

Delete. Redundant. JimmyTheOne 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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