Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 4

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template uses a non-free image, if a free image is used then it could be kept, however until then Delete, also as per User:Friendly_Neighbour: This template is divisive by definition as it divides WP users into two distinct categories. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The image is a wikipedia related image and the template isn't divisive at all, help tell who's an admin or not
  ^{wat's sup} 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep If the image is the problem, remove it rather than deleting the whole template. I don't think it is though. The reason copywritten images can't normally be used on templates is because it falls outside Fair Use. This image is owned by WikiMedia, and is allowed to be used freely on this project, as per its licence tag. As for divisiveness, no, this box does not divide users, there is a division in the system between admins and non-admins (division in this case meaning a technical difference, not a problematic division). Users tagging themselves as admins can be very helpful, if a user needs an admin's help and is trying to see if a user is one. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Goldom. It's ridiculous to call this template divisive; if you believe that, then EVERY userbox that describes the user is divisive, which is way out of consensus. This userbox serves a critical function, namely, to help identify admins. Mangojuice^talk 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, perfectly useful. Prodego ^talk 02:30, 5 July 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 -- Darwinek 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Template:PanamaPresidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Redundant duplication of Template:Succession box. The creator notes on the talk page that it was created along the same lines as US President and Canadian First Minister succession boxes, but both of these have since been converted / redirected. Ziggurat 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Useless, the sucession box is much better. Afonso Silva 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Useless. -- Darwinek 23:44, 4 July 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 08:06Z

• Delete - No longer useful in light of the new networks by state scheme, especially since all three ABC affils are in the same family. -- azumanga 03:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I created it and I will definitely allow for its deletion per the above statement. I created the template after I split up the Alaska Superstation article into the respective stations, and because of the new state infoboxes it is now redundant. -- capsgm2002 03:40, 5 July 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 no consensus to delete --William Allen Simpson 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Template:PD-CCTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
What is the basis for this; has any court ever found surveillance video to be PD as a matter of course? This sounds very much like a novel legal theory to me. Should

• Don't delete, I'm not neccesarily in favour of keeping it as-is, if it can be shown to be wrong, feel free to rewrite - but I feel it's an important distinction to make, images that are captured by security cameras. Technically, many of the images would be public domain anyways since they're typically "made by employees of the US government" since they're security footage of airports and whatnot, I would assume. Anyways, I seem to recall hearing the tidbit of public domain mentioned by CNN, NBC or some other US news source during the
  Jean Charles de Menezes affair. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is nothing to "rewrite", as you have just not shown any basis under which such images would be PD. Look, security camera captures often have a strong basis for fair use, and there is no reason these images couldn't be justified on that rationale. By all means use Template:PD-USGov if the security camera was owned by the US government, but again that is a separate issue.--Pharos 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if the template is found to be wrong then delete. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 10 July 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 no consensus to delete Pagrashtak 02:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedied it as polemic/divisive/inflammatory, with ugly colors to boot, but the information appears to be reasonably well-sourced, and quite a bit of work has gone into it. This should be un-boxified, i.e. moved to or merged to article space somewhere, and all transclusions replaced with "For more information, see..." but I'm not sure where yet. — Jul. 4, '06 [13:21] <freak|talk>

• Why is it polemic/divisive/inflammatory? Afonso Silva 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Consistency between three different articles is what templates are for; and I join in Afonso Silva's question - if it's inaccurate, edit it. Septentrionalis 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed any of it was inaccurate. I said it was well-sourced, poorly formatted, and better suited to an article of its own. I do not see why it the inline display of a statistics table would be necessary on 3 different pages. Doing so borders on soapboxing. I agree that a lot of people died, and that war is generally stupid, but let's get rid of the gray background, move or merge to article space, and link to it from as many places as would be relevant. — Jul. 9, '06 [18:42] <freak|talk>
• Keep Useful information, well-researched is what makes up an encyclopedia. Sophy's Duckling 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not debating any of those points. — Jul. 9, '06 [18:42] <freak|talk>
• Keep - Since no one replied to my question, I think this template should be kept. It is a perfectly neutral report of the number of casualties. Afonso Silva 11:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly neutral to report them in a single article on that topic. — Jul. 9, '06 [18:42] <freak|talk>
• Keep as above. It is better to have the info in one template, than to have conflicting info in different articles. Sumahoy 12:31, 8 July 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. Pagrashtak 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Redundant to {{infobox Interstate}}: compare [1] and [2]. --SPUI (T - C) 02:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Consistency is a virtue. — Jul. 4, '06 [13:23] <freak|talk>
• Delete per nom and Freakofnurture. Although on the second diff, shouldn't there be a header at the bottom that says "Florida State Routes" or similar? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:52, 8 July 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 Pagrashtak 02:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia primetime seven

and Template:Australia primetime nine

Template:Australia primetime seven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Australia primetime nine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per

• Delete. As an Australian, I am aware of how often the commercial networks change their programming, meaning it makes this template useless as a TV Guide, which Wikipedia is not anyway. Harryboyles 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:53, 8 July 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.