Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

March 23, 2006

Template:LabourPartyPresidents

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 the redirect only. For future reference, the appropriate forum would have been Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, since only the redirect was nominated for deletion. However, I'm confident that the outcome would have been the same. The concern about the page history has already been addressed by the move, which preserved the full history of the template. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LabourPartyPresidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I've moved this template in order to rename it, and redirected all relevant links for the old template to the new location (Template:UK Labour Party Leaders), hence this redirect is now redundant. It can't remain as a redirect because the name is wrong. Carcharoth 23:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read some more about the need to preserve page histories, can the admin considering this request please review the page history for the template I've proposed for deletion and consider whether it needs to be preserved? I am not sure if the preservation of page history is less strict for templates or not, and I may be confusing merges and moves (I think a merge leaves the page history behind, whereas a move takes the page history with it). Thanks. Carcharoth 14:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have never heard the leader of the Labour Party referred to as its "President". Hawkestone 23:02, 4 April 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.

Template:PD-NCGov

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 remand for review. This issue cannot be solved by a vote. It requires us to do legal research, and possibly obtain legal advice. If it turns out that works of the NC state government cannot be used, then this template can be deleted without further discussion. But we cannot make this determination here. There is no good forum for having this discussion, but the spate of similar nominations indicates that perhaps there should be. Maybe we can repurpose WP:PDWTF. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This claims that certain documents produced by the North Carolina state government are public domain. The statute cited - [1] - simply says that "the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law". This is in no way equivalent to public domain; it simply says that the information can be gotten from the state. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rest of the statute (paragraph (b) in the cited link) says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." Hence, public domain. Also see Template talk:PD-NCGov. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, that doesn't mean public domain. If it was actually public domain they'd say so. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? "Property of the people" precludes having a copyright on it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am holding a road atlas. It is my property. It's copyrighted by Gousha though. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [2] is a court case that deal specifically in this issue. Once the State releases materials in the courtroom, it becomes public domain (e.g., property of the people). However, not everything release by the State of North Carolina, where I used to live, is in the public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That court case appears to use "public domain" to mean "available to the public from official sources", not public domain in reference to copyright law. "The Act also clarifies that only the following limited materials may be available to the public from a district attorney's case file:" If you look at what links here, it's being used for random images from North Carolina websites. Can you give an example of an image that you think would qualify? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All court records (federal, state, local, etc.) are necessarily public domain as a consequence of federal law, hence the standing of court records may not necessarily say anything about NC law in general. Dragons flight 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This isn't the kind of issue we can solve by voting, it's either public domain or it isn't, we need to find out. - cohesion^t 09:55, 26 March 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 delete T1 by User:MarkSweep. --William Allen Simpson 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NF

Template:User NF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Front National is an extreme right-wing racist and anti-semitic group. This template is hands down inflammatory. As I noticed that the BNP template was recently deleted, this one should be deleted as well, ASAP. Jareand 04:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I have not been able to verify the bit about anti-semitism, it is certainly xenophobic and racist. Thus, it is this inflamatory. Wh e re ^(talk) 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Where --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hateful. Chairman S. ^Talk 22:37, 23 March 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.

Template:Daughter

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daughter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is essentially the {{backlink}} template, with different words. The backlink template was nominated for deletion and consensus was to delete, but it was kept for discussion at WP:ROOT. This template, however, is only used in a handful of articles. ~MDD 46 96 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sexist. Okay, sorry, that's silly. Delete per nom. Ashibaka tock 04:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful in a small number of cases where an article simply cannot be maintained on one page, and where there is a definite "main article" and "daughter article". See Queen sacrifice and Queen sacrifice example (the daughter) for a good example of where this template comes in handy. There probably are no more than a couple dozen pages in Wikipedia that could use this, but that's not really a criteria for deletion. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Articles using it can be fixed by either a better lead sentence or a {{merge}} tag. Kusma (討論) 12:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.CG 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate these things, as I think they're just big cluttered ways of referenncing to a {{main}} article --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- isn't it much the same use as {{details}}? --William Allen Simpson 13:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 26 March 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 Keep. --William Allen Simpson 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User the game

Template:User the game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The article this userbox used to link to has been deleted, and there doesn't seem like an awful lot of point to keeping the userbox at all. See related template below. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-notable stuff is allowed in userspace. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Liface 08:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the only reason the article was deleted this time, and not the previous two attempts, was because it wasn't verifiable. Verifiability is not (and should not be) a requirement for userboxes. --Anaraug 08:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion of The Game's article should have no bearing on this userbox. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 08:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anaroug Wh e re ^(talk) 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite, what's with the picture of Joseph Ducreux? lol?--64.12.116.132 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask User:Silence. She's the one responsible for the edit that added the picture. --Anaraug 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep used by a bunches of people --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does it matter if this userbox exists or not? Focus on more important matters than something so insignificant. Moe ε 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page's existence has no bearing on the existence of the userbox. --Timrem 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was the article deleted? The article's deletion has nothing to do with the userbox, though. However, it was annoying, having the box make me lose every time I saw it. Daniel (☎) 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was the article for The Game deleted? -Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And bring the article back. Why was it removed? Sasha Slutsker 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't think a subject has to have a Wikipedia article about it in order to have a userbox about it. I'd suggest replacing the link in the userbox to the external link http://www.losethegame.com/ or another such site, which is what I've done in the subst'ed one on my user page. - dharm a bum 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You obviously have nothing better to do if you nominate something like this. Its just petty - • The Giant Puffin • 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep And bring the article back! Mickey 19:16, 29 March 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 Keep. --William Allen Simpson 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User the game player

Template:User the game player (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The article this userbox used to link to has been deleted, and there doesn't seem like an awful lot of point to keeping the userbox at all. See related template above. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, non-notable stuff is allowed in userboxes. Or it should be. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the only reason the article was deleted this time, and not the previous two attempts, was because it wasn't verifiable. Verifiability is not (and should not be) a requirement for userboxes. --Anaraug 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Liface 08:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion of The Game's article should have no bearing on this userbox. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 08:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my vote above Wh e re ^(talk) 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other one. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page's existence has no bearing on the existence of the userbox. --Timrem 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above vote. Moe ε 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it what is this userbox refering to? can someone drop me a line on my talk?Mike McGregor (Can) 13:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per my vote above. - dharm a bum 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my vote in above discusssion - • The Giant Puffin • 13:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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.