Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23, 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 result Keep Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nazi symbol edit

A disclaimer template in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It could also be construed to violate Wikipedia:No legal threats. We should assume that members posting from other countries (and, for that matter, from the United States) are aware of whatever laws might restrict their activity. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This a polite warning template for those who may be unaware of German laws. To say that this violates "no legal threats" is laughable - the template does not suggest in any way that Wikipedia or any Wikipedia user will pursue legal action. "No disclaimer templates" is a guideline and not a rule and should not be the sole reason behind the deletion of a template - there is a reason it is not policy. - Cuivienen 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to warn people that using images in a different context could be illegal; that's true for any number of pictures that are copyright outside the US, are fair-use, or could be libelous in a different context.--Prosfilaes 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unaware of German laws, because I've never been to Germany. If I ever move there, it will be my responsibility to learn the laws. The English Wikipedia doesn't need to care or warn about German laws. dbenbenn | talk 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is neither a legal threat nor, dispite the unfortunate header, a disclaimer. It indicates certain limits on the free use of images, just as many other image tags do. Physchim62 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with Cuivienen that this nomination is laughable, honestly, we have better things to do. In many instances mild warnings that viewing a certain image etc. may break the law in some countries is simple common sense. (before someone raises the "vagina in Saudi Arabia" argument please see Talk:Lolicon...) -- Mikkerpikker ... 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's not a legal threat and I agree with its use Sinblox 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sinblox. It's not a threat - it's an explanation. - Hayter 16:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not common knowledge that a symbol could be illegal and is therefore informational and educational.--God of War 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I'm right the template actually shows a "Hakenkreuz", which is a Nazi symbol. So, you want to use a Nazi symbol to give a warning about Nazi stuff? eek --Adrian Buehlmann 10:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (from Switzerland).[reply]
- That's my fault, and it can easily be changed if people feel it is necessary: for example. discussion on that matter to Template talk:Nazi symbol, discussion on whether we want any template at all here. Physchim62 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a law, not a legal threat. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But as Buehlmann points out, the swastika shouldn't be on the template.Borisblue 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any content viewed or dowloaded illegally is done the user's own risk. Redundant with general disclaimer (or if it's not, please update the disclaimer accordingly). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:23, Jan. 29, 2006
Keep - it can't do any harm, and it serves a quasi-valuable purpose. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Cuivienen, et al.: this is no more threatening than another template similarly nominated for deletion (the current version of which is not definitive; also see the template talk page) – which was withdrawn by the proponent and garnered a near two-thirds majority to keep beforehand. Wilful evocations of illegality and guideline/policy breaches by individual Wikipedians do not make them so, nor do they take into account regional sensitivities or possible improprieties when posting encyclopedic information online. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for unregulated free speech. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This law is taken very seriously here in Germany but I'm not sure the template is 100% necessary. After all, the law states that Nazi symbolism may only be used for informative purposes or historical reference and not to promote a cause or agenda. Given that this is exactly what Wikipedia is about, I'm not sure if the need to warn people of the consequences of its use is really necessary. That said, I can see some far-right moron using it out of context and for that reason the template should at least be there to serve as a warning. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:52, 31 January 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 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nowikibookspar and Template:Nocookbookpar edit

Template:Nowikibookspar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Nocookbookpar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless. —Cryptic (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nooo don't delete them. You can delete the link to them in the Sister Projects page, I don't care. But don't delete them. I need them for my user page Dtm142 18:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I subst'ed them on your userpage and removed the superfluous TFD notice from there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible BJAODN, the way to say that Wikibooks (Cookbook) has nothing on the subject is to say nothing. This will never have any serious use. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless, really, especially now that they have been substed into the one page containing them. The fact that nocookbookpar is just an embedment of nowikibookspar gives it a reason for deletion with or without nowikibookspar. -Xol 22:40, 24 January 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 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 2003 Invasion of Iraq edit

Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hayter 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cynical 17:23, 29 January 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 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rawdata edit

Delete — Ill-conceived and misdirected; this is not how Wikipedia works. Owen× ☎ 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've left a message on the creator's talk page explaining why this template isn't necessary. Sango 123 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've made some serious changes to the template to perhaps make it more useful. If the template was used for external links it would be especially useful. - Cuivienen 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was blanked by its creator, so I've deleted it. I didn't notice the previous comment before doing that, so if anyone really wants it back, please speak up. JYolkowski // talk 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, no problem. It could be useful, but I'm not up to looking up raw data online and placing my version of the template everywhere. Just thought it would be a neat idea. - Cuivienen 04:31, 23 January 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.