May 29, 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 moot - now on deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User no notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not included on any userpages --Lkjhgfdsa 22:43, 29 May 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. IceKarma 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illegalparty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template has been renamed by Rex the first, and all POV traces removed. This vote should now be closed. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:07, 10 June 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. IceKarma 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Swedish Governmental photos do not enter the public domain automatically in any way. The can release photos of course, but it would be the same as if it were released by anyone else. This would be the same as {{PD-release}}, which should be a preferable template as it avoids the notion of Swedish governmental photos being PD. Fred-Chess 10:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) currently using 212.247.86.72 and doesn't want to log in from this computer[reply]

  • Delete Could use {{PD-release}} for photos in the public domain. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 01:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nick C. --Terence Ong 14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps improve. The PD-release template doesn't require that the photographer's name should be stated, which is a requirement for publication of pictures released by the Swedish government, in accordance with the Berne Convention. I don't think the wording of PD-SwedGov-attribution is such that people can be mislead to think that all pictures published by the Swedish government are automatically PD. The sentence "This photographic picture has been released by the Government of Sweden" clearly refers to a specific picture and not a general rule. It is very different from PD-USGov, where the wording "This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal Government" makes it obvious that it refers to a general rule. Also, please note that the PD-SwedGov-attribution is a copyleft template and NOT a total PD template, i.e. the Swedish government does retain some rights. Thomas Blomberg 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to care about this anymore, so I'll just add a small clarification and then remove the delete line in the template. Thomas Blomberg 10:14, 12 June 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. IceKarma 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yacht rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used only by Yacht rock; TfD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacht rock Closeapple 05:49, 29 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sectioninuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moved to Wikibooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Virtually unused template indicating that an article has been transwikied to Wikibooks. (By virtually I mean, only used once, and that instance is one I recently prodded.) Articles that have been transwikied should be prodded (or cleaned up), not replaced with a boilerplate that only states that the article is now on Wikibooks. TheProject 17:29, 29 May 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.