The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Everyday...more and more countries get added.....this will make the already messy template more difficult to read.I don't think it really serves the purpose.There are no similar templates for economy or other fields.Morever, if the template is completed with all the countries.........it will distract the users from the original page.Thanks Strike Eagle ✈ 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This template is redundant to Template:Statehood of Georgia, it is only used in articles where the other one is only used. As a sidebar, it takes too much place compared to the other, a navbox. Susuman77 ( talk) 10:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:NENAN, navigates only 3 articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. These are long-unused templates that have been deprecated in favor of {{ chembox}}. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
old and replaced by other templates. Frietjes ( talk) 19:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, given the trivial content and lack of any documentation, it shouldn't be too hard to recreate them if the bot request is revived. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
appears part of a failed bot proposal here. Frietjes ( talk) 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
seems unnecessary, since we can just use {{ country data}} directly. Frietjes ( talk) 18:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replaced by {{ infobox mountain}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Template space isn't for article content like this. A similar example was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 11#Template:M1 motorway junction_list. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
better to just type |- followed by | directly, which uses fewer keystrokes, and reduces server load (see my recent edit to List of Indiana townships which reduced the size of the wikitext by 4k. Frietjes ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, redundant to standard interwiki linking, and potentially confused with {{ mh icon}}, ala {{ en icon}} and {{ en}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
not used by Seattle Mariners all-time roster. Frietjes ( talk) 17:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old and redundant to other hatnote templates (like main, which automatically uses plural when there is more than one). Frietjes ( talk) 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused external link template. Frietjes ( talk) 17:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
this template used to have an icon with the linked text, but that was removed, so this template is now basically useless. Frietjes ( talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused and trivial. Frietjes ( talk) 17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
basically unused frontend to template:mp. could be substituted and deleted. Frietjes ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, does not appear to be needed, and if it is needed somewhere, we can most likely address the problem by modifying the parent template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
this template is no longer needed for template:Infobox NFL player, which is the example given in the documentation. while it may be useful for other templates, it's not clear which templates. the reason it is no longer needed for the NFL player box is that with one simple edit (adding a newline before the teams/awards parameters) there is no longer a need for "nowiki" markup to force a line break to allow the list markup to be parsed correctly (see item 6). hence, if this is needed in an infobox, it can be easily fixed in the infobox, rather than requiring the addition of this template to all the transcluding articles. Frietjes ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
basically unused internal link template. Frietjes ( talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused image icon template. Frietjes ( talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
seems easier to just add the category directly. Frietjes ( talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old and unused. Frietjes ( talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old, almost unused, template. Frietjes ( talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unecessary frontend to lcfirst. Frietjes ( talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old and unused. Frietjes ( talk) 16:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
used only briefly in 2009. frontend to two other templates. suggest substituting it and deleting it. Frietjes ( talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
unused and redundant to {{ cat main}}. Frietjes ( talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused and uncategorized. Frietjes ( talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. Delete and move {{ TLS-H2}} to this title. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, few uses — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, and unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Template was created in 2011 but never used. Probably not needed anymore Kumioko ( talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move to Wikipedia:WikiQuizes/template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Old uneeded template Kumioko ( talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Texas which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Texas which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 02:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Old unused template. Kumioko ( talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Ohio which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 01:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time. The articles also fall under Indiana which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible for the selection of articles to be NPOV; in some cases, the connection is not only POV, it violates WP:BLP. However, if I just delete the BLP entries, there would be further dispute, so I'm proposing deletion in its entirety. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but carefully review its links and what pages it's used on. All of the links there are unquestionably subtopics of pedophilia. I don't understand the BLP violation, unless this template is used on biographies (I haven't checked the links list) - Even so, there is nothing wrong with including this on biographies of a person convicted of pedophilia crimes, or a person or organization that advocates in its favor. (In fact, this template should probably have a proponents section linking to pro-pedophilia organizations and persons) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I know where the perceived bias is from. I made this template using code from another template of mine, and forgot to remove the Catholic categories in the code. At first I thought Arthur added the categories, but than I remembered where I got the code from. My apologies. Oct13 ( talk) 05:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Strongly delete. The template violates principles of NPOV, civility, child protection. It looks like hidden intention to promote subject. Why should be mixed pro- and anti- p. organizations? Who should establish criteria for including articles to template? It should be deleted. Ans-mo ( talk) 07:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of this template would set a troubling precedent. Saying that this template can never meet NPOV creates the problem that any other topic about a topic that disgusts most people can never meet it either. Wikipedia is not censored, and there should be templates on topics that disgust people, and it would be completely wrong to delete all of them. And no matter how much something disgusts most of the population, everything has a minority who favors it. This template properly does its job in pointing readers to more articles on the broader topic, just as it should, and the difficulty in maintaining NPOV is not a valid reason to delete it, and probably eventually a whole bunch of other templates on disgusting topics. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This template doesn't promote pedophilia anymore than the Medjugorje template I made promote the Medjugorje apparitions. Moreover, this template is about a disorder, not the people with said disorder. This template further distances itself from the child abuse and sexual abuse templates by including topics specifically about pedophilia. This template does not disgust me; on the contrary, I see it as a helpful means for people to find articles on pedophilia and related topics, the same as my other templates on their respected topics. Finally, I'm trying to find a better alternative to the word "Organizations", since it has too much of a pro-pedophilia feel to it; I want a word that explains the associations are pedophilic. Oct13 ( talk) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse are not pedophilia, as made clear in their articles and the Pedophilia article. That is why this template is WP:Original research and a WP:NPOV violation. And I know that it's confusing when one says that child sexual abuse is not pedophilia; that's why you need to study this topic, starting with reading what the Pedophilia article says about that. Not all pedophiles commit child sexual abuse, and not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. First, I don't see why possible problems with unwise placement of this navigational template should count in favor of its deletion. Also, I see a lot of, in my opinion, irrational, arguments flying here already, such as this template contributing to the promotion of child abuse, or that clearly belonging topics should not be associated with pedophilia. I suppose all of this is to be expected for this topic, but now I at least have given my opinion on the matter. __ meco ( talk) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and edit as necessary. I read mainly the oppositional comments. All valid issues can be resolved by editing and having a template is not promotion any more than having any other template or any article is promotion. Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No longer used, of no value A:-)Brunuś ( talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, but remove detailed stadium list from main template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant with Template:Canadian Football League. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This template misstates the policy of Wikipedia and leads to situations like File:Atomium_20-08-07.jpg where a non-free image of a free work is uploaded. See prior discussion on this point at Template talk:FoP-USonly which is the tag that should be used instead. In the US, buildings before 1990 are not copyrighted. Period. There is no URAA restoration of copyright to foreign buildings because there was no copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights where it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored. For buildings constructed after 1990, the FoP law restricts the right of copyright owners to prevent the making of derivative works in the form of photographs. Hence this template is not needed. These works are not considered unfree under US law. - Nard ( Hablemonos)( Let's talk) 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Just in case, File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg is free to use and share, as long as it is attributed. Meanwhile, the subject is also tagged with "non-free 3d art". -- George Ho ( talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Nard the Bard, if as you say this this template misstates the policy of Wikipedia, please point out where the correct policy is documented. The recently created template FoP-USonly is based on a commons template for use on US buildings so is not a substitute for this template which is exclusively used for photos of buildings in non-FoP countries (ie. outside the US). The 1990 date only has relevance to the question of whether or not the photograph is taken on private property. URAA copyright restoration is not mentioned in the template so is not an issue. The content guideline you mention: Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights does not state that it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored, that section explains US law, not Wikipedia policy. In any case it's the copyright of photographs of buildings which is the issue, not the copyright of buildings. The template explains that such photographs can be copied freely in FoP countries but not in non-FoP countries which is why they are not "free-content" in Erik Möller's definition. I personally would like to see official Wikipedia policy changed but I'd suggest the correct way to do that would be to initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. 9carney ( talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, no objections and this seems doesn't seem to be the convention used for prior years. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The policy I'll cite is WP:NENAN, but my rationale is that this navbox is superfluous. This does not need to exist when a more comprehensive, more appropriate spot for these articles can all be found in Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Final Four seasons. At WikiProject College Basketball we are trying to take a hard look at what truly warrants navbox consideration because we do not want to contribute toward the increasing tendency to use navboxes unnecessarily, which ultimately clog up page bottoms. Jrcla2 ( talk) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Uw-bite}}, and much less clear Cambalachero ( talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was procedural close, listed multiple times, see 2012 June 4. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that this template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 05:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Everyday...more and more countries get added.....this will make the already messy template more difficult to read.I don't think it really serves the purpose.There are no similar templates for economy or other fields.Morever, if the template is completed with all the countries.........it will distract the users from the original page.Thanks Strike Eagle ✈ 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This template is redundant to Template:Statehood of Georgia, it is only used in articles where the other one is only used. As a sidebar, it takes too much place compared to the other, a navbox. Susuman77 ( talk) 10:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:NENAN, navigates only 3 articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. These are long-unused templates that have been deprecated in favor of {{ chembox}}. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
old and replaced by other templates. Frietjes ( talk) 19:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, given the trivial content and lack of any documentation, it shouldn't be too hard to recreate them if the bot request is revived. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
appears part of a failed bot proposal here. Frietjes ( talk) 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
seems unnecessary, since we can just use {{ country data}} directly. Frietjes ( talk) 18:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replaced by {{ infobox mountain}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Template space isn't for article content like this. A similar example was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 11#Template:M1 motorway junction_list. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
better to just type |- followed by | directly, which uses fewer keystrokes, and reduces server load (see my recent edit to List of Indiana townships which reduced the size of the wikitext by 4k. Frietjes ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, redundant to standard interwiki linking, and potentially confused with {{ mh icon}}, ala {{ en icon}} and {{ en}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
not used by Seattle Mariners all-time roster. Frietjes ( talk) 17:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old and redundant to other hatnote templates (like main, which automatically uses plural when there is more than one). Frietjes ( talk) 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused external link template. Frietjes ( talk) 17:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
this template used to have an icon with the linked text, but that was removed, so this template is now basically useless. Frietjes ( talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused and trivial. Frietjes ( talk) 17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
basically unused frontend to template:mp. could be substituted and deleted. Frietjes ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, does not appear to be needed, and if it is needed somewhere, we can most likely address the problem by modifying the parent template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
this template is no longer needed for template:Infobox NFL player, which is the example given in the documentation. while it may be useful for other templates, it's not clear which templates. the reason it is no longer needed for the NFL player box is that with one simple edit (adding a newline before the teams/awards parameters) there is no longer a need for "nowiki" markup to force a line break to allow the list markup to be parsed correctly (see item 6). hence, if this is needed in an infobox, it can be easily fixed in the infobox, rather than requiring the addition of this template to all the transcluding articles. Frietjes ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
basically unused internal link template. Frietjes ( talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused image icon template. Frietjes ( talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
seems easier to just add the category directly. Frietjes ( talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old and unused. Frietjes ( talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old, almost unused, template. Frietjes ( talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unecessary frontend to lcfirst. Frietjes ( talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
old and unused. Frietjes ( talk) 16:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
used only briefly in 2009. frontend to two other templates. suggest substituting it and deleting it. Frietjes ( talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
unused and redundant to {{ cat main}}. Frietjes ( talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
unused and uncategorized. Frietjes ( talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. Delete and move {{ TLS-H2}} to this title. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. Alternately, make some kind of redirect and simply remove it from Category:Deprecated templates. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, few uses — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated, superseded, and unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Template was created in 2011 but never used. Probably not needed anymore Kumioko ( talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move to Wikipedia:WikiQuizes/template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Old uneeded template Kumioko ( talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Texas which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Texas which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 02:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Old unused template. Kumioko ( talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time and was marked as inactive. The articles also fall under WikiProject Ohio which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 01:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This project is now supported by the WikiProject United States banner so this template is no longer needed. The project has had little activity for a long time. The articles also fall under Indiana which is also supported by the WPUS banner. Kumioko ( talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible for the selection of articles to be NPOV; in some cases, the connection is not only POV, it violates WP:BLP. However, if I just delete the BLP entries, there would be further dispute, so I'm proposing deletion in its entirety. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but carefully review its links and what pages it's used on. All of the links there are unquestionably subtopics of pedophilia. I don't understand the BLP violation, unless this template is used on biographies (I haven't checked the links list) - Even so, there is nothing wrong with including this on biographies of a person convicted of pedophilia crimes, or a person or organization that advocates in its favor. (In fact, this template should probably have a proponents section linking to pro-pedophilia organizations and persons) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I know where the perceived bias is from. I made this template using code from another template of mine, and forgot to remove the Catholic categories in the code. At first I thought Arthur added the categories, but than I remembered where I got the code from. My apologies. Oct13 ( talk) 05:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Strongly delete. The template violates principles of NPOV, civility, child protection. It looks like hidden intention to promote subject. Why should be mixed pro- and anti- p. organizations? Who should establish criteria for including articles to template? It should be deleted. Ans-mo ( talk) 07:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of this template would set a troubling precedent. Saying that this template can never meet NPOV creates the problem that any other topic about a topic that disgusts most people can never meet it either. Wikipedia is not censored, and there should be templates on topics that disgust people, and it would be completely wrong to delete all of them. And no matter how much something disgusts most of the population, everything has a minority who favors it. This template properly does its job in pointing readers to more articles on the broader topic, just as it should, and the difficulty in maintaining NPOV is not a valid reason to delete it, and probably eventually a whole bunch of other templates on disgusting topics. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This template doesn't promote pedophilia anymore than the Medjugorje template I made promote the Medjugorje apparitions. Moreover, this template is about a disorder, not the people with said disorder. This template further distances itself from the child abuse and sexual abuse templates by including topics specifically about pedophilia. This template does not disgust me; on the contrary, I see it as a helpful means for people to find articles on pedophilia and related topics, the same as my other templates on their respected topics. Finally, I'm trying to find a better alternative to the word "Organizations", since it has too much of a pro-pedophilia feel to it; I want a word that explains the associations are pedophilic. Oct13 ( talk) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse are not pedophilia, as made clear in their articles and the Pedophilia article. That is why this template is WP:Original research and a WP:NPOV violation. And I know that it's confusing when one says that child sexual abuse is not pedophilia; that's why you need to study this topic, starting with reading what the Pedophilia article says about that. Not all pedophiles commit child sexual abuse, and not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. First, I don't see why possible problems with unwise placement of this navigational template should count in favor of its deletion. Also, I see a lot of, in my opinion, irrational, arguments flying here already, such as this template contributing to the promotion of child abuse, or that clearly belonging topics should not be associated with pedophilia. I suppose all of this is to be expected for this topic, but now I at least have given my opinion on the matter. __ meco ( talk) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and edit as necessary. I read mainly the oppositional comments. All valid issues can be resolved by editing and having a template is not promotion any more than having any other template or any article is promotion. Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No longer used, of no value A:-)Brunuś ( talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, but remove detailed stadium list from main template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant with Template:Canadian Football League. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This template misstates the policy of Wikipedia and leads to situations like File:Atomium_20-08-07.jpg where a non-free image of a free work is uploaded. See prior discussion on this point at Template talk:FoP-USonly which is the tag that should be used instead. In the US, buildings before 1990 are not copyrighted. Period. There is no URAA restoration of copyright to foreign buildings because there was no copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights where it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored. For buildings constructed after 1990, the FoP law restricts the right of copyright owners to prevent the making of derivative works in the form of photographs. Hence this template is not needed. These works are not considered unfree under US law. - Nard ( Hablemonos)( Let's talk) 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Just in case, File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg is free to use and share, as long as it is attributed. Meanwhile, the subject is also tagged with "non-free 3d art". -- George Ho ( talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Nard the Bard, if as you say this this template misstates the policy of Wikipedia, please point out where the correct policy is documented. The recently created template FoP-USonly is based on a commons template for use on US buildings so is not a substitute for this template which is exclusively used for photos of buildings in non-FoP countries (ie. outside the US). The 1990 date only has relevance to the question of whether or not the photograph is taken on private property. URAA copyright restoration is not mentioned in the template so is not an issue. The content guideline you mention: Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights does not state that it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored, that section explains US law, not Wikipedia policy. In any case it's the copyright of photographs of buildings which is the issue, not the copyright of buildings. The template explains that such photographs can be copied freely in FoP countries but not in non-FoP countries which is why they are not "free-content" in Erik Möller's definition. I personally would like to see official Wikipedia policy changed but I'd suggest the correct way to do that would be to initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. 9carney ( talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, no objections and this seems doesn't seem to be the convention used for prior years. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The policy I'll cite is WP:NENAN, but my rationale is that this navbox is superfluous. This does not need to exist when a more comprehensive, more appropriate spot for these articles can all be found in Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Final Four seasons. At WikiProject College Basketball we are trying to take a hard look at what truly warrants navbox consideration because we do not want to contribute toward the increasing tendency to use navboxes unnecessarily, which ultimately clog up page bottoms. Jrcla2 ( talk) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Uw-bite}}, and much less clear Cambalachero ( talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was procedural close, listed multiple times, see 2012 June 4. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that this template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 05:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)