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 template appears to be inaccurate. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NYGov-OAG ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Images from the state of New York are copyrighted and need to be tagged as fair use. The information in this template is believed to be inaccurate. — Nv8200p talk 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if images copyrighted by the State of New York are necessary and meet the relevant criteria of WP:FUC, then {{fair use in}} should be used; an individual template is unnecessary. --Iamunknown 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better to err on the side of caution. This template should be deleted unless somebody comes along with proof that images taken by the gov't of the state of New York are in fact PD (which I figure if they were, we would've known by now).↔NMajdan•talk 14:18, 31 March 2007 (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 section.

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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StateGov-NY ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Images from the state of New York are copyrighted and need to be tagged as fair use. The information in this template is believed to be inaccurate. — Nv8200p talk 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and probably no better than fair use. Megapixie 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if images copyrighted by the State of New York are necessary and meet the relevant criteria of WP:FUC, then {{fair use in}} should be used; an individual template is unnecessary. --Iamunknown 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a more fair-use centered template would be better. Perhaps an umbrella template for all fifty states might be permissible, but there's no harm in using a more general fair use template. Gracenotes^T § 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my reasoning on the other template and all the reasons above.↔NMajdan•talk 14:19, 31 March 2007 (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 section.

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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aegean Sea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not needed nor used, simply put - it lists the countries bordering the Aegean Sea, but there are only two! It is not used in their respective articles because of a huge overcrowding of nav boxes which already take a lot of space. After talking with the editors who edit both those articles we decided, well, it was useless, simply put :) - Baristarim 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Baristarim 04:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless. Greece and Turkey already link to each other in their opening paragraphs for geographical reasons. –Pomte 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and per nom and Pomte. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pomte. What's the use of a template that connects only two articles, especially when the topics themselves require that one article necessarily mention the other multiple times? -- Black Falcon 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would it make sense to modify the template to cover articles related to the Aegean? Articles that can be part of it can be: the islands in the Aegean, geology of the sea, disputes, etc. --Kimon^talk 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there enough articles though? Aegean civilization Aegean Islands Aegean dispute List of Aegean Islands. For specific cities there's {{Cyclades}} and others. –Pomte 06:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That template only covers the islands in the Cyclades group. There are the Dodecanese, the Sporades, the Saronic Islands, Imbros, Tenedos, etc. There are plenty of articles. --Kimon^talk 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a sample template here: User:Kimon/Aegean Sea. Perhaps we can replace the current template with the one I created? --Kimon^talk 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not familiar with how connected all of those linked articles are, but it looks reasonable and has a reasonable size so there should be no problem replacing the template with this new one. In which case {{Cyclades}} and {{Dodecanese}} become redundant and should be deleted? But there's only a partial overlap with {{Piraeus Prefecture}} and {{Sporades}}. I probably missed some and again, I have no clue I'll stay out of this. –Pomte 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're all about the Aegean or islands in the Aegean --Kimon^talk 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that {{Cyclades}}, {{Dodecanese}} and {{Sporades}} will become redundant. --Kimon^talk 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw the new template and it looks pretty good actually.. It can be used to replace the templates mentioned above.. Baristarim 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • :) Thanks! So, what happens now? --Kimon^talk 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suppose you wait until this one is deleted, and then you replace it with the new one you created.--Yannismarou 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom, Pomte and Yiannismarou above. Whence deleted, I'll move the template I created. --Kimon^talk 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom.Must.^{T C} 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the old template and replace with Kimon's version. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:30, 5 April 2007 (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 section.

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 deleted by Dragons flight. Iamunknown 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD/lang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:PD-USGov/lang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:PD-old/lang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:PD-self/lang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Copyrighted free use/lang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All five of these templates are unused, incomplete artificats from a copy at Commons. They are not currently within the scope of the English-language Wikipedia, since this project is an English-language project while Commons is a multilingual project. If they are going to continue being both unused and incomplete, then I suggest they be deleted. Uploaders will soon be notified. — Iamunknown 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All can be deleted. They are an artifact of the ProtectionBot tests. In making local copies of images, all the templates used in the Commons' descriptions were copied over as part of the process of copying the image description, but obviously these aren't relevant to enwiki. Dragons flight 02:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, I killed them myself. Dragons flight 03:00, 30 March 2007 (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 section.

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gang of 14 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is just one of many temporary alliances that each of these senators have been involved with and will be in the future. The template was useful while it was a hot topic, but that time has passed and it is no longer defining of their careers (at least enough to merit a template in articles. The article on the Gang of 14 and discussion in the articles of the senators shoucl suffice. — youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navigation templates are for completely defining characteristics. No senator is completely defined by being in the gang of 14, so this is better suited to a category, at the very least. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually, there was, and it bit the dust, too, see here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 11:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then, no category either. -Amarkov moo! 23:14, 30 March 2007 (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 section.

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Police by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superfluous with Police/Law enforcement by country categories which the articles this template points to are in. This does not help navigation. Further, presumably every country in the world has a police force, there is nothing unique here, and it would be overwhelming to list them all. — SchmuckyTheCat 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - for two reasons: 1. Navigational templates are often redundant with categories. 2. Only police forces notable enough for an article would go here. Perhaps Template:Roman Emperors is overwhelming, but it gets the job done. 3. All or most of these could probably fit into one article about policing, if there weren't hard page size limits. Gracenotes^T § 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree it is unweldy to maintain a template which can potentially have over 150 entries, and it dosent help when some users attempt to use it as a political tool by promoting local police forces of non-independent areas.--Huaiwei 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of this sort of template, broken up by continent/region. See the bottom of Policing in the United Kingdom for the European version that is already in use. So {{Police by country}} is already redundant. But is it really a good idea to use the topics by continent/region templates? Look how many red links there are:

These red links express the need for the articles to be created/redirected. Police/Law enforcement is a core topic of every country so ideally there should be an article on each. The Police article lists a bunch of countries as sections, which should be merged into specific articles and then eliminated. –Pomte 12:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As pointed out, every country has police and policing is a major component of every nation-state that often says alot about that state, making comparisons a likely thing Wikipedia users researching this subject. The "Law enforcement by country" categories contain all related articles and subcategories for that country, making them unwieldy for this purpose, whereas the template pulls the overview articles together in one place. Eventually the country list in the Police article needs to go, and this template accomplishes the same thing in much less space. If there's an unecessary redundancy between this and the Europe template, it makes more sense to scrap the one narrowly confined to one continent (and filled with red links). Bobanny 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One continent is not narrowly defined; see dozens of precedents at Template talk:Europe topic in the case of Europe alone. Red links are not nice but they work under the premise that Wikipedia is timeless. Eventually/ideally, red becomes blue and Template:Police by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) becomes too huge and obsolete. I would support a conditional keep until/if that happens, but someone has to maintain Template:Police by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to add a link every time an article is created, which is effort that is eliminated by the templates by continent. –Pomte 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically regarding police articles, the number of articles is far greater for the UK, US, and a handful of others, and there's a real need for new articles from other parts of the globe. Many of the articles that do exist tend to be UK or US-centric for police topics that should be treated more universally. I agree with your logic, but think the "police by country" template would similarly encourage a more global representation, and could be subdivided somehow when the need arises. Also notice that there's one just for the UK listing specific police agencies - as long as we're not stacking a bunch of police templates in the same article, I don't see a problem and don't think we should try and anticipate problems that have yet to happen. I don't know where else this template is placed, but it could be useful on a number of other non-region specific articles besides just "police." Bobanny 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any other non-region specific articles that could use this template (judging from the bottom links at Police). Since this looks like it's going to be kept, we're definitely going to have to transclude it in all the articles it links to, some of which are using {{Continent/region topic}}. Beware though there's going to be continually forked edit warring over how to list the SARs of China. –Pomte 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per logic above. This type of template-categorization is useful when the field of police research is international in scope. Conjecture as to user motivation/politics in articles shouldn't factor into the decision.--Keefer4 | Talk 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template provides no advantage compared to a category, it only takes away screen space. Pavel Vozenilek 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This raises another concern: there is no category that groups these together. –Pomte 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain the existance of Category:Law enforcement by country then.--Huaiwei 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. Navigating that category has a disadvantage: if someone unfamiliar is looking for the central article on law enforcement in some country, they can click through several articles only to find that there is no such article for that country. This template does all that sorting work for you. –Pomte 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This purported "solution" can easily be solved by other less cumbersome ways. A user who clicks on a country-related category can easily see just which article exists, and which does not. A template isnt going to tell you that. I am still wondering if you consider it appriopriate to have a template which can have over 160 entries, and multiply that several times over since many countries have more than one police force?--Huaiwei 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Navigating by category is more cumbersome in some ways than navigating by template, which is why both can coexist in harmony. The 160 problem isn't going to arise any time soon; it's useful now and that makes it appropriate now. It's not trying to link multiple police forces within one country, but the general article if one exists. Anyway, my !vote is still delete. –Pomte 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not so much about ease of template use vis-a-vis cats (or templates wont have existed at all), but an issue of whether it is practical to have a single template to cover all law enforcement agencies in the world. The last I checked, List of law enforcement agencies seems to show far more entries than this template does, so the problem of 160 entries isnt too far off. I would agree that it is far more practical to have regional templates as is the case for other major topics.--Huaiwei 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. - Privacy 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template allows material from the Police article to be split off into subarticles on "police in x country" and work towards making the "Police" article more general and improved. Someday there may be enough "... in x" articles to setup the template(s) in some other way. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we'll keep it until it bloats into an oversized navbox and then we'll split it and deprecate it. I like Pomte's ideas, although I do not support its immediate removal, as there are too few topics. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:02, 6 April 2007 (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 section.