Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< April 18	April 20 >

1 April 19

[edit] April 19

[edit] TV episode forks

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 all ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

added to nomination

All redundant with {{Infobox Television episode}}. None require a fork at all. Consistency is our friend, and it smells of professionalism. — The JPS^{talk to me} 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment In general I support delete of these. Note that some already recursively call {{Infobox Television episode}}, and can simply be subst:. Some have survived a previous "delete colored episode infoboxes"-tfd. I do not consider this to be a problem, except perhaps for the M*A*S*H one, which might see some opposition. I could be construed as "killing creativity". the other infoboxes are probably less controversial (and less in use). --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added two templates with somewhat the same "status". For more of these templates see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television episodes#Episode_infoboxes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Good points: tho' I'd remind people that it's not our job to be creative! The MASH! template is pretty, but it's inconsistent, and therefore unprofessional. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The {{Infobox Television episode}} template works for all these, and consistency is desirable here. entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Herostratus 22:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DeleteMy exact thought Herostratus. Jmlk17 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete all per nom, redundant and inconsistent. Plus there's a (very) minor efficiency issue: the more widely used a template, the more likely it is to be fresh in the caches. Xtifr _tälk 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete... but I think it is worthwhile looking into possible color choosing for the infobox like templat:infobox actor has. And Ockham's razor O_o... this is a matter of style, not correctness. gren グレン 02:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It can use {{television colour}} but in this case i don't think it's very useful for most of these series. SATC and desperate housewives use it though I believe. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Use {{Infobox Television episode}}; if a different background is desired, discuss this idea on parent's template talk page; see Template:Infobox musical artist#Background Color for an example of a template that uses different colours. 142.58.206.114 01:51, 22 April 2007 (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 section.

[edit] Template:Infobox 30 Rock episode

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This showspecific template does nothing that the {{Infobox Television episode}} can not do as well. I'm currently undoing the replacement of this template in the 30 rock episode articles --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete already covered by {{Infobox Television episode}}, as stated above. Jmlk17 02:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete; use {{Infobox Television episode}} instead. 142.58.206.114 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above. --Tone 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Virginia Tech massacre

The result of the debate was keep. I think we need to wait until the passion simmers down a bit before deciding whether this should go. Simply too early. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two unnecessary extra articles will soon be merged into the main article i see no reason to keep this template. To keep it would only serve to relate the individuals mentioned to this topic top to the massace and given that it has been arguesd there are reasons beyond that they should be kept, we definetly should not do this. — Jimmi Hugh 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep let's see how the main page matures and whether new sub-pages will be created --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That defeats the point, deterents are the best way to stop people adding sub articles. There is a consensus that this event needs no more than the main article, so way give people the oppertunity to create unwanted pages. --Jimmi Hugh 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Your concensus seems rather speculative. The perpetrator and professor articles are very likley to stay. --StuffOfInterest 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment My point exactly! People spent alot of time arguing that these proffesors had more merit than just their deaths to deserve articles. By linking them here we associate them with this one event and completely undermine that argument, therefore making the need for their articles unncessary, therfore causign no need for the template anyway. --Jimmi Hugh 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I'm dizzy. This is quite circular don't you think? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
        
        'Comment Yes, i was purposely making the point that either way round the template is redundent. --Jimmi Hugh 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'll have to agree. At this moment, there are pages that are probably going to be deleted, and the other 3 below are of three teachers who were killed whose notability is questioned. It's a good attempt at linking together various pages, but at a time when the pages are questioned, it doesn't seem appropriate. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Nomination reasoning is speculative. Valid navigation aid. If enough sub-articles go away then it may be time to remove template, but not trying to predict what will happen later. --StuffOfInterest 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep --[[user:Umedard|Umedard [[User talk:Umedard|<sup>Talk</sup>]]]] 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per StuffOfInterest, valid navigation aid, and seems too soon to delete it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's not really useful.
Delete, not nearly enough links yet to justify existence. Maybe in time, but right now it's ugly and takes up room. (That is by far the worst map that could have ever been made of the mid-Atlantic, the FBI should be ashamed) --Golbez 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above Wyv 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There's not enough content on the massacre to justify a bulky infobox; for now, "main article" hatnotes and "see also" links are sufficient. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the template and sub-articles are noteworthy enough to keep, in my opinion. --JAYMEDINC 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - while I disagree fundamentally with the premise of nominator's argument (in fact consensus seems to be exactly the opposite at the moment), I don't see the value of this template. HokieRNB 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - seems useful to me, has all the articles in one place --AW 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all. Slade (The Joker) 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Valid navigation aid, will likely become even more so as the details of this tragedy continue. Realkyhick 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep despite that fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I think it is safe to assume that the coverage of this event is going to only grow larger and break-away articles are going to become more numerous which therefore will render this template very useful. (→Netscott) 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why would you predict more breach of Wikipedia Policy? I think you underestimate people's want to make this a nice clean site. Therefore assuming good faith, this template is redundent. --Jimmi Hugh 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Parent article is already pushing 70K, and has a notice that the ariticle is long. Part of the cleanup for the article will be splitting it up into a group. --StuffOfInterest 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Already usefull, and will probably grow in the coming weeks, don't be rash. And Jimmi Hugh's reasons are flawed, as commented already, as they may very well continue to stand as their own articles. Epson291 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The argument for deleting this ("the two unnecessary extra articles will soon be merged into the main article") is both incorrect and premature. All of the important discussions (1, 2, 3, 4) look extremely likely to end in "keep" or "no consensus". And, Jimmi Hugh, "good faith" and "will agree with me" are not equivalent. -- Plutor ^talk 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's way too early to make a whole template on this event. Maybe in time, once an investigation has been carried out. I think it's a little premature. - Prezboy1 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - While tragic, it is largely the "media event of the week". Over time, this will fade as much as Columbine did; it will only be brought up as an example for comparison in future mass shootings. The entire event isn't complicated enough to merit its own template, nor is it general enough. Maybe an argument could be made for a "mass murder" template or similar? UltraNurd 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Subst and delete - There's an implicit POV issue, and something inherently distasteful, about the "Notable Victims" subtitle. What we really mean (I assume) is "Victims whose biographies were found to meet the current criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia", but that isn't really the same thing. In any other article where the template is used, the same issue will come up. It is very easy to work the existing Wikilinks into the text of an article or list of victims, but I don't see a clear and respectful way to do it in a template of that size. Nor do I see any real need for a pseudo-table of contents for other subtopics in this article, when there is already an established way to have a table of contents. Mike Serfas 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I for one find it useful. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep — the proposal is speculative and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. — Jonathan Bowen 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the template is useful in pointing to other articles. MCalamari 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Delete per later comment I make below. Vital navigation source; proposal for deletion speculates on page merges in ongoing AfD discussions, & concensus does not seem to be going the way the proposer assumes they will. The template itself is still subject to modification if it's kept, so questions about POV etc. within the template can be addressed in discussion about template design. --Yksin 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. However, I do find it tasteless & insensitive to include this template in the articles for those victims who were notable enough to warrant their own pages. --Yksin 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Even if they are notable in their own right, they are and always will be closely associated with this incident. Still, that debate is best held on the individual bio talk pages and on the template talk page. --StuffOfInterest 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've made the point on the relevant talk pages, including the talk page for the template itself. Meanwhile, because of the offensiveness of the template being used on those pages, the POV nature of the "Victims of the massacre with their own pages" section, & the brevity of the navigation box without it, I've changed my vote to "Delete." --Yksin 18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Does not serve any purpose that can be fufilled by a "See Also" section.Timber Rattlesnake
Delete All the information could be construed through a table of contents or a different way. No need for a template. Jmlk17 19:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A useful info box and better than a "See also" section. --Neo-Jay 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Very useful for navigation. Includes articles for notable victims Tvh2k 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not useful at all beyond linking back to the main VT massacre page. There aren't going to be more than maybe 5 pages for the entire thing, so see also links and links within the text of the articles themselves is more than enough to navigate between the pages. You're not going to have a page for every victim, and it is rude to have "Notable Victims." Motor.on 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Jambalaya 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete--Hillock65 19:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep it indeed does serve the function as See also; and ideally all decently sized notable See also section sshould be turned into templates like this. We shouldn't be degrading the aesthetics of our content. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- at least for now, while information on this event is still rapidly surfacing. pmppk 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Users can use conventional links in the article (which are in context) to navigate. +mwtoews 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - anything that makes a subject with multiple articles more easy to navigate must be a good thing. Some people think that there should only be one article in this subject, that is why this template annoys them so. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's ugly, takes up a lot of space, and I don't like the "notable victims" terminology. Not good. --Gloriamarie 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but my opinion might change as time goes on. I personally thing that the template should remain, seeing how this tragedy was quite a notable one. As said, however, my opinion may change on the vote. --DannyDaWriter 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's very useful. Effer 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's unnecessary. Sazielt c 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per everyone above Chris 22:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's useful. Skillz187 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep but change the name. It sounds like Texas Chainsaw Massacre for some reason.190.57.13.78
Keep It's useful - far more so than a lot of the navigation templates out there. --Matthew 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is not necessary, and not useful. Perhaps it's mroe useful than a lot of the navigation templates out there, but a lot of the navigation templates out there should be deleted. In comparing it to other navigation templates, such as the one for the September 11, 2001 attacks, there is no list of notable victims. Let alone that half of the articles will be deleted or merged in the future, and that the picture is terrible, it's not necessary. --myselfalso 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Totally unnecessary and it doesn't seem as though it fits an incident such as this. Apolloae 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete The majority of the victim's articles may be deleted soon, and it may be a long time before sections of the main article (criticisms, Cho's manifesto, media involvement, etc.) could become articles themselves. D4S 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, at least until the articles in question are actually deleted. RyGuy17 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as long as the articles continue to exist, but it needs work --BigDT (416) 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This box is a valuble nav tool, and helps to sort the info. Quatreryukami 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep per everyone else. As an aside, I'd rather this template than infinite hours of media coverage on the damn shooting while other equally important stories (like the Supreme Court's recent abortion ruling) get ignored. --CJ Marsicano 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I would consider deleting if months after the incident the template was empty. It is far too soon to say whether it should be kept or deleted, though I have a feeling it will still be keep worthy. Atropos 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Even if the two cited by the nom were deleted, it's still a good info boxen. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring two comments accidentally deleted by this edit. Gimmetrow 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's a little premature to make a template for this. Event is tragic, it is crime of a mad man and it's not clear what impact it will have. Does wikipedia has template for September 11th attack? User:Abune 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - We don't need a template for this. Why should we have one for this when we don't have it for Columbine? We're getting way to deep into the details if you can't tell already. 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - templates are useful for navigating across related articles. If someone explains the relations here better than a very few people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, I may reconsider. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now, and maybe relist in two weeks' time. A lot depends on the fate of the articles involved. If they are all kept, then the template helps to organize them. YechielMan 06:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, redesign to address concerns (ie. don't list individuals in the template), and revisit issue later, after fuss has died down. Carcharoth 11:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, feels a little overkill, all this can easily be found in the article. --MoRsE 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia shouldn't be adding to this hysteria. --David Shankbone 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Add the South-Korean flag right next to perpetrator, too make it even more colorful. --Abe Lincoln 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm on it...! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. South Korean flag sounds like a bad idea. It would make it seem as if S. Korea sanctioned the attack, as opposed to some nut job who happened to be from S. Korea did it. That'd be inappropriate. After all, S. Korea specifically stated their regret (along with the rest of the world) and that's just provocative.Motor.on 16:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That was a joke. Apparently not as obvious as I assumed. Abe Lincoln 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, wait and see how this all turns out. This VfD is premature. --CalPaterson 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete A category is good enough. But the picture is cool, put it on the VTM page! JeffBurdges 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Based on the premise that we don't have similar infoboxes for Columbine or Jonestown. The articles themselves, particularly the ones on the shooter and Prof. Librescu obviously pass the notability test, but does that mean we need an infobox linking them? I agree that a category is probably sufficient.Pat Payne 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Move for speedy close without prejudice - I don't care any more if we keep the thing or delete it - any uninvolved admin should use their best judgment to decide. But these articles are all high visibility and we ought to keep xFD templates off of them for a couple of weeks. If a discussion is absolutely necessary, we can link to it from Talk:Virginia Tech massacre and hundreds or thousands of editors are going to see it - plenty for a consensus. If it's something minor like this, there's no real harm one way or the other in having the template and I would ask that an uninvolved admin make a determination and close this TFD, without prejudice to revisiting the issue in a month. --BigDT (416) 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Jared, template already available: infobox terrorist attack. Plus, all this attention given to the perpetrator only makes other crazy people think this is the way to achieve fame, like that NASA guy. --Rita Moritan 19:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete This is one horrible, unfortunate incident, but one incident, all of the hype in the media and here IS EXCESSIVE, and certainly not a broad enough topic to merit a template box. And there, I just added to the excess, are you happy now? Fredwerner 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per Fredwerner. The incident was unfortunate but the shear number of related articles doesn't even cross 2 digits. For those saying it should be kept to see what happens to it with time, please see WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.--Scheibenzahl 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep (temporary) This topic is relevant as of now, and being that Wikipedia is there to change with the times, this template to link between the pages could be kept up for easy access for those in grief, those doing current event reports, and other groups trying to piece things together. Staying now and deleted later could be an option. --ForumYoshi 22:04, 20 April 2007
Keep as per ForumYoshi. Qjuad 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per qjuad.Baka man 23:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Premature. Useful now. Proposal presumes the template cannot be edited. Likely to get re-created if deleted. -- Yellowdesk 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but there can definitely be debate about its content. gren グレン 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - completely unnecessary. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep - IF most of the articles end up being merged into one, then delete. Otherwise, keep. --AEMoreira042281 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep since if it's not spam and has SOME use, it should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihitterdal (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
delete omg too soon. people are emotionally keeping this. SchmuckyTheCat 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment, leaning for temp. KEEP w/ eventual DELETE I love templates as much as the next guy. I am also very saddened by this tragic event. However, there is already a category for all of the articles relating to the event. It is said that a template such as this one should be easier to navigate than a category, and I do not think this is the current case with this template, since I find it easier to use categories. Moreover, it is also said that: it can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large. However, instead of being unmanageably large, it is rather small, and I think the category gives a better view of the entire spectrum of the issue. However, adding to what ForumYoshi said, the template is probably useful to people who are not familiar with Wikipedia, but are using the site to learn more about the event. I remember when I started using Wikipedia, categories were intimidating things... --wpktsfs 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment Or if all else fails, at least make it VT colors... --wpktsfs 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete now - No need to wait; delete it now. It's overkill. Looking at the template, all I see is a map and four links. We can easily put that in a series of "see also" links. Also, the template gives a feeling that Wikipedia is "exploiting" the event for its own gain, and it invokes a message like "Come here to Wikipedia, where we will give you 24/7 follow-up info on this tragic shooting"; this is not the point of Wikipedia. Finally, the truth is the media will stop caring in six months. We cannot allow templates like this to be created that will be deleted in six months' time. bCube(talk,contribs); 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Info not needing template box ipridian 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Some readers prefer to naviagate through categories, some through templates. I see no reason not to accommodate both. As for notability, we cannot decide that now; look in six months, and see if this as notable a meme as Columbine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't see a problem with it. Makes it a lot easier to navigate through the massacre if you want to read about itNiyant 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete This doesn't need a template; there isn't one for Columbine, or Erfurt, or for École Polytechnique. dcandeto 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Goes beyond "not useful" into "counterproductive" territory. There aren't enough articles in about the subject to justify the navigation template (and, God willing, there will be fewer as emotions simmer down and extraneous articles get merged out of existence), and it takes up valuable space in the page layout that could be used for, I dunno, germane text or images or something else relevant. Is there such a thing as "navtemplatecruft?" --Dynaflow 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as there simply are not enough articles to justify its existence. Navigational templates are nice, but when all the articles are already intertwined together with internal links, they become redundant. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note, if you go back to the original version of this template, it was intended to provide links for the core articles and notable victims who have articles. If you take just the professors, then we have about eight total articles. If it is decided that the template will not represent, nor be used in, the victims who have articles then even I, the original creator, feel that the need is borderline. Scope is the determining factor in my book. --StuffOfInterest 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, and in fact, based on the amount of votes for deletion, coupled with the unprofessional appearance of said box, and its overall lack of necessity, I feel justified in removing it anyway. How much more consensus doth one need? Scientz 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Could you please explain how your math shows a concensus for delete? My quick head count showed about 43 keep and 36 delete. I'm curious how you weighted and/or discounted opinions to get to your conclusion. Also, it semes like you are trying to affect the change before concensus is established by removing the template from articles while it is still under discussion. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Quite obviously because I can't count. My problem is with the poor design of the template, not necessarily with its mere existence. That said, I think that those who wish to see it included should take an effort to make it something worth inclusion, rather than the (admittedly POV) eyesore that it is. As I don't see a reason for its existence in the first place, I won't endeavour to improve it; however others obviously disagree, and therefore I wonder why it is they don't spruce it up. As is, it is an extremely ugly and pointless waste, buried 2/3rds of the way into the article. Scientz 14:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment - I actually believed my original version was pretty clean and simple. There was some debate later on the image, but with the deletion discussion ongoing I didn't want to introduce too much volatility into the template. Once this discussion is settled, presuming the template is kept, then a deeper discussion can be held on the template talk page regarding what to include and how to best present it. --StuffOfInterest 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there's nothing useful here that isn't already in the article proper. As Krimpet said, "main article" hatnotes and "see also" links are sufficient. — coel acan — 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to strengthen my delete vote above by pointing out that this template is being used on the pages of otherwise notable people who died, thus placing undue weight & distorting otherwise notable articles. Please remove it from those articles if you see find it there. A category is more tasteful. As I see it this template can be used on at most four articles, main, timelines, victims list, and the killer. 4 pages can't really justify the template. JeffBurdges 21:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Useful navigation aid for a significant event in American history. Perhaps it could be made more colourful, however. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete plainly un-necessary.--cj | talk 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the pages this could/is used on will soon be deleted or merged with the main article. -Mschel 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary. --Tone 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - some users get a little too excited when something happens, trying to be the first to add it to Wiki. The event doesn't need a template. ALTON .ıl 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Retract my statement. Some users get a little too excited to vote for deletion. ALTON .ıl 03:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite email

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is made for unpublished emails (no URL to published mail archive can be given). Seems to grossly violate WP:V. Displays posters mail address in article so they risk spam. Few current uses. See reference 4 in Pennsylvania Route 145 for example of use to reference 4 statements. Deletion discussed on template talk page in 2006. — PrimeHunter 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This template, while it may seem a little iffy, is actually useful. How do you cite something if what you did to locate the information was e-mail the editor of a newspaper, or something to that effect? That is how this comes in handy, and people just have to know to use it properly. Realistically, it won't be used that often, but when it needs to be, it's nice to know it's there. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This template encourages original research and does indeed violate WP:V. Books can be gotten from libraries. Web pages can be viewed. Private emails, however, are not published documents. If someone does publish email correspondence on the web, then it's a web site and we have existing templates we handle that just fine. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Well, if you are just saying that e-mail is hearsay, then what about citing a television program, or a professor, or any other unconventional means that MLA gives citation guides for. If MLA allows it, we certainly should. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that there's no way to verify it. MLA has guidelines for everything under the sun, but there's a difference between that and what Wikipedia is prepared to accept as a reliable source. How I can demand to see a private email to verify its contents? Or listen to a remark that a professor made than never got recorded. Now, a television program I might be able to verify, if it was recorded or its contents were reported on. MLA is not an encyclopedia and we aren't a standards body or a professional association. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, promotes unverifiable sources, which by policy definition are unreliable. Thatcher131 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This one would be an obvious speedy if it weren't a template. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete; no point even bothering citing an email unless it's actually been published somewhere, in which case we cite the published version using one of the existing citation templates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. See this page which shows the MLA email style, which is apparently condoned as a reputable source by what is arguably the biggest citation style guide. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing wikipedia with the real world. In the real world, Carl Bernstein can write a book about political intrigue and cite confidential sources and personal email. If the lawyers for his publisher are concerned, they can privately double-check these sources, but ordinary readers can not, we have to take Bernstein's word for it (which, since he has a long record as a journalist, is not an unreasonable thing to ask). Wikipedia is quite different. We do not expect readers to accept as accurate statements made by pseudonymous editors like "Radiant!" or "Mangojuice." We require that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Private e-mail fails this test, and as Doc said, if it is published, cite the published record. Thatcher131 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, with modifications. The template should require an archive URL (such as a mailing list archive) in the same way that {{cite web}} requires a title and a URL. I can make good use of this for all the mailing-list posts on Debian, which are currently in there as bare URLs. On the other hand, since this is a special case, I'm open to creating a new 'cite mailing list' for that purpose. Personal, unarchived emails are most definitely out of bounds. grendel|khan 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Really not necessary: that can be managed like this. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I've made {{cite mailing list}} for that purpose; a mailing list is a different resource than a website, and it should have a different citation template. That said, as there now exists a citation template for that situation, I change my vote to delete. grendel|khan 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree this is useful for mailing lists. Computerjoe 's talk 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sometimes an email is authenticated, and there should be some standard way to cite it, along with all the other possibilities. Furthermore, Some few moderated notable mailing lists recognized by the relevant profession as important channels of communication are RSs, and this is the closest template. DGG 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep for reasons that will be posted to my blog soon. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The post referred to above is this one. While I understand the reasons, I disagree. If an already-sourced fact is verified as true via e-mail, the existing source should be left in and there is no reason to add a new one. If an already-sourced fact is contradicted via e-mail, the text should be removed, and no source is necessary for this. An explanation on the talk page may be required, but we don't generally use citation templates for those. JulesH 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete sends out wrong message. Mailing lists need to be verifiable, and many archive to web. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, people here don't understand what OR means, and remember that not every source in Wikipedia needs to pass WP:V, for example primary sources that are then discussed in other sources. An email from the subject of a biography on his birthday or other some such trivial information is perfectly acceptable in the form of a private email. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Every source on Wikipedia does indeed need to pass WP:V, David. Which ones don't, in your view? Primary sources discussed by secondary sources are fine, for example; in fact, that's probably most of what we publish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Unless there is something on Wikipedia which says that e-mail is not a legitimate source, then we keep it. Delete it when there is a policy against e-mail sources. --myselfalso 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - We have a policy against using unpublished emails - it's called Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is impossible to verify an unpublished email. -Will Beback · † · 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We're not allowed to use unpublished source material per V and NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is clearly in direct contradiction to our V and NOR sourcing policies. Only material in a reliable publication may be cited. Crum375 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, of course. Blatant violation of WP:V; of no possible use, and encourages abuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Mackensen and per Will Beback. ElinorD (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ridiculous. Chocolatepizza 01:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, this template is needed to get information from the author of a source. The author can e-mail wikipedia editors so they can use it as a source for their articles. Take Pennsylvania Route 145 as an example, I used the template to cite my source from an e-mail from PennDOT. This template is greatly needed for wikipedia. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 01:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The author can e-mail wikipedia editors so they can use it as a source for their articles". No, they can't. Read WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's not used in Pennsylvania Route 145 to cite a verifiable published source. If that's the prototypical use, it's not a good precedent. Gimmetrow 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - obvious case of violation of WP:V. There is no need to have this AfD: we cannot have templates that encourage violations of policy. If an email was published in a RS, cite that, otherwise, don't cite it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Complete unnecessary. Jmlk17 03:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per all of the above, this is ridiculous. Khoikhoi 06:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete not to snow, but this makes very little sense. Tewfik^Talk 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete There's no valid use for this template. JulesH 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'd rather not encourage closed communication as a means of a reference. References must somehow be public in this encyclopedia.24.80.180.29 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Emails are not a verifiable published source. Adambro 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete gross violation of WP:V, WP:ATT. Emails not a reliable source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete: although this template could be useful for some people, it does not belong in this encyclopedia. +mwtoews 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In a few cases, emails can be reliable sources (especially when an article refers to an email, or a series of events that occurred via emails, or in mailing lists - e.g. The Bogdanov Affair). However, to be useful, it needs to have a url parameter, like the rest of the citation templates. With that caveat, keep it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since {{cite mailing list}} exists, this template is redundant. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, an email cannot be a reliable source. If it is trivial enough to be backed up by an email then it does not need a citation. This template is really no more useful than Template:cite phone call - Peripitus (Talk) 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete The few "legitemate" uses (such as e-mails in public mailing list archives) can be covered by {{cite web}} or some custum text, meanwhile having this template around gives the impression that private correspondense can be used as source material for ensyclopeic articles wich is a Bad Thing™. --Sherool (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete I dislike "private correspondence" citations in "real" publications enough, and in those places the reader can at least consider the reputation of the author and editor in order to decide whether the source is reliable. In Wikipedia we don't have that luxury. Web-accessible emails such as mailing list archives can be cited in other ways that don't require this template. --Itub 08:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Not a verifiable source. — Omegatron 03:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Flagrently unverifiable. Would not be opposed to salting the template, then rolling it up in a carpet, throwing the carpet off a bridge into a river, then launching the river into a star, which could then be chucked into a black hole. Hopefully the information about the template would be destroyed as it was converted into Hawking radiation. WilyD 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Uw-delmain1

The result of the debate was deleted. It was only a joke. >Radiant< 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(The warning was a funny one however, and I thought the ridiculous level of seriousness in the nomination would shine through, which it apparently didn't. The template can be viewed at BJAODN here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

I am hesitant about nominating this template for deletion, becuase the creator is one of our most experienced administrators and has a very good grasp on what kind of pages should be in Wikipedia, and what kind of things should not, and who has logged a lot of edits on the TFD pages. I trust his good judgment. However I think this template, while a well-intentioned attempt at preventing disruption to the main page, is a poor idea.

First off, the only people capable of deleting pages are administrators, who are in most cases regular contributors. With that in mind, the WP:JERRYSPRINGER essay warning against using warning message templates on the regulars. Second, we have the troubling wording "have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been undeleted or undone." This is of the greatest concern, because admins are supposed to discuss undeletions with the deleting admin before doing so, not after. This is very important in the interests of preventing wheel-warring. Keep in mind that the main page may have been deleted for good cause (vandal images, or unintentional libellous information in the DYK section for example). Finally, I question the need for a template like this. Mistaken deletions of the main page are in fact a rare occurence, even though a disgruntled administrator did so recently, and in most of those cases I think a customised message will suffice. Newbies testing the edit tools and/or vandalizing are a common occurence, justifying the presence of templates like {{test}} and {{blanking}}, but I feel the scope that this template intends to serve is too limited in nature, and will wind up as an unused and redundant warning message, leading to clutter on our table of user-talkpage warnings.

If this template is kept however, I recommend changing the lead sentence which currently reads "Welcome to Wikipedia", since admin-talkpages usually already have a welcome message of some sort on them. (I have realized that the talkpage of several regular contributors, including my own, don't have a welcome message however, so it's not a big deal). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN and userfy. I found it rather funny. MER-C 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete (or BJAODN) - I strongly suspect Radiant was joking here, but the humour seems to have been lost on some people. Note that "undeletion" in the template links to WP:WHEEL. Carcharoth 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete and BJAODN – obviously admins know enough about Wikipedia procedure to know that deleting the main page is inappropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
BJAODN. Obviously a joke, and a funny one at that. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment A quite serious joke. It was clearly created because of very real events today. [1][2][3] PrimeHunter 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope most of those voting were aware of those events, but if not, thanks for providing the context. Carcharoth 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the number of admin accounts increases, and with our obviously poor management of these rights we will undoubtedly have an increasing need for this very serious template. ... or we could desysop inactive people and require strong passwords and SSL login... nah, more silly warning templates is our style.--Gmaxwell 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The admin that created the template should be banned from editing, I almost got caught at work laughing ;). Delete or userfy, imo -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Er- it was a joke... I'm sure Radiant would have deleted it in due course... Is this process really necessary? WjBscribe 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Pointless process - this is really a joke of the moment, and the seriousness of the nom does somewhat surprise me (having read the comment on ANI where Radiant! introduced the template). I have no doubt that Radiant! has a plan for what he wants to do with the template when the joke expires, and unfortunately the TfD notice at the top of it now take some off the gloss off the joke :(. Anyway - delete/userfy. Mart inp23 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was actually having a hard time keeping myself from rolling over in laughter when I saw the template... I thought I would make the nomination a ridiculously serious one in return... :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Surely everyone got the joke which is this template? --Gwern (contribs) 16:52 19 April 2007 (GMT)
Delete and move to GJAODN. :) But man, I really want to see this used, even if just once. Mango juice^talk 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete those commenting Delete and keep the template. That's about as serious a comment as the template itself... ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I'm disappointed about the Radiant!'s momently lapse of judgement, it seems clear from this discussion that other editors, not being aware of the context, have not understood the intention of the template. Whilst it may be funny, such creations serve no useful purpose and have the potential to cause confusion as has been demonstrated. Adambro 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep: as it turns out, this is satire. Why not have it remain good satire by keeping it in the template namespace? It's not like article space, wherein everything must be encyclopedic. If needed, mark it with {{humor}}, for those that (God grant me civility)... eh, nevermind. Plus, if someone delivers this template earnestly, {{templater}} can always be used back :) Gracenotes^T § 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete and BJAODN Though we might need this for our Rouge (sp?) Admins... Charon X/talk 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep with humor tag or BJAODN. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete/BJAODN - In general, warning templates should not be posted to the talk pages of experienced users - a personal message should be used. --BigDT (416) 03:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete and BJAODN Cheer up, Sjakkalle. I agree that the template is functionally useless, but it's okay to laugh at ourselves. YechielMan 06:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply to Martinp... Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User reagan fan

The result of the debate was userfy. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Textbook polemic userbox, either userfy or delete--VectorPotential^Talk 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Userfy Per WP:UBM. I'd be willing to adopt it in my archive, if needed. Charon X/talk 22:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Userfy per WP:UBM. Can't say I cared much for the man's movies myself, but if someone else did, it's no skin off my nose. Certainly doesn't need to be in template-space, though. Xtifr _tälk 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Userfy Like Xtifr says, whatever it need be, it isn't a template. Jmlk17 07:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy userfy, a clear case of what WP:UBM is designed for. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy userfy. Wikipedia:Userbox migration states that all POV, interest, etc. boxes should be part of the userspace. -Mschel 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mergetoform

The result of the debate was Keep ~ AGK 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Unnecessary, redundant with existing merge templates, and created for pushing one's opinion in a particular dispute. The suggestion that a page should be renamed to be merged, or should be merged to be renamed, is an unnecessary legalistic combination, i.e. m:instruction creep. >Radiant< 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Perfectly logical template particularly in view of the WP:ATT situation where this type of tag would have been extremely useful as the idea of merging pages like Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (to tag those pages) was under consideration prior to the necessity of the poll about the issue. (→Netscott) 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ATT was deliberately done in a different way to avoid confusion. So no, this would not have been useful. It's cute how you presuppose that the ATT poll was a necessity, considering it did not in fact resolve anything. >Radiant< 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing a poll "resolves" is what a given state of consensus on an issue is... the Wikipedia:Attribution poll did that extremely well by demonstrating that the state of consensus on the merging idea was that there wasn't one. (→Netscott) 11:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly. As Kim said, "someone asked the entire community, most of whom don't care; and now they feel compelled to randomly make up an opinion very much on the fly, on a relatively short time scale". >Radiant< 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we differ largely over this (the fact that you voted in the poll is telling however). Alas.. this discussion is now beyond the scope of this TfD. (→Netscott) 11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

About as telling as the fact that you did not. But of course this isn't about ATT at all, where this template wasn't used; this is about you creating it for pushing your opinion in another dispute, namely that renaming a page should be a contingency or rider for merging a page. Such contingencies are m:instruction creep. >Radiant< 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal to inform editors coming to that page of discussions about the complete merge idea (which given the current level of support for it looks reasonable enough). But again, this is beyond the scope of this discussion. Oh and I did not vote because I don't particularly feel strongly about the idea either way (I do prefer the "punch" of single distinct policy pages however). (→Netscott) 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't particularly feel strongly about the idea why in the living fuck have you been edit warring about it across multiple wikis for weeks? —Cryptic 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about merging Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into one page called Wikipedia:Attribution. Did you fail to understand that? Also, is there any particular reason for your lack of civility? (→Netscott) 11:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge to {{merge}}. I swear I have seen a template like this in Category:Merge templates, but apparently not. There are way too many already, so I volunteer to merge them into a minimal set of intuitive templates with optional parameters. The intended function of this particular template is definitely a possible case for merging, and it'd be instruction creep to use both {{merge}} on the article and {{move}} on the talk page. Please take the tag dispute back to talk pages. –Pomte 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems that in certain situations, this could easily be a good way to solve any smoldering arguments, as well as cut down on garbage articles. If necessary, two articles can easily be merged into one at several different points. Just surf around the site for awhile, and you'll soon be able to find this template useful at some point. Jmlk17 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep it seems useful enough. 70.55.85.67 07:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon specific deletion templates

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These are (thankfully) not used and wholly redundant wit the generic {{nsd}}, {{nrd}} etc. There is no good reason to further complicate an already backlogged process by introducing Wikiproject specific forks of all sorts of deletion templates with accompanying categories. It doesn't matter if it's a picture of a Pokemon or not, all images without source or fair use rationales are treated equaly and should be listed in one place for easy processing. --Sherool (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete We have general purpose templates for this, no need to have those here too. Charon X/talk 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No need to tag Pokemon images any differently from others, only complicates the issue. Adambro 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Question How does it make any difference? I mean, aren't subcategories for easy finding? I'll vote, but first I want answer. TheBlazikenMaster 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Subcategories are for making related content easier to find yes. However in this case there is no need to find related content. All we need to know is if the image is missing source or not (and when it was "tagged"), what is depicted on the image is irrelevant. The deletion process is fairly backlogged already. One extra category might not be a big deal, but what if other projects followed suit. Imagine if admins didn't just have to process everyting in "images with no source as of XXX", but also had to go though a dozen categories like "images of pokemon with no source", "images of dogs with no source", "images of cars with no source", "images of fish with no source" and so on. It would just make the system even more complex and tedious to administrate for no real benefit. Besides there is no guarantee that people would apply the "right" tag in the first place. --Sherool (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Alright, thanks for the useful info. My vote is Delete per Sherool. TheBlazikenMaster 14:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  - While it doesn't seem important to me whether these get deleted, I would like to comment that the templates as they stand should put the images in the previously-extant categories in addition to the Pokémon-specific ones. – mcy1008 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete No need for useless templates now is there? Jmlk17 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Useless and sad. Jay MacDonald 11:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wow, who knew this was going on? - cohesion 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WTF is this? —ptk✰fgs 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Obviously. Resolute 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Banknotes.com-image

The result of the debate was delete // Pilot guy radar contact 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the copyright disclaimer of the website, we do not have permission to us his images at all. The terms he gave is pretty much "No Rights Reserved." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep The copyright disclaimer claims rights that the site owner does not in fact have, at least not under US law. Scans of 2_D objects such as banknotes do not create a copyright for the scanner, adn any copyright in the underlying note itself does not belong to this site. DES ^(talk) 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep This page says "The images in this online gallery may be downloaded for reuse by the news media, or for educational or scientific purposes.". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment IANAL, but the site's terms of use is wholly irrelevant. Fair use rights can not be removed by a copyright statement. The question is do they have a copyright? I'd say no, they even say so themselves: "(...)Actual copyright of all the banknotes on Banknotes.com belongs to their issuing banks, authorities and/or authors and/or designers of the banknotes and their designs."[4]. So why are we crediting the site owner as the author of these images? We might credit him with digitizing the images as a courtesy, but the issuing bank would be the actual "author" in most cases. If on the other hand we do accept that they have a valid copyright claim then regardles of theyr terms of use we have to delete this tag ASAP, Seeing as they make a living out of selling prints of the images using those images where would directly impact the economic value of those images, and thus violate the actual US fair use law (not merely the Wikipedia policy). Furthermore the images would be replacable per Wikipedia policy since presumably any scans we make outselves would then be copyrighted by us. But as I said I don't think the scanner of such images have any rights to them... --Sherool (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is not a valid image copyright tag; further research is required on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not particular digital reproductions are free. This may be valid image source tag, but it should definitely be deprecated and, in this case, I say it should be deleted. --Iamunknown 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Pretty much, we have a lot of copyright tags on Wikipedia, and me and others are going through them all to figure out which is a legit license or not. I know we have a tag for currency, which is embeded into this template. The problem I had is while the image tag says X, the copyright information on the page that I have found, it says Y. Even at the bottom of all of his pages, it says "all rights reserved." I have no problem with the going through of each currency image and figuring out what we can keep or not, but I just do not feel easy having a template license that is very shaky being used to tag our images appropriately. That is why I brought the template here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The template confuses two wholly separate issues. The website in question does not own any of the copyrights on the bank note images that he is hosting; rather, the respective countries that designed them do. So I really see no point in this template whatsoever. We need to figure out the legal issues behind the currency themselves, and whether we can use them freely or whether we must claim fair use. Either way, this template is irrelevant and merely serves to confuse the issue. If his images are somehow restricted, we should make our own unrestricted scans and make them as freely available as possible. It's not like we have any sort of problem finding people from any given country (see the other Wikipedias). --Cyde Weys 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- this is a template about a second-hand source pretending to be a license or Wikipedia:Non free content special case. This just creates confusion. Jkelly 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete it's just a confusing and inaccurate template, per discussion above. feydey 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete; as per WP:IUP: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel)." Since the banknote scans in question have no creative aspect, they do not generate a new copyright for Banknotes.com, and standard currency templates should be used instead. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete As the discussions above, creates confusion and is unnecessary. Jmlk17 02:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment So two issues

copyright
source

Yes, it is most likely the central bank or the individual artists hold the copyright. So the template in question transcludes {{money}}, which address the issue of fair use. And the rest of the template specifies where the image comes from. I don't see a problem with this template. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the template is merely a duplicate of {{money}}, which not just include {{money}} and then provide the source as an external link? --Iamunknown 06:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason is the power of template - ease to update and tracking. Should the webmaster of banknote.com change his mind one day, we would need to spend less effort to update stuff. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is even if we use an image from the website, the owner doesn't want us to, based on the copyright/terms of use statement he has. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, that is a direct contradiction with a quote I provided very early on. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope; the quote said the images can be used for "educational or scientific purposes." As I been driving into people's heads, those kind of images have disallowed on Wikipedia since May 2005. Partially, this is done by the site itself since it is selling the scans they do for people; which is used directly to fund the website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:DreadEmpiresFall

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A license template for one particular book cover. Orphaned, and never needed in the first place. Jkelly 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I don't understand why a template would be useful in this situation, surely there would only ever be one image that would use it anyway. Adambro 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Iamunknown 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)