Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Freepedia

Template:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Contents 1 Stub templates for deletion 2 Listings 2.1 October 29 2.1.1 Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline 2.1.2 Template:PD-ABN 2.2 October 28 2.2.1 Template: User_cel 2.2.2 Template:Limited Use-person 2.2.3 Template:Twoversions 2.2.4 Template:DisputeCheck 2.2.5 Template:Cleanup-nonsense 2.3 October 27 2.3.1 Template: BoFII 2.3.2 Template:Limited Use 2.3.3 Template:Vote and all derivatives 2.3.4 Template: New York State Highways 2.4 October 26 2.4.1 Template:User crs-4 2.4.2 Template:Pokeimage 2.4.3 Template:DisneyLogo 2.4.4 Template:NET line 2.4.5 Template:Midland Metro line 2.4.6 Template:User 0 2.4.7 Template: User sgn-4 2.5 October 24 2.5.1 Template:Law-and-order-image 2.5.2 Template:Eurocoins 2.6 October 23 2.6.1 Template:MobilePhoneNetworks 2.6.2 Template:Afdm 2.6.3 Template:GoogleCRAWL 2.6.4 Template: Playstation Portable 2.6.5 Template: Felonious 2.6.6 Template:Infobox Town noE, Template:Infobox Town noCM, and Template:Infobox Town noC 2.6.7 Template:Infobox Country2 2.6.8 Template:Infobox formerband 2.6.9 Template:USactpresidents 2.7 October 22 2.7.1 Template:XGSC image 2.7.2 Template:Politician 3 Holding cell 3.1 To orphan 3.2 To convert to category 3.3 Ready to delete

Stub templates for deletion

Main article: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Listings

Adding a listing

• Please put new listings under today's date (July 25) at the top of the section.
• When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

October 29

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

A somewhat confusing template used for putting Wikipedia pages in a subcat of Category:Wikipedia guidelines. It is, however, redundant since afaik most of those categories already have different templates that are better worded. Radiant_>|< 00:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no, "most of those categories" have not different templates; the only guideline subcategory that has its own template are style guidelines. All other subcategories of the guidelines category are served only by this template, that can be used for these four subcategory types. See Template talk:Wikipedia subcat guideline and see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Policies_and_guidelines --Francis Schonken 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Francis Schonken 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-ABN

Delete for several reasons, first of all it is incorect, images from that source is not PD, they can be used freely provided atribution is given, but they are not public domain. Secondly it's only used on one image, and finaly it's bascaly a duplicate of Template:ABr, wich corectly states that the images are copyrighted, but can be used as long as credit is given. I recomend it's one image be re-tagged {{ABr}} after this is deleted. --Sherool 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

October 28

Template: User_cel

Delete, please: The creation of this template was the result of a mistake of mine; apparently I'm supposed to be the one to tell everyone this? Adso de Fimnu 20:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted. --cesarb 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Limited Use-person

Nominated for sake of consistency with consideration of Template:Limited_Use below, for the same reasons. --Tabor 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly delete. I reproduce my comment from below for consistency. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. Everything we do here ourselves we give away freely; if your work is not compatible with that, you need not contribute it. I note that compared to the template below, the word "encyclopedic" has been omitted, which is interesting, but makes no difference to the GFDL status. -Splash^talk 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Twoversions

This template was deleted by User:David Gerard and then undeleted by User:DESiegel. I agree with David (Gerard), who stated [1] that this template is "...a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View." Carbonite | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Which David do you agree with? :) My undeltion does not seem to ahve been successful, at least I still can't see the earlier versions. I undeleted because this was delted with no process or consensus at all, and because the last TfD on this had a keep result. I agree that encouraging edit wars and PoV disputes is a bad idea. Abstain pending furhter debate on the merits of this template. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete, per Carbonite and David Gerard. Further existence of this template is poisonous to Wikipedia and immediate deletion is called for. Process is good for general cases, but isn't required when something this contrary to our core principles appears. Unfocused 17:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not speedy. Forks are evil, but instead of deleting this template out-of-process we can just fix any situation that it ends up being used in, until it's deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Good idea in principle, but I would like to see how you would fix the situation in all instances of its usage by User:Instantnood. See what is happening in the latest attempt by a well-intention admin to resolve them: User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation.--Huaiwei 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Unfocused. I don't really see the merits of this template, and it has caused more trouble than it was meant to prevent. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A very useful template to halt edit warring, and possibly, bring the parties to discussion. Better guideline is necessary to state clearly which of the two versions should be displayed (e.g. based on what the articles were like before the disputes, in other words, based upon the original intents). Better enforcement is also necessary to avoid individuals like user:Huaiwei who ignored what the template said - " Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done. " - and insisted to have their preferred versions displayed. The template tagged on the article should better be as minimal as possible, and the links to the other version and to the diffs can be provided on the talk page by a sister template. — Instantnood 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Far more often, the template is used inappropriately. For example, you tagged [2] National pastime due to a disagreement about how Hong Kong should be classified. In practice, this is almost always the manner in which this template is used. I've seen almost no evidence of it halting edit wars or helping parties to reach consensus. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you mean I should not have applied the template? In your opinion, what should I do instead to stop the POV pushers like user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat who refused to follow how things were presented prior to their contentious edits? — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, I believe that you shouldn't have applied the template in that instance. That dispute was about one line of text. I honestly have no idea about the POV of you, Huaiwei or STC, but I do know that placing the twoversions template on the article wasn't going to settle any dispute. This template shouldn't even be an option for settling a dispute. We need to work on getting one NPOV article, not two different POV articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Without the template that one line would be reverted back and off, for I had no idea how I could get user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat to get along with the way presented prior to their edits, while discussion was in process. — Instantnood 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Nice try, but dont blame the system for individual faults.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What else can be done? Yes I can understand how frustated you must be feeling now that a Requests for comment and two arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2) hasent managed to solve your problem. Poor individual admins who invest time and energy to try to resolve has faltered one after another, with the latest hanging in the balance with a threat like "I have no comment unless the first steps are done". But I sure hope you are not demanding for this template's existance by saying Carbonite cant give you a solution to your problem. Like I constantly remind, learn to take responsiblity and ownership of the problems you are part of, and quit constantly expecting others to solve them for you.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Those are not two ArbCom cases, the second part was a reopening for the close for the first part was procedurally and technically incorrectly performed. Please also take a look at what the arbitrators have said about user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat: [1] [2]. — Instantnood 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited there is no reason to expect people will follow how things are presented prior to their edits. Nobody owns the text, intent or title of an article and they can and will change. It's a wiki, get over it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Obliterate We have {{POV}} for such things, whereas this template implies that you are looking at The Wrong Version. Chris talk back 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. User:Instantnood's himself has actually proven to be one of the worse abusers of this template, and for him to bring it up for undeletion and then to support its continued existance here demonstrates the extent to which individuals who circumvent the mediation and dispute resolution process can go to archieve their aims. Not a single usage of this template by instantnood has resulted in resolution of any kind, with all of them continuing to remain in their respective pages till this template was deleted. Plenty of these pages resulted in worse edit warring (not just over the version to be displayed as instantnood claims, but much more so over the usage of the template itself), with some even being on page protection just to preserve this template. Even now that the template has been deleted, he continues to add a "legacy" of its existance with "dispute notices" in [3] and [4]. A new revert war now erupts between us over the retention of this notice. As what User:Calton describes in [5], "nice try: it's the twoversions tag in different clothing".--Huaiwei 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some of my usage of this template involved disputes with user:Huaiwei, who insisted to drop the template, and to display his preferred version, i.e. ignored what the template said. To my experience, that made discussion not quite possible, therefore better enforcement is needed to avoid people who ignore what the template said. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As also mentioned here [6], lets get the facts straight via a simple chronological recount of how a typical usage of the template results in when it involves you. First, an edit war erupts. At the end of three reverts and with the page still not showing the version you prefer, you pop in a "twoversions" tag after reverting again to your version. When I proceed to remove this tag by reverting back to my version, you revert it back to your version with the template, saying "the twoversions tag is not meant to endorse any version", and insists I am "flouting its intentions by reverting the displayed version". And again, another round of reverts ensue over whether the template should appear at all or not. All this time, the talkpages remains empty. Obviously at this stage, the template has not worked, and at least it is plain obvious to me, it is also being abused. The same scenario is repeated across subsequent disputes we have, sometimes reaching the attention of admins. And that was when folks like myself told admins that you are abusing the template not to stop edit wars, but to basically justify your version irrespective of how you claim otherwise. Pressurised, you proceeded to display the tag this time on the preferred versions of your opponents, myself incluced, but only in some cases and only after extremely heated exchanges. Some pages ended up with your prefered version, some with mine. Subsequently, you lost your patience (or got a shot of viagra), and suddenly starts reverting them to your version again (and still with the template) when you think no one else is looking. Another round of editwars breaks out over which version is to be displayed (the only edit war you bothered to admit above). And the talkpages? Still starkly empty. Has any disputed pages been resolved? No. Has any of the templates abused by you been successfully removed after a compromise has been found? Zelch. Need I say more about the feasibility of this template, and its potential for abuse? Claiming that the template should stay because it didnt work with individuals like me who "ignore it" is laughable at best.--Huaiwei 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I always display a version according to the original intents of the articles prior to the disagreements, regardless of my or anybody's preference. As for the case of the lists of airports and lists of companies in the PRC, see what user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat had done to enforce their point of view, although they knew it's controversial and they were igniting fire: [7] [8] [9] [10]. — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Your claims are getting old. It has long been proven that you did not use the template in the above manner until you faced mounting pressure, and it is equally clear that you subsequently used the "original version" excuse to legitimise your prefered display versions. I am not too sure how many actually buy your claims, but it certainly did not sound logical to Dmcdevit, for one.--Huaiwei 19:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
          • As mentioned elsewhere, I have never used original intent as an excuse, as reflected by my edits to articles such as list of railways in China (history · watch). — Instantnood 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
            • How is that article supposed to support your claim? "Never" is a very strong word begging for complete referencing to support it.--Huaiwei 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: See also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Now why should I be surprised that STC is the nominator! And now we know who are the ones with foresight and who have been assuming good faith? Both virtues in themselves. :D--Huaiwei 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:Is there any possible way to have a list of articles previous tagged with this template, so that we can know about its usage like the special:whatlinkshere tool? — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I gave you that list, are you pretending not to see it? [11] I sure hope you're not pretending you can't see it, cuz you edited that very edit of mine. [12] SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please kindly check the time stamps 18:34 18:38. I requested here 4 minutes before I saw your list there. — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Super Delete with scrubbing bubbles, for the same reason as Huaiwei. Instantnood, who uses this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia, simply DOES NOT EVER discuss it, he clams up until poked, prodded and provoked. It doesn't stop his edit warring, nor does it bring him to discussion. This template is just an endrun around content forking. Furthermore David Gerard was absolutely right to go rouge and delete. You can't vote on NPOV. The very proposed policy that led to this template to be created originally was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, the templates continued life was a loophole of TfD voting instead of real discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat had been joined force with user:Huaiwei to display their preferred versions and ignores what the template said. See also my comment above. — Instantnood 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Joined forces"? If there is concensus that a user is abusing the system, then obviously there will be similar efforts to mitigate it. I suppose by this comment, you are saying this template should stay because two individuals are "joining forces"?--Huaiwei 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If I were the one who abused it, the two lists would not be protected by user:Thryduulf (from Wikipedia:requests for page protection) in that way. — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • He protected it on the believe that you are using the twotemplate tag in good faith. Are you able to get him to comment here that he reviewed all your edits and does not think you are abusing it?--Huaiwei 19:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not speedy. per Nickptar. --Tabor 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE. I seldom support applications of WP:IAR, but this one by David Gerard was justified. When the original TfD debate was held, this template was relatively new and seemed like a reasonable idea. Since then, its overwhelmingly counterproductive nature has been proven time and again. Rather than being used by an objective third party (who merely wishes to halt edit warring) or by an involved party who adds it to the other party's version, it typically is inserted by an edit warrior who also reverts to his/her version (either simultaneously or immediately prior). He/she then acts as though the template is backed by some sort of authority that renders the first associated version sacrosanct for the time being. And even if this template is used as intended, it actually discourages long-term resolution (by essentially creating a fork, thereby reducing the incentive to gauge consensus and/or discuss possible compromises). It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes. This simply is a terrible template, and it mustn't be allowed to continue harming Wikipedia. —Lifeisunfair 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That's exactly why I suggested to have better guidelines and enforcement to avoid abuse. What we now have at Wikipedia:two versions is obviously not enough. There are many more templates such as {{mergedisputed}}, {{NPOV}}, {{disputed}}, {{bias}}, etc., that also drags readers into editors' disputes. Information on editors' disputes are, however, useful for readers in determining reliability of articles. Many under category:Wikipedia maintenance (e.g. {{not verified}}, {{confusing}}, {{importance}}) may possibly uglify articles. — Instantnood 19:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• After reading the above debate, and recalling my one interaction with this template (during the debate over the spoiler-warnign templates IIRC) I have come to the conclusion that this tempalte is ill-advised. as User:Lifeisunfair says, it sounds like a good idea. if its use could be somehow restricted to uninvolved people sincerly trying to stop edit wars, it might be a good tool in some case. it doesn't sound as if that has been the most common result. Therefore, delete this template, but do not speedy delete it. I still don't see any reason why an out-of-process undiscussed deletion was needed for thsi -- there seems no problem in getting significant numbers of people to agree to delete it at this time. DES ^(talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it makes sense to have a large number of templates for article content disputes so that the right one is available. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Used correctly, it can reduce the damage in sterile edit wars. If someone's abusing it, RFC him, tar and feather him, crush him by elephant, whatever, but that's no reason to delete the template. Plenty of other templates get applied incorrectly too. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously. This template is only used to give extra credence to one side of an edit war, and tell the other side to STFU. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Since I'm not an administrator, I have zero idea what this template's text was. However, based on what's been said here, I assume that it left one version as the main page and placed an alternate version on a sub page. The problem with that approach (if that is what the template does) is that it gives the version on the main page a perceived degree of superiority. If such an approach is going to work at all, it will need to place all alternate versions (while rare, I have seen three-cornered edit wars before) on sub pages and make the main page just a protected stub pointing to them. I'm not certain how feasible such an approach would be, but the concept sounds intriguing. Caerwine 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  Assuming a Monobook skin, you'll find a "history" button atop the page. Chris talk back 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  The template adds a link to the other version from the page's history. Aside from the arguably inappropriate nature of content forking, your suggestion would basically hide articles from the site's readers. That's entirely unacceptable. —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  Unacceptable maybe, but less so than a template whose only use is to legitimise one side of an edit war. No amount of "This is not an endorsement of this version" can change this. If neither side is willing to play nicely, then neither side gets their version shown in main article space. Can you say fairer than that? Chris talk back 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  Both options are unacceptable. I agree with your criticism of the template, but I believe that your alternative is even worse. The concept of removing an article from its correct location might seem like a fair way to treat the editors involved in the dispute, but it's unfair to readers (and patently unprofessional). And of course, it would impede one of the core functions of a wiki: the ability to edit pages. (Which forked version would someone edit? Neither? Both/all? The one that he/she prefers?) —Lifeisunfair 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above? Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons. Chris talk back 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No need for WP:IAR or a speedy here. The previous TfD was ages ago, the only justification I can imagine was that we weren't trusted to make the correct decision this time. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In my experience this template is not used well. - SimonP 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Do Not Speedy. This template is a bad idea (anti-NPOV at its core -- the neutrality principle needs synthesis, not forking, to succeed), and it is almost exclusively used for purposes even worse than the bad idea at its core. Xoloz 03:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Radiant and Aaron Brenneman. The various "disputed" templates are much better, and don't give any legitimacy to edit warring. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:DisputeCheck

This seems to serve the same purpose as Template:Not verified, though there's a wide variance in the alarmingness of the banner. It seems to me that these templates and their associated categories should be merged. -- Beland 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-nonsense

Only one article is using this rather in-your-face template. I suggest merging it into Template:Cleanup-rewrite. -- Beland 04:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is supposed to fill in a specific niche: You come upon an article; you're not familiar with the subject area, so you have no idea whether the article is in need of Template:Cleanup-context (or some other cleanup template) or if the article is just straight nonsense. I'm not surprised the template is not frequently used: its primary function is to be replaced with another template by somebody who knows more about the subject area. (I admit this could be made clearer within the template itself.) Thanks,
  Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, abrasive and needlessly biting (especially since this will hit new users with unusual frequency). Also, the one article it's used on isn't even nonsense! (Although that article does lack context and could probably be deleted on that basis.) Nonsense is defined as "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." How an expert could be expected to help with it, I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Now, no articles are using it *ahem*. Chris talk back 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

October 27

Template: BoFII

Delete: Obsolete navbox. Links together a series of articles that are now merged into List of Breath of Fire II characters. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Limited Use

This is a recently created, and presently unused, image copyright template. In my opinion, this is a close cousin of the banned "with permission" images, as clause 3) requires: "this picture is used only to illustrate an encyclopedic article about the subject, or in which the subject is significantly refered to". In other words it is an attempt to limit image use and reuse to only encyclopedias, which goes against the spirit of free image use. I understand why it was created, but generally believe it is a bad idea. Dragons flight 17:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I created this template specifically for those who wish to contribute images to wikipedia, and proper reusers of wikipedia content, but only for use in a context similar to wikipedia or a wikipedia fork or mirror. This makes the image freely available -- the template quite explicitly allows commercial use, but would not allow the image to be, for example, used in an advertisement with no relevance to its inital context. It would not limit reuse to encyclopedias, as a reuser might use only a single article, or use content from wikipedia to create a sigle-purpose page on a web site that could none the less be considered "encyclopedic". I think this template is well within wikipedia image policy, and it is certianly much more free than fair use and "promotional" images. I also think this template will encourage many content owners to upload and allow us to use many images we might well not otherwise get. The template is curently unused because it is relatively new and has not been popularized, but I suspect it will be used significantly in future. It does have some aspects in common with the now disapproved "with permission" templates, but those were disapproved specifically because their permission did not run to mirrors and other proper reusers, particularly commercial mirrors. The license granted by this template explicitly runs to all such users. Keep this template. DES ^(talk) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am philosophically opposed, as per Wikipedia:Five Pillars and m:Foundation Issues, to crafting licenses that are, in effect, as narrow as can be tolerated by ourselves and our reusers. The object, at least in my mind, is to make information free and available for creative reuse and adaptation, not merely to create an encyclopedia that can be copied for free. It also occurs to me that this license could be read as prohibitting derivative versions, which would make it unwelcome for the same reasons that cc-nd is disallowed. Might we be able to acquire more content by narrowing our licensing conditions? Certainly, but I don't think it is worth narrowing our notion of freedom for the sake of more images. Oh, and I don't agree that confining images to "encyclopedic" contexts is more free that fair use, frankly it strikes me as less so. Dragons flight 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I might add that the related {{Limited Use-person}} was created for pictures of individuals, but is particularly aimed at user-page images, while allowing mirrors that wish to copy user pagess to do so freely. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I should also add that I am open to suggestions for rewording or revising. What i am trying to do with this is strike a balance between the nearly complete openness that comes with a GFDL license, and the much greater restrictions that come with fair use, or the effectively total restriction that comes when a user is simply unwilling to license in any form we support. Soemthing like this might be used for the ESA images (now subject to complex discussions, as I understand matters). It seems to me that an image's creator might well be willing to have it freely reused to illustrate the subject of the image, but not in quite different contexts. and that that limited willingness is somethign that we should, insofar as possible consistant with our basic purporse (to create a freely reusable and accessible encyclopedia) enable and support. I was also reactioning to the depage on the deleted {{user-page image}} (I may have the exact name wrong) which effectively restricted rights to wikipedia uses. That prevented reuse, and was properly deleted, IMO. But aI think that htere can be a line between reasoanble and proper reuse, and unreasonable reuse. For example, i put my picture up on my userpage with a varient of this license. I did so because i think it helps to build the encyclopedia to have images of the contributors aviailable, where they are willing. (And if ther should evenr be an actual article about me -- which i rather doubt -- the image would be appropriate there, also. But there are contexts in which i would not be willing for the image to be used, and I think I ought to be able to have it avaialbe on wikipedia for proper purposes, without giving up the right to prevent such uses. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Because it is unused. It looks like significant policy discussion is needeed to get approval of the license which it represents. (SEWilco 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC))
• Delete: Non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I am a new Wikipedia contributer (follow links on my user page to see my photos and links to the articles I have added them to) who would like to comment from the viewpoint of someone who makes his living as a (paid) content creator. The licenses that W has deemed acceptable virtually guarantee that the images that people are willing to donate to W will be mediocre. I am going through the unpleasant process of trying to find a compromise between several inimical forces that affect the quality of the content that I am willing to donate to W. In my own case my "mistake" (encouraged by several Wikipedians with whom I had early contact) was to upload images of a very high resolution to W. On the one hand there is my desire to help further a project that appeals to the idealist in me. On one of the other hands is the fact that no license W allows images to be licensed which provides the sort of control over the use of the image that content creators expect in any other situation. When I showed the license I am using to my attorney she practically locked me in her office and wouldn't let me out until I had promised to remove the images I had uploaded. When I explained that I didn't think that was possible, she suggested in the strongest terms that I never ever make another contribution of any kind to W. Well, lawyers are lawyers and I pay her to look out for my interests. (If information wants to be free, it hasn't had a chat with my attorney.) The problem with what I had done was supply high-resolution, print-ready content for free and with almost no conditions. If at some point in the future someone should want to license one of my photos (I'm not a professional photographer, but have made a bit of money on the sided from such licensing) they most likely would balk if that photo were already licensed with any of the W licenses. I have tried to reach a compromise by requesting that the images I have uploaded be replaced with duplicates that are of lower resolution. I still probably could not license any of these photos simply because they are on/in W, but it seemed to me an acceptable way to provide W with a good quality image (still in a higher resolution than most in use here) and at least make some effort to hold out the possibility that I might be able to sell the rights to the image by providing a high-resolution version to a client. I have been seeing all of your eyes rolling for some time know. With a few notable exceptions, the basic attitude here is "Ha ha--you screwed yourself. Too bad." Well, too bad for W as well. Since photography is only a sideline of mine, I don't feel too bad about essentially destroying the commercial value of some of my images. I suppose that the warm and fuzzy feeling I get by donating my work is supposed to make me feel OK about that. Call me selfish, but it doesn't. At least, not quite. I am holding up my impulse to contribute to W to scrutiny. If I decide that it is not worth it to me to continue to contribute, I will stop, as now seems likely. The thing that would make me enthusiastic about contributing would be a licensing scheme that would allow me to have enough control over the use of my images so I don't feel like I have turned them over to a group of people who don't understand how creative people make their living, and could care less. That's the feeling I have now. I do think you need something that would let producers of high quality work feel comfortable about putting it on W. You don't have that now. And I suspect that's why so many of the photos currently on W are so mediocre. They may be produced by people for whom photography is a hobby and who perhaps just get a thrill from seeing something they made on the web. Or they are the cast-offs of more talented artists who realise there will be no market for them and who have saved their best shots for comercial purposes. I don't really know, and I don't have the solution. But I hope I have made my case that you have a problem. The proposed license may be part of the solution. JShook | Talk 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • JShook, I recognize your dilemma, but please consider that this is the entire purpose of Wikipedia, to have a encyclopedia of free content, including images. For more on the background of this movement, please read about Free software, Free content, and the GNU Project. It is your right to decide how your copyrighted material is licensed. If you do not agree with the GFDL or other free-use licences (some of the Creative Commons for example), then please don't make those contributions here. If you no longer wish to have your images included in Wikipedia, feel free to list them for deletion. Wikipedia is not obligated to remove them since you have licensed your images under the GFDL or similar license, but the author's wishes are generally honored. Be aware that while your image was on Wikipedia under the GFDL license, others may already be using your image in compliance with the GFDL outside Wikipedia. Finally, I dispute the fact that high-quality images will not be uploaded to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Featured images. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• There are certainly some fine images at the URL you provide. I didn't look at all of them, but of the ones I checked they were all usable at screen resolution only. It would not be possible to use them for print unless you are satisfied with images 2 inches across or so. So by uploading low-resolution images, the contributors have effectively limited their use to Wikipedia and any screen-resolution derivatives. The resolution of the images acts as a de facto license prohibiting their use in print. This is the compromise I am trying to implement with the images I have already uploaded--switching out the high-resolution images with screen resolution versions (which are still of higher resolution than many I saw at the Wikipedia:Featured images page.) JShook | Talk 16:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• JShook has made some valid points, some of which I am preocuppied myself. I don't mind donating any picture I've taken to Wikipedia, but the licensing is too open, and I'm very uncomfortable with that, which made me stay away from the "Upload file" link for the most part. Keep pending further discussion of the issue. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed, why would any original creator of work contribute to Wikipedia? I don't see any reason at the moment. None of this discussion has convinced me that it is a good thing for anyone to do. JShook | Talk 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly delete. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. -Splash^talk 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't allow images with usages restricted in this manner, except for fair use images. It's really as simple as that. If you find Wikipedia too open for your work, then don't donate it. There is a reason it is a "free" encyclopedia.--Fastfission 02:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as this flatly contradicts the spirit underwhich Wikipedia operates, and the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Either contribute to Wikipedia under the GFDL, or don't contribute at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an attempt to change legal status of Wikipedia contributions by creating a template. Jkelly 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and allow recreation if Foundation approves of this sort of use-with-permission. --Tabor 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Vote and all derivatives

(Includes at least Template:Voteapprove/Template:Votesupport/Template:Voteyes (a speedy candidate), Template:Votemove, Template:Votereverse, Template:Votedelete, Template:Voteneutral, Template:Voteoppose/Template:Voteno (another speedy candidate), and Template:Votecomment.)

A terrible idea that just keeps on getting terribler. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose for these templates' ancestor. Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a powerpoint presentation, and the templates are an unnecessary server drain. Note also that voting-on-afd-via-template has been discussed and thoroughly rejected before (see Wikipedia talk:Survey guidelines#Voting via templates). —Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• ‹The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.›
  Image:Fairytale trashcan full blue.pngDelete: It doesn't seem to be used much. (SEWilco 03:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC))
• lol... Delete. The images take time to load and are unnecessary. There could be a template for the delete part but why bother? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

‹The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.›

Image:Symbol comment vote.svgComment: Discouragement of vote creep, such as Reverse alternate merge except feminine conjunctions. Covered in previous discussions as well as Template talk:Vote. (SEWilco 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

• ‹The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.›
  Image:Fairytale trashcan full blue.pngDelete - nice thought SEWilco. ∴ here…♠ 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. This is not what we have templates for. Especially the {{votedelete}}-template should go, since the deletion debates are supposed to be more about discussion and less about voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• While the images are a welcome break from the endless digital ink, they're a strain. Delete or subst if anyone wants to keep them in their user space. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all harmless. Better delete all these elementary schools off Wikipedia ;).  Grue  06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all As above. Simply ridiculous to delete them as it's just making it harder from people to use them. If someone wanted to use it they would just make a sub page on their userpage and therefore the strain on the server would be the same. It's not solving any problems, just needlessly hassling people and constricting their voting freedom. --Fir0002 07:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. It's not about the votes, and how on earth would this constrict anyone's voting freedom, anyway? So somebody has to actually think for a couple of seconds and type in the actual words they want to say, rather than fall back on a pre-programmed response? Good! These templates cause yet more server load, encourage mass voting by rote, and reduce what are supposed to be discussions to mere multiple choice polls. Ugh. Utter and total delete. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, and speedy delete {{Voteapprove}} as a recreation of {{support}} (which, amazingly enough, has also been recreated and should also be speedy deleted!). BlankVerse ∅ 10:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• For the same reasons as discussed at length before, delete. Uncle G 11:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there are people willing to use it, then it's ok to allow them to. Also, the example of Template:Support used in the commons shows that templates do not discourage discussion. If people are allowed to use custom signatures, then why not custom voting tags? Halibutt 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • People may be allowed to use templates in signatures, but it is very strongly discouraged: so strongly that some people point it out in a negative light on RfA. -Splash^talk 12:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet this is but your oppinion and not a wikipedia rule, is it. Halibutt
• Nibble to bits by a million rabid meekats. Or just delete, as you see fit. Haven't we deleted this one a few times already? - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ‹The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.›
    Image:Symbol comment vote.svgComment: You don't prefer the established Image:Le Toru Du MOnde.jpgCrush by elephant!? (SEWilco 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC))
• Delete all. A totally unnecessary innovation. -- ChrisO 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete again. Particularly on the frequently-viewed and frequently-edited pages on which these templates are likely to appear, they are a waste of space and bandwidth. Take pity on our users without broadband. Oh, and stop recreating validly deleted templates. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy-delete all as re-creation of a bad idea. --Carnildo 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not speedy-worthy IMO, but the exact same argument holds here as it did for other deleted templates. -Sean Curtin 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all.--Pamri • Talk 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all for the same reasons stated on the TFD for Template:Support. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikipedia expects that every editor will do his duty to keep the site from turning into Livejournal. Rhobite 00:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete thoroughly. — Dan | Talk 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. - SimonP 03:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template: New York State Highways

Delete: This template is way too big, is a red link farm, and is unnecessary because of List of New York state highways I point to the deletion of the Virginia state highways template as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: There are ways and means of making it smaller. Smaller type, utilising the full width of the page instead of a fixed number of compartments, etc. Chris talk back 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Massive collection of redlinks that are meaningless numbers for almost everybody. BlankVerse ∅ 10:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a list would be far more useful. - SimonP 20:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a template should not dominate a page the way this one does. A link to the list would be more useful. David D. (Talk) 05:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

October 26

Template:User crs-4

• Delete. There is currently no meanigful definition of either cockney or cockney rhyming slang. It isn't a language, and there is no meaningful definition of how well anybody can speak it. Paul Tracy_|\talk 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or failing that, userfy. Not all jokes need deleting, especially if they're on user pages. J.K. 23:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Blimey, would you Adam it? Get this out of our boat. (i.e. subst and delete) Chris talk back 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if I'm allowed a vote as the original creator... Yes it is a joke, only intended for userpages, but if it is deleted, you can still always put the source code (ie not as a template) directly on your homepage...! Codex Sinaiticus 23:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and what about all the other joke templates on user pages, like Pig Latin, etc. etc. etc.?? Codex Sinaiticus 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, have another look, I have now updated it slightly...Codex Sinaiticus 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Having a joke template like this in principle is okay, cf. {{Chowdah}}. But, like {{Chowdah}}, it shouldn't be given a name that implies "crs" is a standard ISO 639 code, and it shouldn't have categories associated with it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but isn't the whole point of the joke templates to effectively mimic the real ones so as to surprise and delight readers who take a closer look and see that something's not quite right? When the left box of the template is so long, it is too immediately and blatantly clear that the thing's a weird template, the result being that the humorous surprise impact is enormously minimized. Is there any way to make it look like any normal language template while lessening the possibility that anyone will mistake it for a real code (though with templates as outrageous as this, I doubt that's a big problem; only subtler joke templates will need to account much for that)?

Likewise, a lot of the point of Babel templates, even joke Babel templates, is surely to find other people who share the same interests or backgrounds through categories. And remember that we do have categories for many absurd "languages": Category:User 1337 is quite a huge one. What about the possibility of putting it, and all other pseudolanguages, into a "joke languages" (or similarly named) category, so that (1) they don't clutter up the real language category, (2) it's easier to tell the real ones apart from the fake ones when the joke is subtle, and (3) we can make categories for even the fake languages (that are popular enough to merit it), again, without the clutter. -Silence 07:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. BlankVerse ∅ 10:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pokeimage

• Delete: redundant with {{film-screenshot}} or {{promotional}}. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In heavy use, has a useful category link, many of the images aren't promotional but (fair use) images scanned from manuals, or other non-promotional images being used in an appropriate way. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In the interest of disclosure, I've mentioned this TFD nom on the two relevant WikiProjects. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? I didn't see any notices on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use (-: Weak delete, it is one that we have rewritten so it would be a bit of a waste of work but it is kind of vague; I think it would be better to classify the images more specifically as {{game-screenshot}} or {{comicpanel}} or {{promotional}} or whatever, to make it easier to monitor fair use claims. JYolkowski // talk 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • D'oh. Well, for what it's worth, I didn't even KNOW of that Wikiproject. Seems like it'd be a good place to mention it, though; do you want to, or shall I? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I already did. JYolkowski // talk 02:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If the licensing issues are not all the same (multiple source material types), that would indicate to me that this template is not specific enough. Also, the useful category can be kept without a template. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with A Man In Black. Tempshill 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - certainly useful. --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's a bit redundant but the sheer number of such images makes it a useful form of subcategorization. My guess is that for 90% of the images, the licensing will be the same. --Fastfission 03:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per A Man in Black. -WindFish 09:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Fastfission. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:DisneyLogo

• Delete: redundant with {{logo}}. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: in agreeance with the conclusion of ChrisRuvolo -- an exact duplicate. Quadra23 18:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The reason why I created "Disney Logo" is becasue it took over 200 logos off the over burdened Logo template. LordBleen 03:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Not an exact duplicate and the Cat:Disney logos seems like a good idea. (SEWilco 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

  Comment: Perhaps an optional Type parameter should be added to {{logo}}. (SEWilco 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

  The category can be used without the template. Also has many tenuously-related logos, like the numerous ABC channels. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is strictly for subcategorization purposes, as LordBleen has noted. It keeps these images with identical licensing status (if they are correctly tagged) out of our way and out of the Logos category (which is attached to the normal logo template). --Fastfission 03:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:NET line

Delete: obsoleted by Template:Tram line. Our Phellap 13:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied under CSD G7. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Midland Metro line

Delete: obsoleted by Template:Tram line. Our Phellap 13:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied under CSD G7. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:User 0

Delete: Used on a whopping one user page, to represent a nonsense concept which is not the same as having two native languages (which is happily catered for by using two of the -N templates). Chris talk back 02:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd probably vote to keep it if it said "This user cannot speak any languages." -Silence 04:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In which case its very existence wouldn't make any sense... -Nameneko 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless of course said user was dumb. More particularly if they are also deaf. Chris talk back 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: the use of multiple -N templates is allowed. That, and you aren't required to use an -N template if you don't fit in the category. -Nameneko 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no point in this being in the main template space. If a user wants to have it in his user page, he can always subst it. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it's not a nonsense concept. There are people who are not clearly native speakers of any language: two friends of mine for example speak many languages fluently but none natively. That being said, it is true that if you don't have native command of any language you can just use xx-3 and xx-4 templates of the languages you do speak, and allow the absence of an xx-N template to speak for itself. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  So they didn't have any ability in any language as children? "Native" refers to status rather than ability. While some people around my city clearly have difficult with reading and writing English, it is still their native language, regardless of the fact that they're not particularly good at its grammar. Chris talk back 13:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Woo! Didn't manage to destroy the entire page this time. 13:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  Well, to be pedantic, my very good mate is not a native speaker of any language. Both of his parents are profoundly deaf, so his first language is Auslan, despite having working ears. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, of course they had language ability as children but after years of not using that language they lost native speaker competence. Some people in your city may not have a firm grasp of standard English, but that doesn't mean they're not native speakers of the local nonstandard variety of English, and I'm sure they're flawless users of its grammar. Literacy has nothing to do with it, since written language isn't language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm confused. You open as if you're about to counter my argument, and then reinforce it ... Chris talk back 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. If a person does not have a true native language, just use the 1/2/3/4 levels as to the appropriate language(s). --Nlu 12:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as templatecruft. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you truly grew up in a language-free environment, then use use -4 through -0 as needed, and leave the native blank. If you learned sign language natively and are upset you're not a native speaker, just use the sign language template as your native "tongue" and carry on, my wayward son. Lord Bob 04:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless, -[0-4] templates are more apt. Creates some ambiguity in that perhaps this user does not know any language(or speaks no language). Unsigned comment by User:Gxti at 00:03, 29 October 2005 UTC

Template: User sgn-4

delete: created by mistake and quickly blanked, this template is not used anywhere, is not helpful, contains several errors which could be frustrating to users unfamiliar with wiki code and is not needed. See discussion here and here. I prefer not to have this template at all but will not object to keeping it if other users feel strongly about the need for it and correct the errors. If not then it should be deleted until someone makes a working template! ntennis 01:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Main problems now rectified. I retract my vote. ntennis 00:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep, I see no reason to delete. Other languages have level xx-0 through xx-4 as well as xx-N, why should sign languages be any different? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Per Angr, and also I just added a description of it at TEmplate:User sgn. --Nlu 12:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's been fixed now. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

October 24

Template:Law-and-order-image

Redundant with {{film-screenshot}}. Delete. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, there's no reason that Law & Order images cannot be covered by the general-case film-screenshot. — EagleOne\^Talk 16:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the template is not an image copyright template (it says that the images may or may not be suitable) and so serves no real use. JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it were an image copyright template, it's overly specific. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's more efficient to just type Category:Law & Order images than to clutter each one up with a big box that doesn't say anything important. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not fare Pokémon has one (see {{pokeimage}}) Plus see {{DisneyLogo}} for Disney logos --Roadrunner3000 01:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pointers. I'll list these for deletion as well. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have re-overhauled my template to make it look like a legal copyright tag. --Roadrunner3000 01:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Way too vague, and encourages spurious "fair use" claims. No change in vote. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Adding strikethrough. Each person gets to vote once. Feel free to comment though. If you want to change your vote, strikethrough your previous vote. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Eurocoins

Redundant