The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also including-

• Category:Presumed GFDL images
• Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006
• Template:GFDL presumed warning
• Template:GFDL presumed warning 2
• Template:GFDL-presumed-vio

Outmoded and unused template. While certainly well-intentioned, this license goes against current practices. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I should clarify that this tag was widely-used until 2006, but the images have been sorted out. Some were retagged, some were deleted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Also keep in mind that any visit to the deleted template will show a link to this discussion (for those concerned about history), and even disallowing the tag didn't stop new uploaders from using it. For this, and other reasons, I would heavily support delete over "mark as historical".▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Woh, uploading an image to Wikipedia does not automatically make it GFDL. We have a few choices for licenses when it comes to images. If someone does not give a license we ask them for one and if we don't get it we delete the image, we don't assume that the user picked on of the several available licenses. It is good that this template's category is empty. Chillum 18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Chillum said, this template pretty much goes against our current practices. At this point everything listed above is phased out and is no longer needed. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoo-ray! Let me tell you a little story. I created this template and category way back in 2005; that's forty years ago in internet-time. Back then, there was a notice on the upload page that stated that by uploading an image you created, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. Many user-created images were uploaded before there were license tags. (Sources weren't required either -- ah, such an innocent time!) I was part of the team that went through all of these old images, asking the uploaders for details and applying the first tags. When the uploader was missing, but we thought the image was self-created, we tagged it with this. At one point there were thousands of images so tagged.

Of course times change. In a few years, many of the original license tags -- such as ((PD)), ((Fair use)), and this one -- were deprecated. Those images had to be gone through again to figure out what to do with them. It's been a lot of work, but we've finally cleared this one out. It's had a good run, but it's time for it to go to that great wiki in the sky. Bye old friend. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and great work to those that did the work to resolve the images - I had done some work on the category a while back -- leaving message on talk pages of users and also projects.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep useful as an archived example of "it's been done and it's not a good idea".Geni 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the template. It is a good idea that this template becomes a redlink. Do not delete the template talk page (Template talk:GFDL-presumed), but keep it for our records. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geni. Definitely do not permit any current use, but should be kept for the historical record. Franamax (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for the nominators : This shall be on TfD. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It could be there, but on WP these templates are representative of a policy, and what with the categories, I put it here. Also, TfD isn't transcludable, in case anyone wants to do that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I dont know it. Thanks. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move the categories to WP:CFD and the templates to WP:TFD; this isn't really the appropriate venue. If consensus is already to remove them as deprecated, then they will face the same fate there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2009

  Why should these pages all representative of a single deprecated license/policy have separate discussions? What is the benefit of that? Further, what would be the benefit of moving the discussions at this point? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the Ninja. The templates are useless without the categories, and vice versa. They should all be discussed together, and this is the best venue for that. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I went ahead and transcluded it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25 anyway, mainly because transcluding things is fun, and I'll use any excuse to type the word transclude. If anyone wants to transclude it at CfD, feel free to transclude it, but that seems a bit overkill. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Transcluder. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need to hang on to it. Merely making a basic copy through "subst" for historical purposes would be sufficient. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the template (Template:GFDL-presumed). Although not used on any image pages any more, there are still hundreds of talk pages that reference this template. For understanding the history we need to keep something on the template to explain what it meant and why not to use it. I would suggest however that if it is transcluded that a suitable ugly warning appears. delete the categories, as they should be useless and unused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main template for historical reasons, with a warning as Graeme suggests. Delete the other templates and the categories. -- Avenue (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categories, redirect and protect template to custom speedy deletion tag using F3 as its rationale. Deprecated practice, no longer acceptable. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Since this was transcluded at CFD for seven days and there was consensus to delete at least the categories, I have done so. I'll leave someone who is well-versed at MFD's to close this discussion. --Kbdank71 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.