< April 30	May 2 >

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not linked anywhere and I do not see the usefullness of it so it should be speedily deleted — Jorfer 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, the project it links to was just re-activated today after a long hiatus. This meets no speedy deletion criteria. Nardman1 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. By the way, a lack of links is not immediate grounds for speedy deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per above, but the project should stay more active in the future. Jmlk17 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OurStory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Outside opinion wanted on external links, nominating for deletion as nonencyclopedic/unreliable self-promotional/spam link — DreamGuy 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Consensus was reached that link placement should be considered on a case-by-case basis at talk pages, rendering a mass-use template unnecessary. –Pomte 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 02:44, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nights series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Navigational template for two video games, one of which has not even been released. Not useful. — Pagrashtak 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Pagrashtak. - Cyrus XIII 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a template isn't needed for a decade old video game, and one currently "in production". Jmlk17 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better served by a "See also" header. Caknuck 07:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all the various reason. --Guess Who 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --dannycas 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24 Series Regulars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is totally redundant as there are already several existing templates for past and present characters. —T smitts 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very true, per nomination. Jmlk17 06:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant to ((24)) and ((24characters)). –Pomte 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox South African Alternatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This infobox was created for use in articles that fall within the scope of WikiProject on South African Alternatives, an inactive project that has been nominated for deletion here. It is currently unused, seemingly incomplete, and redundant to Template:South Africa topics. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Template is redundant, unused, and soon to be completely lacking in any chance to be used. Jmlk17 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. –Pomte 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Politician (Alternative) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and unneeded, Template:Infobox Politician does its job.— Philip Stevens 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant duplication. --Dweller 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I created this template because I disliked a certain aspect of infobox politician. That infobox has since been changed in an acceptable way, and I'm ok with deleting this. However, please note the following in dealing with similar situations in the future:

• It is not a duplication and actually differs significantly from infobox politician.
• It was used until the person nominating this for deletion removed it from the page it was being used on.
• Corresponding directly with the creator of a template to determine why it was created and why it may be needed, before nominating it for deletion, seems like the right thing to do.

Harrykirk 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its redundant - • The Giant Puffin • 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to ((Infobox Politician)). —dima/talk/ 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundancy killed the template. Jmlk17 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfied and deleted by creator. I'll still keep it in my page development archive in case I have some use for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) While well-intended, I think this is a bad idea. This template is used to indicate other templates are invalid, by redirecting those templates to this one. I think that instead, we should delete those invalid templates (and indeed we generally do). >Radiant< 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It looks to me that the user who created this recreated the recently deleted ((Db-product)), ((Db-list)), and ((db-hoax)) and made them all redirects to this template. I say Delete all --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - if no one knows that these templates existed, that's less harm than having them existing and confusing people. Gracenotes^T § 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and agreed, delete and salt the invalid reasons templates. Look forward to seeing them at TfD soon. --Dweller 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're talking about ((db-product)), ((db-list)), and ((db-hoax)), those would be deleted via WP:CSD#R1. Gracenotes^T § 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ugh, well-intended, but an obvious issue-creating template. Jmlk17 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 02:42, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Template:AVFC-infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template contains an instance of ((Infobox football club)) pertaining to Aston Villa, currently used in articles Aston Villa F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. statistics. However the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it - not least because it includes a fair use image, inclusion of which should be minimal under Wikipedia rules, and inclusion of FU images in templates is forbidden by policy. This template should only be used in one page and thus it is a waste to have it, not to mention a bad precedent (it could lead to hundreds of similar templates created for other football clubs). Therefore delete and revert to using ((Infobox football club)) in the main Aston Villa F.C. article Qwghlm 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 08:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary infobox. --Dweller 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, having this is wrong in every way. Punkmorten 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Applies, with fair use in each case, to two current pages and a future, planned age splitting of the history of the club. The claim that "the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it" is unsubstantiated. The policy referred to is not cited, but if there is such a policy, a better solution would be to replace the image with a free one. Better still would be to fix the policy to apply to situations like this one. The "precedence" claim is "Slippery slope" and thus false logic. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited and linked to the fair use policy already. The two most relevant parts are:

"8. The material must' contribute significantly to the article."

"9. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates"

No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article (and the burden of proof is on the editor who proposes adding it), nor the history article for that matter, and in any case it should not be included in the template under #9. And I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template.

Quite apart from the fair use reasons, the infobox should not be replicated freely over any page to do with a club; infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects and not every topic to do with them. That's not policy, it's just mere common sense. I'd quite happily admit my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead? Qwghlm 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article" It provides a visual clue to the subject of the article, as it does on the club's main article.

"I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template" - I donlt say that iot should,.

"infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects" all of the pages discussed are directly about Aston Villa.

"my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead?" It has none.

Andy Mabbett 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on Give or take the image it seems a good idea to have an AV-specific template to put on all AV related articles (which has to be updated just the once rather than once per AV-page). If other FC pages follow suit, does it matter? (The fair use image should be used just once, in the crest section of the main article, which looks a bit odd with no crests in sight. Apparently a new crest is imminent anyway.) -- roundhouse 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no objection to a navbox at the bottom of the article, like ((Arsenal F.C.)) or ((Manchester United)). But my main objections are the misuse of a fair use image and the misuse of the ((football club infobox)) at the top of articles that are not about clubs in general. Qwghlm 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that neither use is a misuse, you should be content, then. Andy Mabbett 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As suggested, navigation boxes such as ((Arsenal F.C.)), ((Sheffield United F.C.)), ((Sheffield Wednesday F.C.)) etc are fine. All other F.C. pages have a box like this, but an infobox transcluded onto every page is not ncessary, particularly as these pages do not even exist yet. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, basically a copy of ((Football club infobox)), and therefore surplus to requirements. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"basically a copy of ((Football club infobox))" : No it is not. Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks just that way to me, a glance at the source code will show it it just a transclusion of said infobox. It is superfluous. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a glance at the source code will show it it just a transclusion of said infobox." Poppycock. Where, in the latter, is the AVFC logo? Andy Mabbett 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pigsonthewing, have a look. It begins with ((Infobox Football club |. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name, as I have told you many times, is Andy Mabbett. I don't need to look, having created it, to know that it uses ((Infobox Football club)). That does not make it just a transclusion of that template. Would you like someone to explain the difference? Andy Mabbett 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" these pages do not even exist yet" which pages do not exist yet? Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"to two current pages and a future, planned [p]age splitting of the history of the club" - a quote from you Pigsonthewing. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a quote from you". Indeed. Which pages - your plural - do not exist yet? My name, as you well know, is Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - let's keep templates to template standards and infoboxes to infobox standards. This is neither fish nor foul, and seems to add nothing that can't be done better with standard methods. - fchd 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant to ((Infobox football club)). Oldelpaso 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not "redundant to ((Infobox football club)), it's an aplication of ((Infobox football club)), used on more than one page. Andy Mabbett 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Infobox football club)) can be applied on more than one page too, using the same field values. To my mind, this makes it redundant. Making a template simply to transclude an infobox a couple of times is overkill. Oldelpaso 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very unnecessary; redundancy killed the template my friends. Jmlk17 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merge with the source Template:Infobox Football club. Matthew_hk tc 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you propose to carry out such a merger? Andy Mabbett 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant duplicate of ((Infobox football club)) specified to one club Regan123 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom User:KRBN 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed CAN 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal Press Syndicate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ridiculously bloated template, should use a category instead, see comments proposing deletion on template's talk page. The template also creates a subtle (probably not intentional) spamming effect by splatting an enormous, obtrusive box festooned with names of Universal Press Syndicate products across dozens of articles. 75.62.7.22 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom... and the different topic areas included could easily be split out in any case into more managable templates. --Dweller 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How is this intentional spamming? I can see splitting the template into two, UPS comics and UPS columns, but this template is helpful for fans people to discover new comics, and for Wikipedians to discover comics that need articles. -- Zanimum 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I'd made it clear that I don't consider the spamming effect to be intentional. It's just a side effect of having a template so large that it dwarfs a lot of the articles it's transcluded in, blasting the reader with the names of all those products. Splitting to smaller templates would be an improvement though I'd still prefer using a category. As for helping fans discover new comics, maybe I'm a bit POV on the issue, but I don't think we're here for that. 75.62.7.22 06:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I agree with Zanimum, but template looks like crap right now with all the deadlinks. Jmlk17 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Useful navigation template. I agree that it should be split into ((Universal Press comics)) and ((Universal Press columns)). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've cleaned it up a bunch with ((NavigationBox)) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Splitting it up is still an option, but for now there's nothing really wrong with the template which would call for deletion. —METS501 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The permission must be cleary given, otherwise it's still non-free image (red mark of copyright). The day before yesterday the ((Kremlin.ru)) (which has got permission for free using, but hasn't got permission for derivative works) was deleted exactly in this maner without discussion. Also, for example, CC-BY-ND permits free use without derivative works, but we delete speedy images with it as CSD I3. — Alex Spade 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this template is authorized, I ask for undeletion of ((Kremlin.ru)) for reload of its images from commons to en-wiki. Alex Spade 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are dissatisfied with the deletion of your template, there are other avenues of redress that can be explored. Bringing it up here makes this nomination look like a WP:POINT issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only. Alex Spade 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "can be used for any purpose" is free enough for me. deleting a tag outright isn't the way to resolve copyright questions, it's just going to make things worse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's abou derivative works? Repeat: CC-BY-ND - allowed free use, but not der.works and we delete images with them. This is unfair and inconsequent.Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modify, and possibly rename, into something that says "copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose provided attribution is given to the original creator and/or it is shared under the terms", the two copyroght holder rights we do not find restrictive. Daniel Case 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - something similar is seen on Commons Booksworm Talk to me! 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not similar, let's compare them:

    Commons: derivative work and commercial use must be allowed.

    En-wiki: must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives

  • This is large difference. First template cleary demand of permission for der.works, second is not. The Kremlin.ru not allowed cleary commercial use and der.works, and was deleted from commons - it's all right. But it not include evident restriction - so it can be use at en-wiki. Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The wording of the template should at least be revised to indicate that modification and derivative works must be allowed (otherwise Wikipedia does not consider the image to be free). I mentioned this on the template talk page, but nothing was ever done about it. —Bkell (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • uhm, it has since last june, at least. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what we did was effectively change out the license out from under people? great! --Gmaxwell 05:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, good for miscellaneous type licenses. Nardman1 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This template can be used correctly or incorrectly, just like any other license tag. I see no reason to delete it. Improper use should be handled on a case-by-case basis.Pagrashtak 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I will change the license (condition of using) of not my image, for example from GFDL to PD, who will be I? The bad user. If I will do it more times? The vandal. Somebody changed condition without notification of all authors. Who is he? A good man? A very good man? Alex Spade 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the current and the original, and they have the same text. If you're concerned that someone changed the license, please provide an exact diff. Pagrashtak 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For this template [1], for its "brother" [2] Alex Spade 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've got to be kidding. The first link is the addition of a note that basically says "Please list this image for deletion if it violates Wikipedia policy", and the second is a clarification that preserves the intent, made less than 24 hours after the tag's creation. Pagrashtak 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For second , you are right, I was mistaken. Thanks for comment. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For first. You ask to show, when meaning the license was changed, I have shown. Initially only free use was allowed, after must not include terms had appeared. Compare en-wiki-template with commons-template. As I said early, there is large difference between them. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Pagrashtak above. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This can be misused, but it isn't necessarily. And it would be really annoying to have a bunch of seperate templates for each restriction someone decides to give. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I also support conversion to other templates if it is feasible. For example, this image has a provided that "the photographer is credited" clause, which is fine. But that specific example could easily be converted to a separate template. -- RM 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but notify people first and let them go through the list and salvage anything that can be salvaged. For the case RM mentions, people can use ((attribution)). I'm not aware of any other terms that one may add to restrict usage of his photo other than attribution so there shouldn't be any need for this. This specific template is more prone to abuse as it isn't even a specific license, it's just one each user can make up themselves. Anything using this license should be either own work by the user or have an OTRS permission and can only have attribution as a term. I'm willing to bet that over 50% of the uses of this template are illegitimate in one of the aforementioned ways.

Conclusion: This template simply encourages people to add terms that we consider to be unfree which would in turn cause the pictures to be deleted. If somebody doesn't want to use CC-BY for some reason, they can use ((attribution)) so there's no need to keep this license. Alternatively, I'd be willing to compromise with slowly deprecating this tag (ie. subst'ing all uses of it, adding a category so we can track the images and deleting the template). Yonatan ^talk 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, I've added a note to the template to use Attribution when appropriate. I also speedied an orphan using this tag improperly and listed a few at IFD. I'm sure there are many more, if someone wants to go through them. Pagrashtak 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Good for miscellaneous licensing terms, such as those of Image:Robert altman-photo j–sutton.jpg. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pagrashtak --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What are exactly possibilities of this license tags?

1. Is it nevertheless variant of ((CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat)) (initial version, free use only, see above) or ((Attribution)) (last version, free use and modification)?
2. Why the text of license had been change from FreeUse-variant to Attribution-variant? Many images were loaded before text change, under another conditions, did all authors receive the information about changing of conditions, did all of them they cleary agree with chaging?

I offer two decisions

1. If change is correct and appropriate, we can just redirect it to Template:Attribution, which can used as ((Attribution|User:Login))
2. If change is incorrect, we must revise template text for early edition, and perhaps delete template as subvariant of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, which is discussed above.

Alex Spade 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's already deprecated. Deleting it and replacing it without the consent of the uploaders will just make the license situation even more confused. The text doesn't seem to have undergone any changes in meaning since april 2005, within a day of its creation. Plus, this one doesn't require attribution, so replacing it with attribution would be misleading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure, that every single author know about changing of permission? Alex Spade 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one doesn't require attribution - yes, but ((attribution)) can be placed also without attribution (as (({1))}-parameter) and many images with ((attribution)) haven't got (({1))}-parameter. Alex Spade 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• People falsely declare stuff as gfdl-self all the time. We aren't going to delete that template because of that. Neither would we delete this one because of that. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • of course we aren't going to delete gfdl-self because of that. gfdl-self makes clear which license it is supposed to be, and should gfdl for some reason not be free (which is not the case), then we could go ahead and delete all pictures with it. However, with this template being permitted, we have no way to easily identify the pictures with a certain license. We don't have any space problems, so we should create a single tag for each reason, and not re-use generic tags for various, completely different reasons. --rtc 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for historical purposes, especially because some images are still tagged with it. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand this nomination; this is different from Attribution. What does the nominator propose to do with the images that use this tag? We cannot redirect to Attribution or make any significant revisions to the text. Pagrashtak 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The my main question: is change of license text legitimate? Alex Spade 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The prev.phrase haven't initial significance at this disscussion Alex Spade 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Pagrashtak above, with an extra helping of "huh?" added in. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are fewer than 300 current usages of this template seen through "What Links Here". I don't see how it is being abused, however, substituting it would solve the abuse problem if there was one, as the template can't be used for new images. -- RM 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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