< May 5	May 7 >

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 ~ Anthony 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Template:LostSeason1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:LostSeason2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:LostSeason3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template duplicates episode titles wholesale from List of Lost episodes, thus giving it a redundant nature... not to mention the existence of a category. I unfortunately can see no practical purpose to this template. Matthew 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - they're navigational templates, for easy use skipping through episodes in order, which isn't possible using the category that doesn't differentiate between the three seasons' episodes. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They're templates created to make peoples lives simpler. Don't see any reason to delete a useful navigational template --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They serve a completely different purpose than the list of episodes, they are for navigation and appear on each episode page for easy links to the other episodes of that season. --Minderbinder 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously, they are certainly necessary. --Phoenix (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As their creator, I strongly believe that these templates are undoubtedly useful. I wish every show has them. -- Wikipedical 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as it allows you to navigate between episodes in a season without having to return to the "List of..." page. Number 57 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for navigational efficacy. Skomorokh 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perhaps speedy. These appear to be a standard nav templates, nicely connected. Gimmetrow 04:12, 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 redirect. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC) There is a whole set of templates for displaying linescore for baseball/softball, each of which controls a different number of innings. I have created a template that would supersede any of these templates, and I'm almost done implementing it. Now, just one template is just needed: Template:Linescore, which can be used to define any number of innings from 1 to 20. The following are the templates I propose be deleted:[reply]

• ((Linescore6inn))
• ((Linescore8inn))
• ((Linescore9inn))
• ((Linescore10inn))
• ((Linescore11inn))
• ((Linescore12inn))
• ((Linescore13inn))
• ((Linescore14inn))
• ((Linescore15inn))
• ((Linescore16inn))
• ((Linescore17inn))
• ((Linescore18inn))

_└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  15:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you considered just tagging them deprecated and redirecting users to the new template? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't considered that, but I think it would be just as well if they were deleted. It would just be confusing to leave these lying around. If this fails, that's what I'll do, but I don't think we should leave this "clutter" around if the new template will work better. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Template:Linescore in case someone who used to use them wonders what happened. –Pomte 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well. That works just as fine, anyway. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  11:15, 14 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 No Consensus ~ Anthony 12:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template would be useful in theory, but there are three major problems with it. First, it is not complete; it only lists seasons since 1900, and there are articles on Atlantic hurricane seasons before 1900. Secondly, it is superseded by a category, Category:Atlantic hurricane seasons; and an infobox - Template:Infobox hurricane season, which links the two previous and two next seasons, as well as the main article; and the article itself. Third, it promotes systemic bias, as this template exists only for Atlantic hurricane seasons. As it is unneeded anyway, there is hardly a point in making templates for the other basins. —Coredesat 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The systemic bias argument is easily fixed - make one for each basin. However, that would be more a case of WP:BEANS than anything else. These navigational boxes are unnecessary, for the reasons stated above. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per first two reasons. - SpLoT // 06:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally have used to template, and found it to be quite useful. Perhaps adding the seasons before 1900 would solve the issue somewhat. Jmlk17 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was created yesterday, and it still doesn't solve the problem of it being redundant to Template:Infobox hurricane season, the article, and the category. --Coredesat 08:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. It's a useful navigational tool. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's grossly duplicated, and hence useless. - SpLoT // 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot suggest that someone should go to a category in order to link to individual season pages. That defeats the purpose of templates. The function in your header template you speak about only links to the surrounding 5 or so seasons, which is not helpful. This is what navigational templates are for: to provide a quick way to get from article to article in a topic. See ((Olympic Games)) for a functional example. Perhaps if you do not like it as is, I'm sure you could find a way to make it better suit your project. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what we're asking. Template:Infobox hurricane season does this already. --Coredesat 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, duplication in terms of the category doesn't really seem "gross" to me. --Phoenix (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It's a well organized template and I would say keep if it were used in more articles. But, to the best of my knowledge, it's not in use. Anywhere. If anyone could give me any example of where it could be used without being redundant, I'll change my answer to "Keep". Cyclone1(20:04-6-05-2007)

• It's used on every page that the template links to. And on any page it is useful. Don't you think that links are doubled on any other page too? Certainly, this must be an occurance in the Hurricane wikiproject. Even so, the 1937 season page doesn't link to the 2003 page does it? That is why it's useful! I don't see your reasoning at all, and I hope you're voting out of your own will and not just agreeing with what everyone else at the Hurricane project wants. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, fine; however, if this is kept, templates for the other basins must be created. I suppose I will have to do that if that happens. --Coredesat 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is incomplete, creates the bias, and is a bit awkward in its presentation. If someone tried to go from the 1937 to the 2003 season spontaneously, there are multiple ways to get there, such as through the List of Atlantic hurricanes page. As an analogy, one wouldn't expect to find a link from episode 22 to episode 315 of the Simpsons. It becomes excessive, and going through one extra link isn't that much of a hassle. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Debaters should be aware that there are over 150 Atlantic seasonal articles on Wikipedia, unlike examples of other templates with over 50 articles. This would look, in my opinion, rather impractical and bombastic. - SpLoT // 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On the contrary, this template contains the links to a large amount of pages in one convenient, tidy location, and is well organized to allow quick access to any of the pages. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per first reason. Too many hurricane seasons to include to make it worthy. The infobox already lists adjacent seasons and a link to the complete season list. CrazyC83 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is great to be able to easily browse, without having to click back to the category each time. --Cngodles 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As said above by Cngodles and Jared, it is a hassle to go back to the category every time - the box makes it easy for one to quickly navigate to the most frequently visited hurricane season pages - a similar template could be made to provide navigation to the pre-1900 pages. I thought 1900 was a good boundary - since it was the year of the Galveston Hurricane, and much more research and analysis of hurricanes began after that year. Weatherman90 00:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For comparison purposes, you might like to see these templates from the Dutch Wikipedia: Pacific Hurricanes Pacific typhoons, and (especially) Atlantic hurricanes which basically do the same thing this one is intended to do, although this one here has more aesthetically pleasing spacing. These ones are used in many Dutch season articles, basically what is intended for this one. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:45, 10 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 ~ Anthony 12:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

this template along with its redirects violates our WP:NONFREE image policy, users wiki-link to images from the mainspace but don't actually use the images in any articles. according to the NONFREE policy we either have to display the image in accordance with the Fair use laws or delete the image. This template violates the terms of policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non free images should be included in articles and accompanied by valid fair use rationales or not used at all. The continued existence of this templates appears to be against the latest Foundation Resolution on non free content [1]. I see no reason why we should keep unfree content merely for it to be linked to. Either it is sufficiently important for illustrative purposes to be used in the relevant article, or we need not (and therefore should not) keep a copy of it. WjBscribe 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What about the use on free images? (See for example Image:Map of Long Vallly Mono area.png or Image:1000Hz.ogg) It wouldn't violate policy there. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but what purpose does it serve? Free content cannot be speedy deleted because it is orphaned. It would have to be nominated at WP:IFD- where it would not be deleted were the content useful.... WjBscribe 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters much for free stuff, where it matters is when it violates Fair Use policies. Its not useful on free images, and its downright wrong as far as I can tell to have it on non-free images. Solution here is to go ahead and get rid of the template, so we don't have confusion. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points, Delete as unneeded and violation of policy in some instances. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've personally only seen this being used on free images. However, the nominator probably has seen misuse, I don't know. For correct uses, though, I am leaning towards a weak weak keep, but only for editorial reasons, not because of any policy. Knowing that the primary purpose of a free image is to be linked somewhere certainly can't hurt: why not provide that information? An orphaned-but-linked userspace image may be less likely to be deleted as UE (unencyclopedic), keeping in mind sheer quantity of nominations at IFD. We can even have a DON'T USE THIS ON NON-FREE IMAGES notice on the template and in its documentation. Gracenotes^T § 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Someone who's in the process of writing an article should have the option of uploading the image at an earlier point than when it will be used. I think the template should be modified to state which article it's for. Od Mishehu 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming, of course, that image isn't non-free; that would contradict WP policy. The best idea is to upload when you need it, lest this tag come. Gracenotes^T § 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but make it clear that it does not apply to fair use images, which must be actually used in an article to be allowed. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template was originally created to circumvent a bug in MediaWiki wherein inline links to images could not be detected using Special:Whatlinkshere (see "bug 360: What links here doesn't work for image:"). This has been resolved long ago, so the template is no longer needed. If someone wants to indicate on the image page that it's only temporarily unused, they can do so in writing (ie, "this will be used in redlink ~~~~"). —{admin} Pathoschild 05:47:05, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Although, we'd have to remind IFD-closing admins to check Whatlinkshere for unencyclopedic free images... shouldn't be that hard, but this template is a convenient way for indicating purpose. Gracenotes^T § 06:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 1. This template violates no policy. Certain uses of it may violate policy but this isn't part of the template. 2. Betacommand seriously misunderstands the distinctions between fair use law and our policy. That an image must be displayed inline rather than simply linked from an article is a requirement of our policy, not something that would bring a lawsuit down on us. 3. Although the special:whatlinkshere will indicate inline links to images, most people won't think to check that, since the image page has a list of transclusions directly on it. This is a useful warning in cases where that list comes up blank. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said it was only a law issue. It is a combination of Fair Use law and our policy. regardless, the template violates wikipedia policy in many cases where it was used on Fair Use images that were not transcluded into the article. JzG has modifed the template [2] if we can agree on that their is no need for the TfD as I only proposed it because of the mis-use of the template. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's useful for marking in-use free images that are linked rather than displayed. If it's used improperly, then those uses should be changed, rather than deleting the template. --Carnildo 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the policy says "7. Non-free content is used in at least one article." nothing about a transclusion requirement, a link is using it and maybe the most appropriate way to use it. --pgk 09:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone just explain what the fair-use rationale would be for an unfree image that is not displayed? Anyway, why not ask those nice devs rto add whatlinkshere to the image links section? Guy (Help!) 10:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone working on a draft of an article that uses nonfree images in userspace, people debating about images on a talk page, sound files are not 'displayed' in articles either (and used to not show up in file links iirc). Kotepho 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did the image get there to begin with if there's a draft in userspace? Was it orphaned before that user started working on the draft? Gracenotes^T § 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares how it got there? Maybe it was userfied instead of deleted so they can work on sourcing, maybe they started the article in their userscape because people tag articles for speedy in less than a minute and they would like to actually work on it? Kotepho 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former seems like a plausible enough scenario. Not loading it until you plan on using is best for the latter. Orphaned fair use images are deleted after 7 days; this allows a grace period: an article in userspace could certainly be improved in that time. Worst comes to worst, they can just save the image and upload it later, or an admin could be asked to undelete it. Gracenotes^T § 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep By its terms, this tempalte is to be uised only on images (or media files) with free licenses. Any use on images with non-free licenses is therfore a mis-use and can be removed promptly. There might be legit uses for non-free varients of this tempalte (images that are beign used, but only indiretly, such as via a text link; images that will be used when a re-write or drafting process is complete, etc). Wether such a hypothetical Tempalte:FairUse-NotOrphan should be kept is irrelevant to this discussion, because that is not what we have before us. DES ^(talk) 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wot? It only says that because someone just added it. This template is mainly used on fair use images. Hell, orfud still tells people to use it. Kotepho 00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I failed to look at the history. You are correct, that is a recent change. it is, however, what the template says now. Still, this weakens my arguemnts somewhat, and makes the hypothetical I refered to more relevant. I still favor keep for iamges that have been and will be used directly, but are not being so used bening a re-write, content debate, or the like; and for images that are in fact beign used but only via an indirect link. Of course such uses in no way avoid the requirement of a proerp fair-use rationale. Media with a non-free license that do not have such a rationale are not exempt from deeltion because of the presence of this or any other tmplate. I would still favor a keep even if the template were changed to explictly say "this media file which is under a non-free license..." DES ^(talk) 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - People can simply state the image is being used somewhere instead, per Pathoschild.

• Question - Why would anyone wanna link to an image rather than including it in an article? I don't see a fair use problem there (and if it violates the current policy, the policy should be changed) but it just seems pointless. Yonatan ^talk 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a concrete example of a situation affected by this. Over on the Hollow (Bleach)#Menos, we have an image of a silhouette with a tall aspect ratio, Image:Vastolorde-full.jpg. This height made us use a 4:3 cropped version for better fit as a thumbnail, Image:Vastolorde.jpg. The full version was linked from the summary text of the thumbnail on the Hollow article. I thought this template would be appropriate, but apparently there is an unwritten rule somewhere stating that non-free material must directly complement articles in mainspace. Please note that the word "directly" is missing from Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy, yet that doesn't seem to matter. :) –Gunslinger47 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (& answer above question): I've run into this template several times in the context of an inclusion proposal for a copyrighted image, usually linked to from an article talk page. While I agree that there is some potential for abuse, this template reads like a courtesy, not any sort of incontrovertible "keep" argument. As for the fair use concerns, I think they've been blown out of proportion. There are numerous restrictions on claiming fair use on an image in an article, and rendering copyrighted imagery on other namespaces is pretty much verboten. So you are left with two sorts of not actually used images: orphans that fall under the purview of CSD:I5 and images that are not orphans, but are linked to in editorial discussions because their direct use is not allowed. Yes, it is a loophole, and yes, it serves an important function that is well worth preserving. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep non-free images which are only linked from discussions, ... no loophole exists there. --Gmaxwell 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the answer is clear-cut and this TfD is moot - OK, that happens often with discussions of image use policy. Outside of hot-linking or using free-image hosts, is there any way to maintain a viable alternative for proposing copyrighted imagery? If an editor uploads a copyrighted image as part of a proposed overhaul of article content, are they violating policy? There must be some sort of allowance for responsible, temporary use (as hinted at in the last sentence of WP:CSD#I5). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A note on the image saying it is being discussed for inclusion should do the trick; deletions are performed by humans at present. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So long as this note does not come from a template transclusion, I take it. Sadly, deletions might as well be handled by bots, for all the human review that sometimes occurs in clearing the speedy image backlogs. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:42, 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 ~ Anthony 12:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template was created in December 8, 2006, however it is still under construction, hasn't been edited since its creation date, and is orphaned. I spoke with the author who did not raise objections. Meets TFD criteria 1 and 3. — Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There really aren't criteria so much as logical guidelines. However, I agree with your analysis, and since your kindly asked the author, it may speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7. Gracenotes^T § 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Right. This could be worked on except I don't see how it is encyclopedic to count down to an event. –Pomte 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination; cleaning up is necessary. Jmlk17 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned template that doesn't even work. What possible encyclopedic value could a count down template provide? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphan category. Royalbroil 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Orphan, abandoned project, with OK of creator. However, this functionality might come in handy occasionally, say at election time. Gimmetrow 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm the person that created the template. I will probably not finish it soon - I have copied the source to it onto my computer in case I want to finish it later. If you wish to delete it - that's fine with me; if someone wishes to finish it, that's also fine with me. I designed it to count down (so that it was updated each time it was loaded). I did this because I noticed that the shuttle launch tag required people to change it frequently. With this tag, it would not require as many updates. Also, I would like to know if there are any objections to recreating and finishing this template after it gets deleted (I don't want to cause any trouble by doing so...). --Falconus|Talk 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem if you recreate it after deletion. Next time I recommend creating a template for testing in your userspace (specifically your sandbox). You should get the template working in your sandbox before you recreate this template IMHO. Royalbroil 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Royalbroil's suggestion. You could create your very own sandbox in your userspace and work on the template as much as you like, however unfinished templates should not be in the "Template:" namespace for so long. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:39, 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 Delete ~ Anthony 12:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mr. Show episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete because it is an individual episode fork of ((Infobox Television episode)) and all uses have been replaced. Jay32183 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is unused; get rid of it. Jmlk17 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete orphaned and redundant. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:59, 6 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 ~ Anthony 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The copyright page at the Florida Photographic Collection says "Some of the images may be protected by copyright. The user must assume any and all responsibility for obtaining appropriate permission for use or assurance of adherence to copyright restriction". -—Carnildo 08:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To be fair, many freely licensed images are also protected by copyright and the user is responsible for using them correctly. I highly doubt that inclusion in the FPC gives blanket permission, but I suppose there is a slim chance. Barring any such proof, I concur to delete. Pagrashtak 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While I agree with the above Wikipedian, the template is used quite extensively. While that doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept, I don't particularly see any strong reason(s) why it shouldn't be kept. Jmlk17 07:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gives the false impression that the image is released under a free license. Is that reason enough? Pagrashtak 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point...changed vote to Delete. Jmlk17 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted to generae further consensus. Martinp23 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pagrashtak. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but tag with a warning that it doesn't suffice as an indicator of copyright status, only a source tag. deletion is not a good idea for image copyright tags, because if we get rid of this, we won't have a list of the insufficiently sourced images to verify which need to be fixed! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the result of this discussion is delete, we will only delete the tag after the images have been dealt with; that's how TFD works. Pagrashtak 15:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quite a few of the images in the collection are old and in public domain because of their age. I trust that all images will be reviewed for age before deletion to see if one of the PD tags could be applied instead. Also, I have uploaded quite a few of the racing images, as Daytona was/is a hotbed for land speed records and racing. Please don't fill my talk page with dozens of deletion comments if the decision is to delete the images, which looks imminent. One or zero messages would suffice. I have added dual licenses to images that I uploaded that were taken before 1923. The Florida Photograph had been listed about a year and a half ago as an excellent source for public domain images. I see why someone made a questionable assumption. Royalbroil 03:01, 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.