< May 3	May 5 >

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has previously been agreed that there should not be templates for football squads, other than the current first team squad and national teams who have won major trophies . Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although I believe the stipulation for national teams is that only templates for World Cup squads should exist. – Pee Jay 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - as this template doesn't "work" because the embedded templates refer to "current squad" rather than "1939 FA Cup Winners", the creator has placed what looks like a template on the page for each player - e.g. Fred Worrall. If the template is deleted, then this work-around template should also be removed from the player articles. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Now struck out - see above --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:05, 5 May 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These templates insert detailed copyright and trademark boilerplates, as dictated by publishers, on image pages, without due diligence as to the accuracy of the publishers' claims. Factors which can be in doubt: ownership, character (rather than whole work) copyrightability, effective dates, and trademark validity (i.e. whether the characters or images as identifiers of the source of a product). These templates are redundant with Template:Non-free comic and Template:Non-free book cover, which, in conjunction with fair use rationales, accurately and completely describe the images' fair use posture. Purported licenses from comic companies for use only on Wikipedia or non-commercial fansites, with these boilerplate attributions attached, are non-free licenses, so we should just fall back on fair use.Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: ((Non-free comic)) and ((Non-free book cover)) are licensing templates that only identify material that Wikipedia does not, and cannot claim either rights to or free use of. They in no way identify anything beyond that. As the nom points out, those, as well as the other licensing templates, are part of the foundation of the fair use rationales we use.
The templates that he has nommed though, as well as the others grouped at Category:Comic book (C)/TM templates, are not intended or used as a license. They are used to identify the owner(s) of the material that is under copyright and/or trademark as per the owner(s) statements with the original publications. Additionally, one of the templates not placed here, ((2000AD-trademark-copyright)) stems from the specific request from the current owner of the material.
The nom has also expressed, both obliquely here and explicitly here, that the use of these templates opens Wkidpedia up to legal action. I have to ask if there is something the nom can point to for this, other than the concerns of a lay editor who "interested in law."
- J Greb (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember which case or C&D I read with plaintiffs using a defendant's copyright admissions against them, but I have seen it. The important thing is that the notices don't prevent lawsuits. They're only useful for websites that accept non-free licenses from comic publishers allowing non-commercial use with the detailed notice attached.

Also, I've thought about it for a couple of days. I think it'd be okay to edit and keep these templates to allow editors to specify likely ownership and publication dates, but without the legal conclusions as to copyright or trademark status. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you're suggesting changing it to something along the lines of:

Image originally published in 2007 in a magazine where DC Comics claims ownership of copyright and trademark in indentia of the publication.

Even though that statement from the publisher reads:

Variations of the above being set up for other protected sources - posters, television shows, ad copy, toys, etc. - which either have similar boilerplate (shows and films) or the simplified "TM and (C) year Publisher/Owner. All Rights Reserved" (posters and ads).

Or are you suggesting adding a logical "Verified" operand to the template to flip between the current template text ("Verified=y") and the "We guess" text ("Verified="). - J Greb (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trademarks and copyright vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and these templates fail to provide a properly global legal perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per J Greb's comments. - jc37 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per J Greb's comments. User:Krator (t c) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in this template, save the lead article and Grond are redirects, so it is basically empty.. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (Really no reason to keep if no articles for the links exist) and merge with Middle-earth, or one of its subpages. Irk_{Come in for a drink!} 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this template, like Category:Middle-earth weapons and Category:Middle-earth swords, is effectively an alternative way to access the list entries at List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. Some people prefer to navigate Wikipedia using lists, others use categories, and others use templates. This strikes to the heart of when a template should be used, when a category should be used, and when a list should be used. Have a look at Template:HoME navbox - this template could be reorganised along those lines. My view is that restricting the options to just one of the category/list/template options removes choice from the reader, but I can understand that some editors want to avoid confusing readers, and hence would prefer to present only a single navigational option. Looking at the details, the template is used on four pages: List of Middle-earth weapons and armour, Anglachel, Narsil, and Grond. These are listed in the template, and thus the template is not empty, even if the redirects were removed. Please note that the nominator got this wrong in his nomination - saying that only the list and Grond were articles, and this seems to have misled the first person to !vote above. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Carcaoth's comments and, in particular, WP:CLN. Nav boxes can indeed coexist with lists and categories. - jc37 08:05, 11 May 2008 (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.

May 4

Template:1939 FA Cup Winners

Comics-trademark-copyright

Template:Meweapons