Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ACBest/CopyrightChecked

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 debate was Delete. It is a convincing and determinative argument that this template is "misleading regardless of intent." Where this principle universalized, so that every uploader had such a tag, Wikipedia would be needlessly complicated: the first example should thus be deleted. Xoloz (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ACBest/CopyrightChecked

This template is used by User:ACBest to mark images which he declares to have checked the copyright status. However, considering this is only ever used on images he's uploaded where one would expect he'd already checked the copyright status, this could be misleading other users into thinking there has been some kind of independent verification of the image details despite this not been the case. Adambro (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See also: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/User:ACBest/CopyrightChecked. Adambro (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems OK, it's like a slow substitute for CorenSearchBot. —BoL 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  This declaration is of no value coming from the original uploader and only serves to mislead and confuse other editors as I've noted. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Such a tag might be practical but not just one editor. Besides, normally every editor can check the source and for other images we have Wikipedia:OTRS. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It only states "Copyright checked by ACBest at (date and time) Found to be:(copyright status)" without more info(who was the photographer, when was the photo taken, law that make it ok, etc...) "Copyright checked by ACBest at (date and time)Found to be:(copyright status)" is just a ungrounded opinion and opinions are NOT "fact" the User must stata why is ok...That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because who the heck cares? The user makes use of it, and I don't think the intent is to mislead others so much as it is to declare that when he uploads an image, he's made an effort to check it. Even if the nom's claim is true, users who would be mislead by this probably aren't checking copyright status anyways. If the user is using this template in bad faith, then that's something to take up against the user, not the template (and I don't think that's the case here) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Photo copyright is a serious business and this template is confusing.--Habashia (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't this be at WP:TfD?--Habashia (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this can be described as a template, as far as I am aware because it isn't in the Template namespace it should be listed here. Adambro (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete uninformative beyond licensing tag, and misleading regardless of intent. –Pomte 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pomte: "misleading regardless of intent". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) This is the second time in a few minutes I've written "per Pomte". :)

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.