Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 14 January 16 >

Contents

[edit] January 15, 2006

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 to Template:User Vandal Fighter. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Vanf

Template:User Vanf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Duplication of {{User Vandal Fighter}}. Misza13 (Talk) 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge User Vandal Fighter into this template; shorter titles are better for templates. - Cuivienen 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I disagree. Longer ones are more descriptive and cause less confusion. While not many things may abbreviate to VANF or CDVF, in case of shorter abbrevs it might cause trouble (for example collide with babel-language names). That's why longer names for templates are generally preferred. --Misza13 (Talk) 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Technically Template:User Vandal Fighter is the duplicate and Template:User Vanf the original. That said, I have no opinion as to which name is 'better' and neither version is in widespread use. Six of one - half dozen of the other. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Template:User Vanf into Template:User Vandal Fighter per Misza13. Superm401 | Talk 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I prefer the longer unambiguous name. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-19 08:52Z
  • Merge per Cuivienen, many use the template with the {{babel}} template, thus a shorter name is preferred. That said, the views expressed that a "fully spelled out" template name is less confusing make a valid point, should it be judged on its own. Scoo 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all templates with confusing names. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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, especially given the immediately above debate and the fact that this template is presently unused. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User cdvf

Template:User cdvf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Duplication of {{User Vandal Fighter}}. Misza13 (Talk) 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It's also redundant to {{User wikipedia:CryptoDerk Vandal Fighter}} and (up until the recent edit warring) {{User wikipedia|CDVF}}. —Cryptic (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all templates with confusing names. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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, but do some things to it (which are not part of TfD's business). -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:New York City

Template:New York City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  • Delete — Way too big, overshadows the articles that contain it. The scope of the template is too inclusive Cacophony 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Cacophony, but would say that it's not only too big, but at the same time, it's too selective. It can't possibly cover everything about New York City, so by it's very nature, it's going to select some things to showcase and others to ignore. Why, for example, are sports teams given top billing, and why are baseball and football teams inherently worth listing, but not basketball, hockey, etc? The "smaller islands" section is even more perplexing; it represents a lot of truly trivial islands of the north-east Bronx, mostly because myself and User:Supercool Dude live there and have have given the area special attention. As a collection of articles, I think this is fine, but in a template on every related page, it is silly; The Blauzes (New York) are just a lump of barren rock, yet they're elevated to the same level as Roosevelt Island which has a population close to 10,000. If anything, I could see keeping the 5 top links (one for each borough), and just the subject headings in the left column (perhaps combining football and baseball into a link to Professional Sports in New York City, or somesuch. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is used in a lot of places. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes it is used in a lot of places. On the other hand, the template was only created 2 days ago, which says to me that somebody's been busy sticking it into a lot of articles without first bothering to gain consensus on the value of doing so -- RoySmith (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but either trim heavily or split. Circeus 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete stupidly large.--nixie 04:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. NYC-related articles have become a bit too numerous and disjointed. Other conurbations of comparable size have templates dedicated to their subdivisions, government, and/or geography, including London and Tokyo (even Los Angeles), admittedly, though, smaller than the one I created. Further, most U.S. states have them, even if they maybe have populations 1/10 the size of NYC's. My thinking behind the sports teams was that baseball and probably football appear to be the two most culturally important sports in NYC right now (although my attention to sports is more limited than most people's, so I followed the advice above). Following RoySmith's and Circeus' advice, I instead pointed to articles on numerous topics (I did add some history pages). I also made the template appear visually more in line with Tokyo's and London's rather than with that of a U.S. state, which has the effect of making it less domineering. I'm certainly open to trimming the template more, or reorganizing it to make better use of space (perhaps into columns instead of rows). -- Bolwerk 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but Trim. I recommend that someone take each section down to one line. I don't know quite enough about the city to do this well. Superm401 | Talk 07:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. But it should certainly be downsized.--Revas 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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. Hmmm, clearly there is a debate that says 'delete' here. But that seems so very pointless when a full-protected redirect will do no harm, need no updating and is currently in use (though little, but WLH is broken). So I will protect the current redirect. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Book Reference

Template:Book Reference (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — this template is just a reference to a single book. It has no links to it. It seems to be designed to screw with people who type big-cap R instead of small-cap r to get the "Book reference" template.--Lacatosias 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment — made it into a redirect to Template:Book reference →AzaToth 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makes maintenance harder if we have aliases of high-use templates. --Adrian Buehlmann 13:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Adrian —Phil | Talk 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Album series

Template:Album series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Created without consensus. Not needed. Making a mess of disambiguation project. Tedernst | talk 07:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Would it help to redirect them to the template the project is actually using? If not, delete it. Radiant_>|< 10:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There will never be a day we need more than one disambig notice. And certainly never for albums. -- Netoholic @ 10:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We need this as much as a sword swallower needs a tongue depressor. Chris the speller 16:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand the overreaction to this template, particularly the first comment. "Created without consensus"? Wikipedians do not need any sort of "permission" to edit pages. "Not needed"? Okay, but it is helpful. "Making a mess of disambiguation project"? A "mess"? Seriously. If you have a better idea, then let's improve it rather than kill it.  –radiojon 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Simplegorules

Per Wikipedia:Template namespace, templates should not be used to contain article prose - there are GFDL ramifications. I've subst'd this text into the article. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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 page.
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 ALL. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Foreach, and others

Conditional meta-templates, as below. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete — per CSD-G7 (have been moved to meta) →AzaToth 16:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: even I, a firm supporter of conditional templates (should a sufficiently efficient implementation be created), can think of no good reason why we want looping constructs in template syntax. —Phil | Talk 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AUM. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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 ORPHAN and DELETE. Netoholic's observations beneath editors' comments do seem to me to be correct. It's a common misunderstanding that TfD will just brutally rip out a template, when it'd do no such thing. If I have misunderstood those editors' meaning, then a message to my talk page will probably persuade me to reverse this close, if you're in time.-Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Void and Template:Void3

Meta-templates, as below. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: I never could quite understand what these were for, so if they're no longer in use we can dump them and simplify things a bit. —Phil | Talk 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment. I seem to recall that they are used to overcome some technical limitation. If you look at the What links here you will see that many articles use it. —gorgan_almighty 15:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • They are used only when people created complex nested template chains, which is now against policy. -- Netoholic @ 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The templates that use Void and Void3 should ofcourse be fixed before these 2 are deleted. —gorgan_almighty 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, then what you mean is "delete". Templates nominated on this page for deletion are almost always still in use. We vote to delete, then we remove them from use. It's how this page works. -- Netoholic @ 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until orphaned - Isn't exactly a huge 'server load' threat. Wait until phased out. --CBD ☎ ✉ 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, then what you mean is "delete". Templates nominated on this page for deletion are almost always still in use. We vote to delete, then we remove them from use. It's how this page works. -- Netoholic @ 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per gorgan almighty. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AUM. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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 ALL. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Template call, and others

Meta-templates, as below. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: should be replaced with a much simpler built-in conditional template syntax. —Phil | Talk 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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, particularly given the new box at the top of WP:AUM. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:If defined, and others

These meta-templates have been deprecated and removed from the templates that used them, per Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. Only one template, Template:Language, has failed to migrate away from it. Alternatives are available for them, so this seven-day vote will give them plently of time to adopt a non-meta-template solution. -- Netoholic @ 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, clearly if it's still in use and there exists no workable alternative, it's premature to nominate these here. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The only thing that doesn't work is the lack of cooperation at the Language template. I have already designed a complete replacement template, but the WP:OWNers of the old template are stonewalling against the policy. -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If your replacement worked, I'd agree with you. As it doesn't, I don't, and ergo, this is a clear bad faith nomination. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jamesday's request. Locke, you're welcome to disagree but please assume that Neto is working to improve WP like the lot of us. Radiant_>|< 10:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) struck per Brion's comments on WP:AUM. Radiant_>|< 13:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is an obvious attempt (as from his nomination above) to force the issue: that kills any good faith I may have had. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that this may lead to circular reasoning (keeping "if defined" because "languages" requires it, keeping "languages" like that because "if defined" exists). At any rate, the template for languages predates all those IF templates by a long shot, and hence it can obviously be made to work without. Radiant_>|< 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until Template:Language has transitioned to a version that is acceptable to that project. I read that template's Talk page, and it looks like this nomination is an attempt to gain leverage in an edit war there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This vote was an eventuality. My participation on the talk page was to prepare that template for the time when it would be forced to remove the meta-template structure. I do not care what solution they choose, though mine is pretty damn good, but the point is they must either take action or allow others to do the work without interference. -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously you do care deeply about which solution is chosen or else you wouldn't have brought these nominations to attempt to force the issue. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:AUM. But resolve the edit conflict first and then properly orphan before deletion. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Crotalus horridus DES (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Template:Language is not the only template still using these. I agree that the goal should be to remove all of these 'if templates', but continue to be opposed to doing so before the functionality is replaced. Breaking user pages is bad enough, but making a mess in the article space goes beyond just the annoyance factor into what would normally be described as "vandalism". Is 'vandalism in pursuit of policy' still vandalism? I'd say yes when there is no immediate need for the change. If some of these have been orphaned (I know the three I checked have not) then nominate them individually and I'd vote to delete. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: as far as I know, there is nothing that these do which cannot be replicated using {{qif}} (and I can hear Netoholic revving up his chainsaw as I type ), and I reckon that if a developer were allowed to put some thought into it the functionality of {{qif}} could very simply and efficiently be spatchcocked into Mediawiki thus obviating all this argument. —Phil | Talk 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep This template allows me to use an if else structure with out typing pages and pages of code.
    • All the template "if defined call2" does is that if the parameter is defined then it passess two arguments to another template, otherwise the other template is not called saveing bandwith and other goodies. This way if an item in the infobox does not apply to a character, I can simply leave that field blank rather than a collosal box with lots of redundent N/As. Compare Belldandy and Banpei. Belldandy's info box is far more complex than of Banpeis.
    • It is easier to just slap this:
{{if defined call2|{{{Image7| }}}|Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic/Image|{{{Image7}}}|{{{Caption7}}} }}
    • Than this:
|- class="hiddenStructure{{{Image7|}}}" 
| colspan="2" style="background-color: #e6e9ff; text-align: center; font-size: smaller;" |
[[Image:{{{Image7}}}|300px| ]]<br>{{{Caption7}}}
    • As the diference in text isn't all that much this is not a violation of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates which discourages the use of templates within other templates. It does not stress out the servers, on the contrary the usage of the if/else template on at least Template:Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic stresses servers less. When this template is used as large chunks of code will not even be called unless they are passed parameters. It will simply do nothing unless parameters are passed.
    • An if/else structure is much easier to follow for a person with some programming experience. HTML code for tables on wikipedia is not prohibited although discouraged.
    • --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm speechless. —Cryptic (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh? The first version uses nested templates; the second version doesn't. Therefore the second version should stress the servers less. Or am I missing something obvious here? —Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Nested templates have become something of a canard. It is just as easy to stress the servers into oblivion with non-nested templates as it is with nested ones. It is only the frequent usage of templates like 'Qif' and 'Switch' which made them vulnerable. In this particular case I don't know whether the trivial server resources used for the first version are more or less than the trivial server resources used for the second... but in both cases it isn't a big deal. There aren't enough pages calling this template or enough conditions on it that it would ever be a serious issue. As such, I'd suggest allowing it to continue calling the two (protected) sub-templates but removing the 'if defined call2' usage so that template can be deprecated.
          Cool Cat, the same thing as your examples above can be accomplished with:

|- class="hiddenStructure{{{Image7|}}}" | {{Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic/Image|{{{Image7}}}|{{{Caption7}}} }} Or, if you are willing to adjust the text and image sub-templates slightly it can be done with just:
{{Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic/Image|{{{Image7}}}|{{{Caption7}}} }}

        • The added complexity of Netoholic's version is primarily due to the fact that he copied the contents of the two sub-templates out to the primary for each call. This is to avoid 'nested' template usage as per this policy. However, as I said, this template isn't widespread enough to be a concern and, in any case, one of the options listed at that policy is to protect the sub templates... which has been done here. So the template is already in compliance with AUM. --CBD ☎ ✉ 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe but still the if else temlate is much much easier to follow and Yes, Exatcly the problem the best way to create templates is in binary coding (machine language) which would stress the servers least but would in return stress the programmer. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:AUM and m:developer User:Jamesday. BlankVerse 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:AUM is no longer policy, developer Brion VIBBER has said he doesn't buy the server load argument used there (and obviously not all developers agree on AUM). See the talk page on WP:AUM for links to where Brion weighs in on server load influencing editorial decisions as well as his comments on meta-templates generating load. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • absurd n this deletion request is absurd, if you like to delete the templates you should delete all foundation projects Gangleri | T 01:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
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. Those who carefully explain why this template is not suitable for use on Wiki are right. I'm going to list it for orphaning, which will likely render those tagged images as nolicense; editors should step in to prevent that, please. -Splashtalk 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CanadaCopyright, and others

(also Template:AlbertaCopyright, Template:OntarioCopyright and Template:NovaScotiaCopyright)

Ambiguous image copyright templates used to tag images lifted from the Government of Canada and subnational entities, they are incompatible with Wikipedia's current policy on non-commerical images. The templates provide no information on the actual copyright of the image - non-commercial images have to be uploaded following the requirments for fair use images; and from a quick look though the category fair use information is not being added to these images. The image copyright page specifically says not to upload images using these tags, and the Canada Copyright template appears to be the only on in wide use. This should not effect Canadian PD images since they have their own template {{PD-Canada}}. Delete--nixie 03:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm unsure if {{PD-Canada}} adequately covers Canadian logos and emblems. I know I previously tagged some images with some of the current templates (which were different when tagged) precisely because they are government logos/Crown copyright (ergo, public property) with specific provisos prohibiting commercial use. This includes self-made recreations of them (e.g. Image:Flag of Ontario.svg/Image:flagofontario.png), where the former image was tagged based on an erroneous assumption. I'll reserve judgement on this until it can be demonstrated that the consolidated template is sufficient or can be revised to cover these. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Make a template for fair use Canadian logos, the current template is not adequate in any sense.--nixie 04:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm unsure if this is the place to discuss this, but would this include morphing {{PD-Canada}} to serve this purpose – i.e., incorporating notions from Template:CanadaCopyright? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Only if the logos/Coats of Arms are actually in the public domain, otherwise they have to be tagged as fair use, even self-made derivative works. It might be a good idea to get some feedback from WikiProject Fair use.--nixie 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I believe all of the ones within my purview are as above, but I will investigate. TY. Until then, I'd suggest retaining/update Template:CanadaCopyright, but nixing the rest. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
            • How can a template that states: It may or may not be suitable for use in Wikipedia. Its copyright may have expired and hence may be in the public domain, or it may be usable under a free licence or under fair use. - be an acceptable explaination of image copyright? Several other similarly ambigious templates have already been deleted.--nixie 05:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not saying it's perfect: I'm saying that both may need to be revisited and that {{PD-Canada}} doesn't currently cut it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit it - There's no need to delete the entire template. if it violates wiki fair use or copyright policy, remove the image and leave a note in its talk page - TCorp 13:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a useful copyright template. For images that are usable in Wikipedia, tag with an existing tag such as {{pd}}, {{PD-Canada}}, {{logo}}, {{canada-politician-photo}}, or whatever else. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't necessarily object to the deletion of this template and the use of other more valid alternatives as appropriate (the matter of Canadian government copyright has been under some discussion at the Canadian notice board). The only thing I want to ensure, however, is that the Canadian contingent has enough time to retag the images currently using this template, so that they don't all end up getting deleted as well. I'd ultimately prefer to edit rather than delete, however. Bearcat 02:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been shifting lots of them to their subcategories (PD, Non-free fair use in and politician), but as far as I can tell people are still using this template to upload images, and it should have been retired when non-commerical licences were axed last May. Anything currently under Canadian Crown Copyright can only be used in Wikipeida as fair use, you could rewrite the template to that effect, but the current text id no good.--nixie 03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I believe I've dealt with this issue before. Because Canadian Crown copyright is non-commercial, images can not be on Wikipedia with only that justification. Thus, they need to have another justification, probably {{Non-free fair use in}} or a related tag. Once they have that, there's no reason to keep a Crown tag as well. If no one has reason to keep such tags, they should be deleted. As for TCorp, you seem to misunderstand the problem. It's not the image in the template that has copyright issues; it's the images than transclude the template. Superm401 | Talk 08:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Canada copyright" template contains text specifically adapted from the federal government's website regarding copyright/reproduction. There's no reason that this template cannot be edited to be more functional yet reflect the nicities of using such images. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, and part of those terms is non-commercial use only. That is not an acceptable authorization for Wikipedia. Thus, such an image can only be used with another rationale. That rationale should lend the tag. Tags like this, that do not inherently allow use on Wikipedia, should not exist long-term. Superm401 | Talk 10:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I am confused. Some images from the Department of fisheries and Oceans I have uploaded have had this tag put on them. I linked to the page where the department stated their reproduction no commercial use -- give credit, and I linked to the actual page where I took the image. Wikipedia does qualify as non-commercial use, doesn't it? Linking to the page where the image came from does qualify as giving appropriate credit, doesn't it? Am I incorrect to think those images could be uploaded? -- Geo Swan 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Aye, non-commercial licenses are incompatible with the GFDL that Wiki is licensed under, and images using such licenses are usually removed. See also: Jimbo's statement GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page.