Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 23

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 to keep. Garish, but harmless. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nevada State Historic Places (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Way, way too big. --SPUI (T - C) 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Listify of categorize, but keep grouping somehow. Circeus 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on a comment on my talk page from Circeus I am trying to discuss what is best for this template with Circeus. When it was created, I had no idea how large it would become. I suspect that the results of the talk page discussion will result in something much smaller and request that the deletion request be pulled for now. Vegaswikian 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• There's already a list at List of Registered Historic Places in Nevada and a category at Category:Registered Historic Places in Nevada. --SPUI (T - C) 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The template's formulation leads me to think that it might be specifically for historic places designated by the state. If I am wrong, then by all mean, an outright delete is in order as soon as the correspondences between the list and the template are worked out. Circeus 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the template changes significantly, almost useless as a navigation template as there's way too much stuff, almost all of which is a redlink. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being too big doesn't seem like a good reason to delete, the template can be edited without having to delete it altogether. Neil916 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's too long, then fix it; don't delete it just because of that. By the way, I've shortened the template. --Zoz (t) 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You shortened it by removing red links. What happens when all those places get articles? --SPUI (T - C) 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If all those pages get articles, we can employ the NavContent display:none trick so that users can navigate by country without having to see everything in the template, or we can split the template by countries, or we can simply remove the less prominent places from the template. I think the fact that it might get very long in the future is no reason to delete it right now. --Zoz (t) 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you point me to a template that uses this 'trick' or modify this one to use it? Vegaswikian 08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure, here you are. Feel free to move it out of my userspace and modify it as you see fit. --Zoz (t) 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks. That's not much larger then the other suggested solution and it still allows the display of everything by county. I have moved this to the main template. I'd like to thank those of you who have made suggestions on how to improve this template. Vegaswikian 23:32, 30 July 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

For reasons I have outlined at Template talk:HistoricPhoto#Fair use assertion, I do not believe that the current fair use rationale of the template is valid. Images that meet it are not necessarily fair use, and many should not be kept; your pictures don't become free for use by any nonprofit for educational purposes just because they have historic value. The template should be redirected to Template:No licenseTemplate:Fair use, requiring an explicit rationale. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This does seem to be a useful template for certain types of images. The ones I've mostly seen it on are images from the Holocaust that were taken by SS officers. Obviously, no one is going to step forward to claim copyright, and yet it's not clear we can claim PD. So this template is very useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The belief that it's unlikely that someone will claim the image copyright should no make us use the image under a random fair use rationale. If this template is to be kept, I reject it's being used in such cases. Historic photo should not be the same as "the copyright holder lost the war". --Abu Badali 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment a recent deal with User:Danny and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum let us use thier images under cc-by-2.0 if we credit them Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment That's wonderful. Those images should be uploaded into Commons and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}} ASAP. By the way, do the copyright holder really understood the permission he gave is not for-Wikipedia-only? This is a common mistake when asking for permission to use some copyrighted image. --Abu Badali 01:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• How about redirecting to {{fairuse}}, which needs a rationale? --SPUI (T - C) 22:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That would probably be a better idea, sure. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe this template should take an article name as argument, and it should read something like "This image has a historic importance which is disscussed in article ARTICLE_NALE. It's belive that it's fair use there, but in any other article". --Abu Badali 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be {{Non-free fair use in}} reworded, with the exception that no further rationale would need to be provided (each would have to be PUId or IFDd rather than being speediable in the event of a bad rationale). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The template is probably misused right now, but the purpose of this template is (1) not so much as a separate category of fair use images, but for categorisation so there aren't 20,000 images in {{fairuse}} and (2) to tag the sort of photos that are sufficiently historic that Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates might apply (see Fair use#Nature_of_the_copied_work). JYolkowski // talk 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you could reword it to say that there must be a public interest in displaying the work, but there's so little case law on that criterion that you could argue pretty much anything is in the public interest. I'm very reluctant to allow such an ill-defined criterion, based as far as I know solely on a single district-court case from 1968, to be interpreted by editors. Surely better to just drop the possibility. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this one is appropriate in some places, but, like most fair use templates, probably needs to be cleaned out. The template probably needs to be rewritten to add that the photo itself must be significant, for example, like the Kent State shootings, Iowa Jima, Holocaust photos, etc, not merely a random media photo of a sporting event. BigDT 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete confuses fair use situation.--Peta 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. While, like any other copyright template, it will be misapplied and misused. I suggest we, do what BigDT said, and overview the images used and then reasses what we should do with this template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per slimvirgin, no reason to delete it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia shouldn't be allowing "fair use" images in the first place. User:Angr 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Since it is, however... --Daduzi ^talk 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and follow BigDT's advice. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per SPUI, but to {{Fairusein}} Jkelly 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per BigDT's suggestion and Slimvirgin's rationale. Although I think we should err on the side of caution in general, there is a restrictive but very important loophole that we are duty-bound to use. Let's keep an eye on images that use this and deal with violations. --Leifern 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigDT. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• d per nom GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, some of the photos clearly don't qualify, but several may be Public Domain or valid fair use, I agree with BigDT Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• This is being misused terribly yet it fulfils a handy role. I like SPUI's idea but support Simetrical's JYolkowski's reasoning. I suggest that the template be kept as a specific variant of "fair use in" and be edited accordingly to achieve this. TheGrappler 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, meant JYolkowski rather than Simetrical - though Simetrical's reasoning is also impressive TheGrappler 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete as per Peta. Evolver of Borg 01:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sometimes only a copyrighted photo of people of historical significance can be found. A low-resolution image is needed at least.--Patchouli 06:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per User:BigDTs reasons. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep! this is an important and oft-used template with good pre-fab rationale. Why require ott explanations when the pre-fab says it all?--I'll bring the food 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the pre-fab rationale is incorrect. Use of a few frames from the Kennedy assassinations was ruled fair use in the context of discussion of the film's subject matter; that is much less likely to apply when you're appropriating entire photographs. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep! per SlimVirgin. Pecher ^Talk 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zscout370. Carlsmith 06:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very useful template to have. EASports 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep At best, require specific rationale and what-not, but don't just delete it, esspecially with so many images tagged with this. Others have already well-explained the position for keep. Kevin_b_er 22:23, 30 July 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Much like Template:PD-CAGov, I believe that this template is based on a faulty understanding of the underlying copyright law. Public records kept by states are not automatically in the public domain; some may be, varying state by state, but not all. See the discussion at Template talk:Mugshot#Freeness. The template should be redirected to Template:No license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep for a while until the dispute over the freeness of mugshots is resolved. For now, we should avoid delete current mugshots just as well as avoid uploading new ones. And if this is the case that mugshot come to be non-free, this template will help us to identify the images do delete. --Abu Badali 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, when there's a question of whether something's copyrightable, better to err on the side of caution. Please do notice that it's been a month and a half since I first questioned the copyright, and no one has yet provided any evidence that public records in general are not copyrightable. See also this case's citation of a Second Circuit decision that "the New York Freedom of Information Law did not prevent a county from holding a copyright in GIS maps the county had produced", likewise see this case's statement that "we conclude as a matter of law that the codes here at issue had not entered the public domain" (clear example of public records being accorded copyright), and even see our own discussion of whether public records are automatically PD at Template talk:PD-CAGov. It appears exceptionally unlikely at this point that anyone will be able to come up with any evidence that all mugshots are in the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Mugshots are documents of the record and/or the public courts and therefore not suject to copyright protection. "...However, public ordinances, court decisions and similar official legal documents _and_ public records of the state and local governments are generally not considered copyrightable for reasons of public policy." (The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices) Bdelisle 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where in the compendium this is. A full copy is available here, and I have been unable to find that term. When I contacted the Copyright Office, as detailed at Template talk:Mugshot#Freeness, I was pointed to Section 206.01 of the Compendium, which mentions nothing regarding public records. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While I didn't have anything to do with this template so I don't know the reasoning behind it, it's possible that the intent was not as a new category of fair use images, but rather for categorisation so that there aren't 20,000 images in {{fairuse}}. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. NO! Mug-shots are (were) believed to be Public Domain, and not Fair use. --Abu Badali 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Even if mugshots are no free, certainly most uses of them would qualify as "fair use". Why not change this template to a "fair use" template? BigDT 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree. Mugshots are usually used on Wikipedia as a free image of a living person to be used on the article for this person. If we come to conclude that they are not free, most of current uses won't be fair uses. --Abu Badali 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. We have a template that says that this image is in the public domain by (enter reason here). Some mugshots are in the public domain, while others are not. It depends on who takes them and where it is taken. Just double check before the upload. As with another image license template on TFD, we should assess and decide what should happen next. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Each mugshot would have to be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the fair use rationales would have to be added. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep but expand. From the links I posted over on Template talk:Mugshot, I don't believe these images can be considered PD or GFDL, but given that newspapers and like the use them freely, I imagine the de facto legal status right now is that these images, if copyright can be claimed on them at all, are licensed freely and nonexclusively by the states, or fall under fair use. In any event, the notice that the copyright of mugshots is a legally grey area should be noted until someone can point to some conclusive evidence. Everything I've seen so far implies that what little legal guidance there is varies from state to state. --FreelanceWizard 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatically, no one is going to sue Wikipedia or its mirrors. They can't, what with various shield laws, unless someone publishes a hard copy. But our copyright policy is intended to be more idealistic than pragmatic: we're supposed to respect copyright even if we aren't going to be prosecuted by it. Otherwise we'd take the common Internet approach of turning a blind eye until Jimbo receives an OCILLA notice, by which course we would be totally protected from prosecution. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Maybe change to fair use if copyright is in question, a large majority of uses here would qualify as fair use anyways as they're usually on the entry of the person in question which comments about their arrest. --TheTruthiness 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Hmm. I'm not into legal questions in any way because I feel so incompetent in these matters. But I'm just thinking. Weren't these photos taken for identification purposes, the same as we use them here? For example if a former inmate gets in trouble for the second time his picture will be published and shown in all media possible...and every cop gets a copy of it. Then how can its use can possibly be restricted? Top 100 Most Wanted are distributed worldwide (I live in Europe and remember to see them on local TV). Maybe Zsa Zsa Gabor should reach the 99th spot... (Ok I know they are considered Federal business and those are different). Isn't that the same case as High School graduation photos? Who owns those? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• They're distributed to police officers and posted up in various places, and given to anyone who requests them under FOIA laws, but that doesn't mean that they're free of copyright. Nobody's going to sue you, but it's still generally illegal to redistribute them, subject to local public-records laws. Note that many of these are just photos of someone who got picked up once by the police, not of wanted criminals. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but amend by state. Most documents associated with a person's arrest and trial are released to the public for bill of rights issue about not having secret trials, including much more sensative information than a booking photo. That's how organzitions like the ACLU and other watchdog groups can investigate things. See the explanation here for the State of Florida. This database includes details court documents, including mug shots. Additionally, federal documents are available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, which doesn't just include arrest and trial documents, but almost any federal document that doesn't compromise national security. [FBI.gov] provides a searchable database of federal documents, and highlights the documents related to Jackie Kennedy, the Beatles, Albert Einstein, Gracie Allen, Thurgood Marshall, and Walter Winchell. According to the website, "All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code, which prohibit the unauthorized use of the FBI seal or the use of the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation," the initials "FBI," or any colorable imitation of these words and initials "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such [activity] . . . is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." (and Wikipedia never pretends to be the FBI). There is a chance that in some state jurisdictions mugshots are not free, but that would be the exception, and should be explored further. That's why I think the mugshot template should be {{mugshot-va}}, {{mugshot-pa}}, {{mugshot-ca}} for examples. If it were not free in a state, that state's template would actually be a deletion tag (like for the image licenses that aren't free). In the states where it was free, it would be the current template with the name of the state inserted somewhere. Insted of having 50 templates, probably just three could be created (one for federal, one for deletions, and one for state keepers) a la the Bable template.--Esprit15d 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Federal government - public record
• Kentucky - public record
• Florida - public record
• California, pulic record if convicted

Florida and the federal government are the exceptions. They're the only two I've seen that explicitly release their public records into the public domain. Federal courts have ruled that maps maintained by New York county agencies, for instance, are not in the public domain despite the state's Freedom of Information Law (County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3rd 179 (2d Cir. 2001), as summarized in many places although the text doesn't seem to be online), and other courts have ruled likewise even for actual regulations (Veeck v. Southern Building Code, Fifth Circuit; copyrights on regulations "remain enforceable, even as to non-commercial copying, as long as the citizenry has reasonable access to such publications cum law"). Public records are not generally in the public domain; they still have copyright on them in most states, certainly until proven otherwise. Their resale or modification is generally prohibited (which makes them unfree by itself), and even their redistribution is often restricted in some cases. I've already created {{PD-FLGov}} to handle the one state I know of that does, in fact, release most of its public records into the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless a state forbids it, I think it we should use the standards that other media outlets do, and that is that booking photos are fair game. 99.9% of all booking photos at Wikipedia were copied and pasted from some news outlet on the internet. It's not like editors are going to the courthouse, paying court fees, and scanning in booking photos. And 99.9% of the booking photos on the internet are from The Smoking Gun or news sites — who get these photos from police press releases. If the police are releasing them, it's free. Mug shots from Washington citizens (the only state I know that forbids mugshot use outside of legal use) are probably rare, since one has to go through a boatload of drama to get them. My point is - if it is at wikipedia, it is probably free. The number of real mugshots wrongly used at Wikipedia are slim to none. The template can probably stay how it is, and the policy be altered to include a few paramaters, like "and not from Washington State" or "from California, and convicted." The source should (as always) also be required.--Esprit15d 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not generally use the same standards that other media outlets do. Other media outlets use the standard "use it if there's no real chance of being sued over it"; Wikipedia uses the standard "use it if it's not copyrighted". Mugshots are in fact copyrighted, in almost every state, even if the states don't usually enforce their copyrights. Pragmatically speaking, we could use most state works, but we don't. That is, to the very best of my knowledge, Foundation policy; editors who aren't board members or executives of the WMF are supposed to be deciding what's copyrighted and what's not, not deciding what the copyright status is of works we can use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This is ludicrous. It's absolute beaurocracy at its worst. Of course mug shots are public domain, their very purpose is to make the public aware of the visage of criminals and suspects, villigantes and crooks. Multiple templates for each juristiction or anything else will overcomplicate wikipedia. I am going to vote against your aim here. It creates unrequired work.--I'll bring the food 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a supporter of mugshots - I've uploaded several myself and really want them to be kept. But the statement "Of course mug shots are public domain" is said out of ignorance. In Washington (mind you the only state I know of) they are not free, and the courts have decided that jailhouse and arrest booking photographs ... be used only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Persons have sued magazines, newspapers, etc. for publishing mugshots and won. Any simple way to respect this state I am all in favor of.--Esprit15d 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've linked above to various cases stating that state records are copyrighted unless stated otherwise, and I've only seen evidence that one state (Florida) has largely forfeited that right. From the few "case study" states I've seen evidence for or against, I would wager that all but a few states maintain copyright on public records, even if not always enforced. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of mugshots is not to "make the public aware of the visage of criminals and suspects, villigantes and crooks", but to record those visages for future reference by law enforcement. Mugshots aren't those things they put up on America's Most Wanted, they're what the police take and file away when they arrest you, for any offense at all. A number of the mugshots we currently have are from, e.g., the arrest of a celebrity for drunk driving or the like. Few are from wanted posters for serial killers or the like. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 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 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant with {{Infobox Television episode}}, which should be used to keep articles standard. This FT specific one offers no further fields than the standard one. Only used in two articles at present (maximum would be 12). No-one responded on its talk page to my query, so TFD it is... Delete and replace uses with {{Infobox Television episode}}. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, use standard. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neil916 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No show-specific fields means that it can use the generic template. EVula 14:55, 25 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Soft drinks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, unfocused template with almost random entries. Rmhermen 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neil916 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not unused (every article in has one), it's not unfocused (lists all Cola, as there is no List of Colas page), and the entries arn't random, they are an alphabetized list of all Colas. JQF 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Uh, it is unused. A quick perusal of the histories for some of the articles shows that it was never used for all of the articles. List of colas would be a better item than this template. EVula 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It just doesn't strike me as an effective use of a template. It isn't used, in any case. EVula 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• K per JQF GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Changed my vote. Template is unused and redundant (see Template:Colas). EVula 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per EVula. The list isn't even complete. Unnecessary. Thistheman 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful enough. BrokenSegue 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or listify. Passer-by 19:08, 2 August 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Derivative of {{nothanks}}, made for warning about copyvios that were tagged by the bot Cobo (talk · contribs). However, it appears that Cobo was never completed (the account's sole contribution was the creation of its userpage) -- and this all dates back to almost a year ago. Since the reason these templates exist never happened, this is unused and not necessary, and thus should go. (Note that this is, in a way, related to the nomination of {{cobocopyvio}}.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neil916 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• d COpY-VIO VIOLASTERS SHOULDN'T BE WARNED GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:41, 25 July 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.