Template talk:HarryPotterWiki

TfD
Speedy keep? How? This violates all External links rules, and was discussed as improper on the talk page there. If i was speedy kept why isn't there a link to the real discussion so we can see it? Sounds totally improper. DreamGuy 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm... perhaps because the talk page of a guideline doesn't get to overrule querrelous and needless deletion nominations? Phil Sandifer 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the final outcome of the discussion (for which I've corrected the link) was "close - without prejudice," not the "speedy keep" that David Gerard improperly attempted to push through.
 * Secondly, having looked over the related discussions (with which I was previously unfamiliar), I find your attitude to be rather troubling. You seem to imply that anyone who expresses disagreement with you is doing so purely for the sake of bureaucracy (because if something makes sense to you, no opposing viewpoint could possibly have merit).  I'm a strong proponent of WP:IAR, but it isn't a license to ignore consensus (or a lack thereof); doing so never improves or maintains Wikipedia.
 * Additionally, it's absurd to argue that the survival of FreeContentMeta rendered it inappropriate to nominate this template for deletion. By that logic, we could never consider deleting a variant created for any free-content wiki (including one of extremely poor quality).
 * Having said that, you have made some valid points in favor of sometimes using templates of this nature. I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, but I'll wait to see how the broader issue is resolved before pursuing further discussion regarding this specific template.  —David Levy 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FreeContentMeta
Template:FreeContentMeta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jpatokal (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Free content
I removed the "free content" statement having followed a link to the wiki article on JK Rowling and been presented with a photo of her which I do not think is in the public domain and which is therefore not "free". Also, sites like that wiki will always walk a very thin line between copying content for the purposes of criticism and review and stepping over the line into copying a substantial proportion in violation of copyright. GDallimore (Talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)