Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 1



November 1

 * 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 I will modify it instead, modelling it on Non-free Crown copyright, and will tag for deletion the images lacking a rationale. Also maybe move it to Non-free NZCrownCopyrightThanks for the input Pagrashtak. I must admit that while I had read your answer I hadn't understood it fully. Jackaranga 09:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:NZCrownCopyright



 * 1) Main concern:Template caters for 2 types of images: non-free and non-free fair-use.
 * 2) Makes it sound like a rationale is needed for all.
 * 3) Does not include the usual information about fair-use one would expect to find in license requiring a fair-use template.
 * 4) License tags for fair-use images are not created based on the source but based on the nature of the content depicted. For example "album covers", but not "Universal Music".
 * 5) fair-use images should be kept separate not mixed in other categories.
 * Note: We can't simply delete the last phrase of the template, because it would make it appear as if users had uploaded fair-use images under a license that does not accept fair-use images. I asked Evil Monkey about it also. Jackaranga 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is as bad as deleting a PD-Australia-type template. What if somebody uploads a NZ Crown copyrighted picture/piece of media? Auroranorth (sign) 11:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and modify—If I understand this correctly, it seems to me that we should keep this template, but make it look more like Non-free Crown copyright.  Pagra shtak  14:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair-use is only to be used when the owner forbids us to use their work, and can only be used if the work is irreplaceable. Just because Non-free Crown copyright, is incorrect (see talk page) does not mean we should allow others to be.  Many NZgov Agencies authorise us to use their work.  Many of the images tagged with this template are not irreplaceable and would have to be deleted, even though they violate neither law or policy.  A license tag should never limit or breach policy, the license tag is there to help apply policy.  The are loads of fair-use images copyrighted by Universal or Paramount for example, but we do not have "template:non-free Paramount".  Fair-use images must be categorised according to the content depicted, not the copyright holder.  Jackaranga 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. We still make a fair use claim for non-free images used with permission, to comply with Wikipedia's non-free policy. That's a non-issue here, as this will be abused with any tag, and I fully agree that there are a lot of images using this tag that need to be deleted. The real question is if it's worthwhile to convert this into a tag that indicates the copyright status without making a fair use claim, which would be handled by a separate image tag. I seem to recall this being discouraged in general, however. I suggested keep and modify because I tend to forget that Wikipedia doesn't like to indicate the source in this fashion. I'll strike my vote for now and see if anyone wants to make a case for a source tag.  Pagra shtak  19:27, 2 November 2007 (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 keep. Inconsistency in the naming system used by the project is not by itself a reason to delete, and in any event this is not the general venue for dealing with redirects. JoshuaZ 23:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mobile Suit


Inappropriately named and unused template redirect. — Conrad T. Pino 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tfdnotice – Nomination notice to all editors of Mobile Suit (redirect) and Infobox Mobile Suit (target) delivered. – Conrad T. Pino 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Flush it, not used. Jtrainor 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep TfD is not the venue to delete redirects. Also, I see this as a viable redirect because many infobox templates are not often titled as infoboxes. And besides, redirects are cheep. --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - As stated, TfD is not the place to discuss deletion of redirects, regardless of whether or not they're for templates. WP:RFD is the proper venue, but even there I suspect this will close as a keep anyway; I can't think of any compelling reason why it should be deleted, and "it's not used" is not a valid reason. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 11:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep ditto to Farix, etc... quite a few redirects for variable titles of infoboxes, this one is quite legit.SkierRMH 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Since it's not used, it should go. Further, even the template it's redirecting to is used inconsistently; 3 Gundam Wing articles have it, the other two have infoboxes. The whole project needs to get their templates sorted out. ThuranX 12:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a legitimate use of a redirect, I do not find sound reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate redirect. No clear reason for deletion provided. Doczilla 05:22, 7 November 2007 (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.