Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28



Template:Profanitynotice

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Profanitynotice

Violates WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Trivialist (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The template is completely useless. I agree. - EvilLair (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NODISCLAIMERS —PC-XT+ 00:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NODISCLAIMERS (why spoilers was deleted) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NODISCLAIMERS -- EvilLair (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can be speedied; EvilLair created it.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 23:01, 2 October 2014 (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.

Template:Wander Over Yonder

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wander Over Yonder

All redlinks in this template. Blue links go to unrelated articles. No indication that any of the links will ever be notable for articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fill in those red links as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderIsAwesome2001 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a navbox template with redlinks to articles that don't and probably won't exist. Navbox unnecessary for this show now and won't be needed until after the linked to articles are created and survive a notability review. Best to wait until after that happens to create navboxes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I created a Wander article now, but can you add an image because I don't know how to add images on this wikis just yet. Zach 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC) WanderIsAwesome2001.


 * Delete - I've removed the redlinks, text only links and links to redirects, which should not be in navboxes. This leaves 5 links, including the links to the main series article. Of the remaining links, the two character articles and the episode article are all at AfD and should not survive. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And if they all get deleted, the template wouldn't be needed. - EvilLair (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2014 (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.

Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Replace/Delete. I've never seen an RfC inside a deletion discussion. That's new to me. First off, the debate is pretty one sided. Almost every editor commenting suggested we delete the template or merge it into F9. Second, the fb situation is materially different from Flickr because on flickr you are asked to select a license with a CC license being among the options. That's pretty different from our imputing that agreeing to the terms of use (which no one reads) constitutes an actual choice to release the photos to a free license. I know you also have to choose "public", but the colloquial understanding of "public" doesn't really match up with the expectation that a file can be reused or repurposed anywhere for any purpose. We should prefer explicit license choices wherever possible and this isn't. Further, there's the question (Which none of us can resolve) of whether or not the language of the "public" release is even compatible with CC, so even if we accept that sharing a photo publicly constitutes an explicit acknowledgment we don't really know if it is CC compatible so we can't be sure that relicensing it under CC is appropriate. Protonk (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Free--PublicOnFacebook
 * Db-f9

Propose merging Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook with Template:Db-f9.

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The Facebook disclaimer only covers the uploading of pictures but does not address authorship. Public photos at Facebook have not necessarily been produced by the user that hosts them; not to mention group sites where there is no single responsible user and various press photos are prone to be circulated. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What about authorship has not been addressed exactly in order to make the work 'free'? Can you point to a policy that bars anonymous free works, for example?  Every aspect of what we require in a  free content license is covered.  FS, follow that link.    -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello? Stefan2?  Can you say point to a specific aspect of what we require in a free content license that is missing from the license? -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of."
 * Strong Oppose

As the template says, public content on facebook is free, but content just shared with friends or groups is not free. (If someone releases content under a free license they didn't own the copyright to in the first place, the license is not valid. Like with any other content published under a free license, this is the case with content published on facebook with a Public privacy setting.)

Any publishing by a facebook user using the Public setting is a release under a free content license. It could be an illegal release, but so could any upload here. We have to have more reason to delete it than merely the possibility that the release was illegal.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: while photos released on Facebook might be under public domain, (I'm not convinced) this tag would make us way too susceptible to flickrwashing and the like. Photos released on Facebook are often done by those who do not own the copyright. It is much harder to verify on Facebook whether the image is legitimate. This is a scary template to have around.  TLSuda  (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * TLSuda' : Can you say point to a specific aspect of what we require in a free content license that is missing from the license? As far as I can see, you're proposing it be deleted entirely because it MIGHT be misused.  Everything else is just handwaving.


 * Also, what template can I use for this free image? http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_40/695486/141001-thomas-eric-duncan-01_c329f931d5d1ac3db0e4c50698e59ebf.nbcnews-ux-960-800.jpg  It can be found here: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/texas-ebola-patient-had-contact-school-age-kids-perry-says-n215976 and on facebook here.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all we need proof that the uploaders at Facebook really are in a legal position to waive the copyright of the images in question by using the "Public" setting of Facebook. I.e. if they are not the original copyright holders they just cannot release those images under a free licence and the FB rules don't apply. An obscure disclaimer in the terms and conditions that most users haven't even read upon registering for FB is far less convincing than an actively chosen licence a la Flickr. Another point is that the FB terms do not explicitely include the commercial option that is required for free licences at Wikimedia projects. FB says that others may use, perform, or display public content but are they also allowed to do that for profit?


 * As to this image: It was obviously not taken by Thomas Duncan himself since he is on the image holding his phone, so that can't be a selfie. This image has been taken by a third person whom we don't know, and we don't know if they agreed to publishing that image at all. Note also that even anonymous works first published in the US are protected by copyright for 95 years from their publication or 120 years from creation whichever is less.


 * Again, the fact that images appear publicly on Facebook says nothing about the validity of their public release under Facebook rules and it says nothing about them really being free at all. De728631 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm astounded by your line of thinking. You are saying we need proof beyond that that which we ask of any other kind of content source .  The fact that it is using the "Public" setting of Facebook is proof that the file was made available under a free license, much like the fact that a file is published on commons or wikipedia with a free license is proof that it's free content.  But you're demanding even more proof than that.  With respect to the image of Duncan: If A)Duncan legally uploaded the using the "Public" setting of Facebook, then B)it's free content, and C)the use of my template is valid.  A implies B implies C. A => B => C. If you assert that the use of my template is invalid, then logic dictates that you are necessarily accusing the poor guy of illegal activity. ~C => ~A.  And WP:AGF should apply to non wikipedians, so you shouldn't do that.  Your claim that he obviously didn't take the photograph is far from a valid reason to not AGF.    -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but AGF does not apply to copyright matters. Copyright problems at Wikipedia, be they media or text-related, have always been handled from a principle of precaution. And Duncan's photo was a bad example for making your case because of the following: Mr Duncan may have had permission from the original photographer to upload that image, but then we would need a documentation for it and we need the name of the photographer. For the very same reason we have Di-no permission; not to mention that 'Flickr washing' got its name from Flickr for a reason. And as I said, the Facebook conditions do lack a specific permission for commercial re-use which is required for any free licence on Wikipedia and Commons. If people are allowed to use "public" Facebook content then that's fine but we don't know if this is meant for personal use only or if it includes for-profit re-use. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So why do we allow images from flickr? If Mr Duncan had posted the image there, with a free license, and I'd uploaded it from there, it would be appropriate to tag it Di-no permission?  Where is that policy?   You seem not to be open to discussion.  You have said twice that the Facebook conditions lack permission for commercial re-use and I can't make you read the conditions to see that they're there, all I can tell you is that they're there and quote them, as I've done.  It seems dishonest on your part, in the WP:IDHT sense, to say "the Facebook conditions do lack a specific permission for commercial re-use" when you seem perfectly capable of seeing that Facebook conditions include permission for commercial re-use. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not allow flickr content to be blanket uploaded. Commons has a specific review process for flickr images because of flickrwashing specifically. En.Wp doesn't have this process but probably should. Facebook is much more susceptible to having issues with copyright violations. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Elvey, please read Donating copyrighted materials. It sums up all the requirements for content from external websites and media in general. Among other important points it says that "because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use." I.e. we cannot accept content that is not explicitely licenced for commercial re-use. And I would immediately tag the Duncan image with di-no permission because "if you are not the copyright holder of the material you cannot donate rights to Wikipedia". Which is the same as "if original content posters are not the copyright holder of the material you cannot import it to Wikipedia without consent from the copyright holder". That page is also very explicit when it comes to free licences: "Most web pages do not allow their material to be freely copied. Unless the material is either public domain, carries a copyleft notice compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, or you have explicit permission to use it, please don't copy and paste from other web sites into Wikipedia." De728631 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

De728631, it is foolish to equate being the author of a work and being the copyright holder of the work. Donating copyrighted materials does NOT do that. And yet you do exactly that with your "Which is the same..." false claim. Worse than that, you and and Denniss have essentially asserted Mr Duncan lied. Shame on you both. Please retract the claim and false equivalency assertion. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 06:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither anything I said here or in the template is inconsistent with what you mentioned from Donating copyrighted materials. Your answer to my question, "Why do we allow images from flickr?" is: Because, in my personal opinion, "Facebook is much more susceptible to having issues with copyright violations." so that's the rule that I'm going to us my admin powers to enforce, even though no objective evidence whatsoever that supported that opinion has been provided. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 06:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to do the work of reviewing each of the uploads that use this license to figure out if any had been uploaded illegally to facebook. We don't have time for that. is, IMO, not a valid reason to delete(/merge/void) this template. It's contrary to the principles upon which wikipedia was founded. But at least it's an honestly expressed opinion.

In answer to your ridiculous question "FB says that others may use, perform, or display public content but are they also allowed to do that for profit?": You know what license "terms do not explicitly include the commercial option that  is required for free licences at Wikimedia projects?" according to you? The CC BY-SA 3.0 License. But it would be WP:POINTy to speedy any, or the bulk of, our content just to prove a point.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You should pay close attention to point 2.1 in the Facebook terms: "This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." This also seems to be the case with point 2.4 (it doesn't say that other people may use the material if it is no longer available under the "public" setting). A licence which the licensor can terminate at whim is not free. I'm also not sure if point 2.4 is meant to refer to intellectual property rights in the first place. Many companies post logos and other material on Facebook and companies simply wouldn't do this if they would automatically lose copyright and trademark protection to the material by posting it on Facebook. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not my imagination that Di-no-permission says it only applies to work attributed to someone other than the uploader. Nice try.  Revocability is not a sticking point - when it's copied here, that is sharing it with others.  In addition, it's easily done to ensure a last copy is never deleted from facebook by sharing it on facebook as well. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You must have missed something when you cited the CC by-sa 3.0 licence as "terms [that] do not explicitely include the commercial option". When you take a look at the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 page, it says that "you are free to adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." De728631 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * De728631: I don't believe I missed anything. You haven't linked to the license, but rather a non-legally-binding summary.  The license is at  Take a look at Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License.  Which is the license linked to from the bottom of this (the editing) page, and it what's legally binding.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you check article 1.d? It says: "'Distribute' means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership." De728631 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're funny. You still haven't retracted your comment that equates being the author of a work and being the copyright holder of the work.  Do you realize you just proved the larger point that I was making when I said that in answer to the ridiculous question, "FB says that others may use, perform, or display public content but are they also allowed to do that for profit?"  P.S.: Learn to spell explicitly. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 23:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoted from Copyright: "Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires." So I didn't even have to type 'explicitly' myself. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that word means what you think it means. LOL. My point is that both licenses allow commercial use, even though they don't use the term.  They allow use on Sundays, even though they don't explicitly mention Sundays.  Same thing.   Facebook is a commercial enterprise; the license allows facebook to use the works.  P.S. Why is it that you still haven't retracted your comment that equates being the author of a work and being the copyright holder of the work?  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought my posting of the Copyright section had helped you to understand since I find the following sentence totally unambiguous: "As soon as a work is 'fixed', that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires". The original author is the copyright holder of a work, it's as simple as that. And if copyrights have been transferred (which is not even legally possible in some jurisdictions) or if certains rights of use have been granted to others it has to be documented before anyone else can claim that your work is free to use, whatever the latter means.
 * As to Mr Duncan's Facebook photo, I never claimed that he used it without permission. I just said that we cannot be sure about the copyright status because this image (like so many others on FB) lacks attribution. That said I won't retract any of my statements. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, don't merge - change all existing uses to the speedy delete template, and then delete to ensure that no one uses it again. Being public on Facebook and being free are two very different things, regardless of Facebook's copyright policy. Since Facebook doesn't actually create images, it can't dictate the copyright status of the images that their users post there, and we shouldn't be posting copyrighted material that has been wrongly placed there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What about images that have been rightly posted there?-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By making the template a redirect to db-f9, those will soon be taken care of. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - per the points given above. Also, why even bother creating this template in the first place (along with so many others) if they are only going to end up deleted/merged in the end? Besides, this template is more specific for its areas of application, which makes its usage much more convenient. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dramatization
Judge: Do you have proof that the content is free?
 * Yes, your honor. I have proof that the file was made available under a free license. Look, archiveDOTtoday/5sLp7 proves it was publicly available on facebook, and the license for content made publicly available on facebook is a free content license.  The only way it could be there without having provided under a free license would be if it was illegally uploaded.

Judge: was there any evidence that it was illegally uploaded?
 * No, your honor. Judge: OK.  Case dismissed.

-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While this is funny, I can tell you've never read any report of an actual copyright infringement case.  TLSuda  (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Shame. I make a valid point you don't like so you resort to ad hominem attack.  Please be civil.  Surely you aren't too stupid to tell that I was not trying to create a totally realistic transcript of such a case, but rather one that was realistic as to where the burden of proof lies, and to what standards.  Making unfounded assertions about editors is bad form and uncivil.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 06:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a permission to use material, then you must always provide evidence that the permission was given by the copyright holder. Otherwise, the permission is useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes

RfC on Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook validity


When users upload files, they have to tag their uploads with a template called a copyright tag. Please comment on whether the free content copyright license tag Free--PublicOnFacebook is valid, per our policies, or if the tag and all the uploaded files that rely on it should be deleted. It's intended for use on local copies of free content from facebook. It's argued that a poster may not know that when content is posted using the "Public" setting of Facebook, it's thereby licensed as free content, because the legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." so the license may not be valid. When facebook users grant a license to work they don't have the right to grant by misusing facebook in this way, it is they who are liable, not someone who relies on that license, whether that's me, facebook, wikipedia or any other reuser of what is (based on the facts available to the reusers) freely-licensed content. Should we delete the template because it can be misapplied in this way? 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is made clear above. We shouldn't rely on Facebook's terms of use to post images. Unlike the government, Facebook doesn't create any of these images, and they can't void a copyright with their terms-of-use. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Don't merge or delete Free--PublicOnFacebook. (oppose/support)

 * Support as nominee. Edits by anonymous IPs can be a problem; Flickr-sourced content can be a problem; Facebook-sourced content can be a problem.  Yet we allow all three; we deal with problematic content as it arises, because the expected benefit is greater than the expected harm.  Let's not be prejudiced.  We can host content using this license just as we host millions of other files where the law (Section 230 among other things) protects us. &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
The Facebook terms of use are silent on the question of attribution. Copyright holders are entitled to have their works attributed to them when the works are copied, and nothing in the Facebook terms of use waives this right. So if a file from Facebook is used in Wikipedia, would the usual Wikipedia mechanisms satisfy the minimum attribution rights under the copyright law? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably. Of course, you can't be expected to identify the Facebook user better than (s)he identifies himself/gerself publicly, but just like Wikipedia content, the user name should be enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Void?
Actually, it looks like this should have been posted to WT:Copyrights; a speedy keep/no merge is in order. Per the TFD page, Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, a speedy delete/merge is needed. Compare with the template on Commons which was speedily deleted after a short discussion at c:COM:VPC. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cuz you're good at respecting policy. E.g. Deletion policy.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Commons technically has a more stringent inclusion standard than English WP, where "fair use" is a possible rationale. They are free content extremists there, for the most part; here we want to build the best illustrated encyclopedia possible. There they scrape Flicker and even snip copyright watermarks — so they're no moral giants, by any stretch of the imagination. We need to have our own rational policy at En-WP and let Commons have their own circus. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2014 (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.

Template:Salisbury City F.C. squad

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Salisbury City F.C. squad

Salisbury City were expelled from the Conference Premier last season and are not in active competition now. This template is redundant and should be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 06:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – No active players, this team effectively does not exist at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - as redundant. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2014 (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.