The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I should clarify that this tag waswidely-used until 2006, but the images have been sorted out. Some were retagged, some were deleted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja18:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Also keep in mind that any visit to the deleted template will show a link to this discussion (for those concerned about history), and even disallowing the tag didn't stop new uploaders from using it. For this, and other reasons, I would heavily support delete over "mark as historical".▫ JohnnyMrNinja17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Woh, uploading an image to Wikipedia does not automatically make it GFDL. We have a few choices for licenses when it comes to images. If someone does not give a license we ask them for one and if we don't get it we delete the image, we don't assume that the user picked on of the several available licenses. It is good that this template's category is empty.
Chillum18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete As Chillum said, this template pretty much goes against our current practices. At this point everything listed above is phased out and is no longer needed. Icestorm815 •
Talk18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, hoo-ray! Let me tell you a little story. I created this template and category way back in 2005; that's forty years ago in internet-time. Back then, there was a notice on the upload page that stated that by uploading an image you created, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. Many user-created images were uploaded before there were license tags. (Sources weren't required either -- ah, such an innocent time!) I was part of the team that went through all of these old images, asking the uploaders for details and applying the first tags. When the uploader was missing, but we thought the image was self-created, we tagged it with this. At one point there were thousands of images so tagged.
Of course times change. In a few years, many of the original license tags -- such as {{PD}}, {{Fair use}}, and this one -- were deprecated. Those images had to be gone through again to figure out what to do with them. It's been a lot of work, but we've finally cleared this one out. It's had a good run, but it's time for it to go to that great wiki in the sky. Bye old friend. –
Quadell(
talk)19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - and great work to those that did the work to resolve the images - I had done some work on the category a while back -- leaving message on talk pages of users and also projects.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
It could be there, but on WP these templates are representative of a policy, and what with the categories, I put it here. Also, TfD isn't transcludable, in case anyone wants to do that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Move the categories to
WP:CFD and the templates to
WP:TFD; this isn't really the appropriate venue. If consensus is already to remove them as deprecated, then they will face the same fate there. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BQZip01 (
talk •
contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2009
Why should these pages all representative of a single deprecated license/policy have separate discussions? What is the benefit of that? Further, what would be the benefit of moving the discussions at this point? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree with the Ninja. The templates are useless without the categories, and vice versa. They should all be discussed together, and this is the best venue for that. –
Quadell(
talk)00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep the template (Template:GFDL-presumed). Although not used on any image pages any more, there are still hundreds of talk pages that reference this template. For understanding the history we need to keep something on the template to explain what it meant and why not to use it. I would suggest however that if it is transcluded that a suitable ugly warning appears. delete the categories, as they should be useless and unused.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep the main template for historical reasons, with a warning as Graeme suggests. Delete the other templates and the categories. --
Avenue (
talk)
02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: Since this was transcluded at CFD for seven days and there was consensus to delete at least the categories, I have done so. I'll leave someone who is well-versed at MFD's to close this discussion. --
Kbdank7113:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I should clarify that this tag waswidely-used until 2006, but the images have been sorted out. Some were retagged, some were deleted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja18:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Also keep in mind that any visit to the deleted template will show a link to this discussion (for those concerned about history), and even disallowing the tag didn't stop new uploaders from using it. For this, and other reasons, I would heavily support delete over "mark as historical".▫ JohnnyMrNinja17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Woh, uploading an image to Wikipedia does not automatically make it GFDL. We have a few choices for licenses when it comes to images. If someone does not give a license we ask them for one and if we don't get it we delete the image, we don't assume that the user picked on of the several available licenses. It is good that this template's category is empty.
Chillum18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete As Chillum said, this template pretty much goes against our current practices. At this point everything listed above is phased out and is no longer needed. Icestorm815 •
Talk18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, hoo-ray! Let me tell you a little story. I created this template and category way back in 2005; that's forty years ago in internet-time. Back then, there was a notice on the upload page that stated that by uploading an image you created, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. Many user-created images were uploaded before there were license tags. (Sources weren't required either -- ah, such an innocent time!) I was part of the team that went through all of these old images, asking the uploaders for details and applying the first tags. When the uploader was missing, but we thought the image was self-created, we tagged it with this. At one point there were thousands of images so tagged.
Of course times change. In a few years, many of the original license tags -- such as {{PD}}, {{Fair use}}, and this one -- were deprecated. Those images had to be gone through again to figure out what to do with them. It's been a lot of work, but we've finally cleared this one out. It's had a good run, but it's time for it to go to that great wiki in the sky. Bye old friend. –
Quadell(
talk)19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - and great work to those that did the work to resolve the images - I had done some work on the category a while back -- leaving message on talk pages of users and also projects.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
It could be there, but on WP these templates are representative of a policy, and what with the categories, I put it here. Also, TfD isn't transcludable, in case anyone wants to do that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Move the categories to
WP:CFD and the templates to
WP:TFD; this isn't really the appropriate venue. If consensus is already to remove them as deprecated, then they will face the same fate there. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BQZip01 (
talk •
contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2009
Why should these pages all representative of a single deprecated license/policy have separate discussions? What is the benefit of that? Further, what would be the benefit of moving the discussions at this point? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree with the Ninja. The templates are useless without the categories, and vice versa. They should all be discussed together, and this is the best venue for that. –
Quadell(
talk)00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep the template (Template:GFDL-presumed). Although not used on any image pages any more, there are still hundreds of talk pages that reference this template. For understanding the history we need to keep something on the template to explain what it meant and why not to use it. I would suggest however that if it is transcluded that a suitable ugly warning appears. delete the categories, as they should be useless and unused.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep the main template for historical reasons, with a warning as Graeme suggests. Delete the other templates and the categories. --
Avenue (
talk)
02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: Since this was transcluded at CFD for seven days and there was consensus to delete at least the categories, I have done so. I'll leave someone who is well-versed at MFD's to close this discussion. --
Kbdank7113:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
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 page's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.