- 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be an outdated snapshot of Template:Washington Nationals roster. I recommend deletion. Fbdave 18:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is entirely unnecessary. If a certain form of the Nationals roster template needs to be preserved (for use with something like 2007 Washington Nationals season, the entire code can just be pasted into the article. See 2007 Miami Dolphins season, for instance. Strong delete.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as Chris points out, this would be used only on one article & it can be adapted easily into the 2007 Washington Nationals season. SkierRMH 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete single-use template, after substitution into main article, of course. Andrwsc 17:20, 14 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be an outdated snapshot of Template:Kansas City Royals roster. I recommend deletion. Fbdave 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is entirely unnecessary. If a certain form of the Royals roster template needs to be preserved (for use with something like 2007 Kansas City Royals season, the entire code can just be pasted into the article. See 2007 Miami Dolphins season, for instance. Strong delete.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as Chris points out, this would be used only on one article & it can be adapted easily into the 2007 Kansas City Royals season. SkierRMH 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete single-use template, after substitution into main article, of course. Andrwsc 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom This is a Secret account 22:37, 16 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Used on only 1 image page. Simpler to use the standard fair-use templates. Jackaranga 11:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nothing special about the copyright status of photos of New Brunswick politicians to warrant a specialiced tag. -- Sherool (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as above. -- Carnildo 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete standard fair use templates work just as well. SkierRMH 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete after replacing with standard template. Andrwsc 17:20, 14 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 delete all. IronGargoyle ( talk) 18:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Template:MEP image (EP) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:MEP image (EP - 1st term) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:MEP image (EP - 2nd term) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:MEP image (EP - 3rd term) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Violating WP:NFC, by not requiring a rationale, even though it is a non-free license
- Use the generic tags instead no need for this template
- Very badly used, all the images in the associated category, are non-free images of living persons used for primary identification, and should all be deleted.
- This template is equivalent to accepting Creative Commons licenses that do not allow modification
- Creator's page is full of image deletion warnings relating to this template, it is simply an incorrect template because it is designed for uploading non-free images of living persons, an activity prohibited by WP:NFC. Jackaranga 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and re-tag all images using it with {{ replaceable fair use}}. -- Carnildo 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These images are clearly replaceable fair use, as they're all living persons & the images are non-free. SkierRMH 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- All the images in this category are tagged for deletion now. Jackaranga 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
* Strong keep
- These images are free. They are free as in beer, and they are free as in speech. Anyone can use them. They are released under a free license.
- These are the official images of the people at the European Parliament, their work, and in almost all cases, their position at the European Parliament is the subjects' primary reason for notability, so irreplaceable for that purpose.
- We are using these images exactly the way the European Parliament intended them to be used, this is exactly why they released them, so that organizations like ours could use them to illustrate articles about the members of the EP. The only objection is that we are not allowed to draw Groucho Marx moustaches on them. Well, if someone did that, we'd revert it as vandalism. The unedited form of these pictures is the official form, so that's the form we want.
The claim that we have to delete these pictures because they aren't free is casuistry, it is following the letter of the rules but ignoring their spirit. Keep, strong keep, because our rules are not meant to be silly, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)To expand on your point #3: Not only are we not allowed to draw Groucho Marx mustaches on them, we are not permitted to gamma-correct the images, we are not permitted to convert to greyscale for printing, we are not permitted to assemble them in a collage, and there are many other things we are not permitted to do. This hardly strikes me as "free". -- Carnildo 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Where do you get that, please? The license doesn't say anything of the sort, it merely says reproduction is allowed. Saying that means we aren't allowed to print it on black-and-white printers is a stretch. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)It doesn't need to say that. The way copyright law works is that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. They haven't allowed modifications, therefore modifications are forbidden. -- Carnildo 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)- That's correct, but printing isn't normally considered a modification, any more than displaying the picture on a black-and-white television screen would be a modification, it's merely reproduction to the best ability of the device. You're stretching the point. Gamma-correcting could well be considered a modification, but I would similarly revert that, as an important part of the value of the picture is its status as the official picture for representing the person as a member of the MEP. It is not merely used "for primary identification", it is used as the person's official depiction in their reason for notability, and if the person wants to be officially represented in such and such a color scheme, so they should be for our article. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- To get back on topic : These images are not free, commercial use is forbidden, as is modification, and partial reproduction
- definition of free as regards wikipedia images ( Wikipedia:Image copyright tags): For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works.
- Copyright notice from the EU Parliament: [extract]Reproduction of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Parliament (© European Parliament, year) or of third parties (© External source, year) and for which the European Parliament holds the rights of use is authorised for non-commercial purposes only provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.
- Compare the 2 bold sentences ! Ok, now go to Wikipedia:Image use policy, see the following sentence: Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight.
- Keeping this template (and images) is not only contrary to the policy but also contrary to the wish of the wikimedia foundation to make this a free encyclopedia. It is not simply a rule that can be discarded. Jackaranga 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with AnonEMouse's interpretation that the policy is not following the spirit of the rules as per what I said above and also
Wikimedia Statement (the very mission of the encyclopedia)
Jackaranga
03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nuts. It didn't say "non-commercial" a year ago, but you are right, it does now. I tried to find the old copyright notice on the internet archive, and it's blocked from archiving. If the license is both NC and ND, that's not very free. Withdrawing objection. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 11 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Standardized the 62 pages using it to Infobox Settlement. — MJCdetroit 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Darwinek 14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused & superseded by settlement infobox. SkierRMH 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No remaining mainspace transclusions. Andrwsc 17:18, 14 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 already speedy deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Like Template:Url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455, which is pointless template as well. — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 03:37, 10 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 already speedy deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Template:Url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serves no reason be be a template.. — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. TW is messed up now. it is Template:Url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455, but TW won't put it in. — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 03:29, 10 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 section.
The result of the discussion was Already speedily deleted SkierRMH 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate of Template:Infobox School. This was also depredecated by the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Schools — Willy No1lakersfan ( Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 10 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be an outdated snapshot of Template:Washington Nationals roster. I recommend deletion. Fbdave 18:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is entirely unnecessary. If a certain form of the Nationals roster template needs to be preserved (for use with something like 2007 Washington Nationals season, the entire code can just be pasted into the article. See 2007 Miami Dolphins season, for instance. Strong delete.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as Chris points out, this would be used only on one article & it can be adapted easily into the 2007 Washington Nationals season. SkierRMH 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete single-use template, after substitution into main article, of course. Andrwsc 17:20, 14 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be an outdated snapshot of Template:Kansas City Royals roster. I recommend deletion. Fbdave 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is entirely unnecessary. If a certain form of the Royals roster template needs to be preserved (for use with something like 2007 Kansas City Royals season, the entire code can just be pasted into the article. See 2007 Miami Dolphins season, for instance. Strong delete.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as Chris points out, this would be used only on one article & it can be adapted easily into the 2007 Kansas City Royals season. SkierRMH 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete single-use template, after substitution into main article, of course. Andrwsc 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom This is a Secret account 22:37, 16 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Used on only 1 image page. Simpler to use the standard fair-use templates. Jackaranga 11:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nothing special about the copyright status of photos of New Brunswick politicians to warrant a specialiced tag. -- Sherool (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as above. -- Carnildo 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete standard fair use templates work just as well. SkierRMH 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete after replacing with standard template. Andrwsc 17:20, 14 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 delete all. IronGargoyle ( talk) 18:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Template:MEP image (EP) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:MEP image (EP - 1st term) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:MEP image (EP - 2nd term) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:MEP image (EP - 3rd term) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Violating WP:NFC, by not requiring a rationale, even though it is a non-free license
- Use the generic tags instead no need for this template
- Very badly used, all the images in the associated category, are non-free images of living persons used for primary identification, and should all be deleted.
- This template is equivalent to accepting Creative Commons licenses that do not allow modification
- Creator's page is full of image deletion warnings relating to this template, it is simply an incorrect template because it is designed for uploading non-free images of living persons, an activity prohibited by WP:NFC. Jackaranga 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and re-tag all images using it with {{ replaceable fair use}}. -- Carnildo 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These images are clearly replaceable fair use, as they're all living persons & the images are non-free. SkierRMH 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- All the images in this category are tagged for deletion now. Jackaranga 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
* Strong keep
- These images are free. They are free as in beer, and they are free as in speech. Anyone can use them. They are released under a free license.
- These are the official images of the people at the European Parliament, their work, and in almost all cases, their position at the European Parliament is the subjects' primary reason for notability, so irreplaceable for that purpose.
- We are using these images exactly the way the European Parliament intended them to be used, this is exactly why they released them, so that organizations like ours could use them to illustrate articles about the members of the EP. The only objection is that we are not allowed to draw Groucho Marx moustaches on them. Well, if someone did that, we'd revert it as vandalism. The unedited form of these pictures is the official form, so that's the form we want.
The claim that we have to delete these pictures because they aren't free is casuistry, it is following the letter of the rules but ignoring their spirit. Keep, strong keep, because our rules are not meant to be silly, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)To expand on your point #3: Not only are we not allowed to draw Groucho Marx mustaches on them, we are not permitted to gamma-correct the images, we are not permitted to convert to greyscale for printing, we are not permitted to assemble them in a collage, and there are many other things we are not permitted to do. This hardly strikes me as "free". -- Carnildo 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Where do you get that, please? The license doesn't say anything of the sort, it merely says reproduction is allowed. Saying that means we aren't allowed to print it on black-and-white printers is a stretch. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)It doesn't need to say that. The way copyright law works is that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. They haven't allowed modifications, therefore modifications are forbidden. -- Carnildo 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)- That's correct, but printing isn't normally considered a modification, any more than displaying the picture on a black-and-white television screen would be a modification, it's merely reproduction to the best ability of the device. You're stretching the point. Gamma-correcting could well be considered a modification, but I would similarly revert that, as an important part of the value of the picture is its status as the official picture for representing the person as a member of the MEP. It is not merely used "for primary identification", it is used as the person's official depiction in their reason for notability, and if the person wants to be officially represented in such and such a color scheme, so they should be for our article. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- To get back on topic : These images are not free, commercial use is forbidden, as is modification, and partial reproduction
- definition of free as regards wikipedia images ( Wikipedia:Image copyright tags): For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works.
- Copyright notice from the EU Parliament: [extract]Reproduction of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Parliament (© European Parliament, year) or of third parties (© External source, year) and for which the European Parliament holds the rights of use is authorised for non-commercial purposes only provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.
- Compare the 2 bold sentences ! Ok, now go to Wikipedia:Image use policy, see the following sentence: Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight.
- Keeping this template (and images) is not only contrary to the policy but also contrary to the wish of the wikimedia foundation to make this a free encyclopedia. It is not simply a rule that can be discarded. Jackaranga 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with AnonEMouse's interpretation that the policy is not following the spirit of the rules as per what I said above and also
Wikimedia Statement (the very mission of the encyclopedia)
Jackaranga
03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nuts. It didn't say "non-commercial" a year ago, but you are right, it does now. I tried to find the old copyright notice on the internet archive, and it's blocked from archiving. If the license is both NC and ND, that's not very free. Withdrawing objection. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 11 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 delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Standardized the 62 pages using it to Infobox Settlement. — MJCdetroit 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Darwinek 14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused & superseded by settlement infobox. SkierRMH 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No remaining mainspace transclusions. Andrwsc 17:18, 14 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 already speedy deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Like Template:Url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455, which is pointless template as well. — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 03:37, 10 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 already speedy deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Template:Url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serves no reason be be a template.. — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. TW is messed up now. it is Template:Url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1455, but TW won't put it in. — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 03:29, 10 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 section.
The result of the discussion was Already speedily deleted SkierRMH 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate of Template:Infobox School. This was also depredecated by the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Schools — Willy No1lakersfan ( Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 10 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.