Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29, 2006 edit

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. Please do not reopen this debate again. -Splash^talk 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GermanGov edit

The template is useless and dangerous. All expert users from the German Wikipedia have the same position but all warnings were ignored by reverts. The discussion page gives all reasons you need for deletion. If you want keep the pictures in the en Wikipedia you should tag them as "fair use" but not with an misleading tag. --Historiograf 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - a "fair use" tag does not indicate the source of the images, or who the copyright holder is. This template allows us to centralise all images used on WP that have their copyright held by the German Government. Wording of the template might be tweaked, but it's definitely one that has to be kept Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion is so sparse as to make it difficult to know exactly what the problem is. A group of German editors appears to have a problem with this tag, and keep reverting it with strikethroughs and other comments. Requests for clarification are met by insults [1], [2]. This is a pity, because there does seem to be a problem with the wording and/or the use of this template, but I for one am no nearer resolving it. Physchim62 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Sherurcij: Fair use images should cite the source and copyright details: see WP:FU. Physchim62 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete There are a lot of false assumptions regarding German law in it. No (also the expert) user will be able to use this template correctly. It is not made clear that this is a category of unfree pictures which only could used in the frame of the "fair use" policy. --Historiograf 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete it - FAST!! --Ureinwohner 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete selten so einen Unsinn gelesen. --ST ○ 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete! -- Timo Müller Diskussion 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this trolling from German Wikipedia does nothing to help resolve the problem. Physchim62 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd 'Keep' from Physchim62 - is this usual here? --ST ○ 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No that's only one keep vote, ST. Ja, ich verstehe Deutsch, findet meine Diskussionseite hier. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dann schau in den Gesetzestext! Pilatus 21:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly people trying to out-vote the law again? Don't do that. Delete, works published by the German government are copyrighted as a rule. § 5 UrHG has a narrow exception for laws and the like promulgated by the government or one of its agencies. Pilatus 21:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid personal attacks (trolling). BTW: User Steschke is admin in the German wikipedia. If beg your pardon that we are apparently not able to formulate law subtilitates in an appropriate manner here. If one is able to understand German we will be glad to give all clearing he needs. --Historiograf 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Ranty-Style Comment - I don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest...but out of 71 images with this template, 64 of them are related to Nazi Germany. In the template's life, it had 6 edits, fixing typos, clarifying, etc. In the past 3 weeks it has had 29 edits, as a revert war brews as Germans insist that all photographs in this category "should be deleted". They did not ask for them to be carted to a new category, or to compromise the wording of the template, they said that 71 images, of which 64 are related to Nazi Germany, must be removed from Wikipedia. When asked to demonstrate that the images were against Wikipedia policy, they retorted with insults and slurs against nationalities. Not everybody is like this, User:Rosenzweig for example has been civil, but this TfD seems ridiculously like a concentrated campaign by Germans who have refused to address questions about case law, and just wildly throw up their arms and demand that photos be deleted...then later back down and just try to get templates deleted. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to out-vote the law? This template was created June last year under the assumption that works of the German government are PD. They are not. It's not the law's fault that people uploaded possibly non-free material and mis-tagged it. Pilatus 21:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What the hell is with you accusing anybody who voted Keep as "outvoting the law"? What does that even mean? You're the only one vote-stacking here, not I. here is the oldest version of the template, there is absolutely no mention of the words "Public Domain" anywhere in the template. Stop making shit up. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly false that we did'nt accept a moving of the images. IF the en Wikipedia wish to use them they should be used as copyrighted works without reference to their official origin according to the US fair use doctrin. It is also right that Germany has lost the last war some 50 years ago. Would you please ALL read Godwin's law and thinking a little bit about it before writing conspiration theories. We ware not Nazis we only want to avoid damages for our project Wikipedia. And false copyright assumptions are not good for the Wikipedia. --Historiograf 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above debate was closed as delete: please do not modify it. I have reopened the discussion because I believe that the issues have not yet been fully identified, yet alone debated, and that the rest of the normal seven day period would be useful in deciding what to do with the images which are currently tagged {{GermanGov}}. The history of the template has been restored to public view, in order to show the words under which users uploaded their pictures. Images using this tag are currently tagged {{PUI}}, given the uncertainty regarding the law. Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you would like to discuss. The template does nothing to limit legal exposure of Wikipedia; the German government is the successor of the Third Reich and work commissioned by the German government is NOT PD.

Nazi era copyright is just as valid as post-Nazi copyright. Elsewhere I mentioned that the reason that Mein Kampf is unavailable in German is that the rights are with the State of Bavaria, which refuse to license it. The task now is to tag and source the images uploaded under the bogus licence. Pilatus 15:37, 31 January 2006 (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 template'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 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 Kbdank71 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move to Wikinews edit

Template:Move to Wikinews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikinews uses the cc-by-2.5 license, which means that we can't transwiki our GFDL-licensed content there without infringing on its authors' copyrights. —Cryptic (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cryptic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Netoholic @ 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikification to Wikinews is not legally permissible. There was, and should remain, no transwiki queue or notice for this. I have nominated the associated category for deletion. Delete. Uncle G 21:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Bobet 00:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This themplate mite delete it self.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 06:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cryptic. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 02:19, 2 February 2006 (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 template'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 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.-Splash^talk 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Template interwiki edit

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 page.