Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24 edit

Template:Texas A&M Tradition 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 useless as is. Creator does not seem to work to preserve it. Circeus 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is useless. It is being placed at the top of articles. All the template does is provide a link to Traditions of Texas A&M University. Could be easily replaced by including this link in a See Also section. --NMajdan•talk 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might be acceptable at the bottom and with expansion of all the links that would use this, or just putting those links into the Texas A&M Aggies article would achieve the same thing. --MECU≈talk 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the template was created as a means to directly link each tradition of Texas A&M to the main Traditions article. Since the Traditions article provides a summary for each tradition, and then a link to the main article for each tradition, it was decided that having a template was a good means for informing others that a particular article related directly with the Traditions article. I however, understand the template can be considered useless, but I agree with Mecu that it still should be included, and that placing the template at the bottom might be better. -- Hut101 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just link the Traditions article in the "See also" section. Generally a template like this should contain many links. Like that of various cities and universities and states. They link to various topics regarding the main topic. This template links to one article only. The Traditions article could easily be wikilinked in the See Also section or in the article itself. For instance, "The Yell Leaders are a tradition at Texas A&M University."↔NMajdan•talk 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew more on how to do advance editing in wikipedia I would modify the template so that users could add information such as the year a tradition became officially recognized, an image representing the tradition, and so on; edits made based on the tradition its self. -- Hut101 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree the template doesn't really serve a purpose that can't be done adding a link elsewhere. I think another solution might be to create a more comprehensive template for Texas A&M (as many other schools have done, such as Duke), and to include a Traditions section in it. In any case, I think linking all the traditions together is a good idea, but the template should do more than just direct to the traditions page.-Texink 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Either create a comprehensive Texas A&M template as Texink suggests, or expand this one and move it to the bottom of the relevant pages. See Template:Texas A&M Colleges and Template:Texas A&M University System, both of which are transcluded in the main Texas A&M article. Emurphy42 22:58, 28 January 2007 (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.

Template:Template documentation 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 withdrawn by nominator because the template was marked as deprecated. --ais523 18:11, 25 January 2007 (U T C)

This template documentation methodology is inferior to WP:DOC, and should be phased out. This template is currently being used by several other templates, so they would have to be modified, and upgraded to the WP:DOC guidelines. --+mwtoews 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as deprecated. Templates which need to be phased out should be deprecated, not immediately deleted. -Amark moo! 05:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Is there a method to mark the template as such?+mwtoews 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want {{Tdeprecated}}. --ais523 17:14, 25 January 2007 (U T C)

I've modified the template to state that it is deprecated in favor of the WP:DOC guidelines, and I've removed the TFD tag.+mwtoews 17:45, 25 January 2007 (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.

Template:ER episodes 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. And no objections on the main ER page. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates look more like articles. They are not linked from anywhere, and superseded by List of ER episodes. I'll leave a notice on E.R. related pages to see if anyone wants to salvage some of the information or mark it as redundant. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real point in keeping these templates around since it's all duplicate information, and they can't really be called templates ayway. Jayden54 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appropriate use of template; should be in an article (as it now is). Patstuart^talk|edits 09:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:11, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:3di2 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template no longer in use. {{3di}} was enhanced to account for the differences between the two Templates and all non-talk articles were changed to use the new template. KelleyCook 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy subst and delete - I have changed its content to call {{3di}} in the appropriate way. —Random83220070125T030616UT C(01/24 22:06EST)
Delete deprecated. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. • master_son^{Lets talk} 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. After looking at how little code needed to be added to 3di to merge the two templates, I'm surprised that no one did it sooner. Kudos to KelleyCook. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:30, 26 January 2007 (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.

Template:Dilbert episode 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 Circeus 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not in use. Also superseded by {{Infobox Television episode}} --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's in use now; "What links here" gives 20-ish hits. Whether it should be superseded by {{Infobox Television episode}} is a separate issue. Emurphy42 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the television episodes infobox. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:12, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:Joey episode 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 Circeus 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not in use. Also superseded by {{Infobox Television episode}} --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:12, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:Sweden general election, 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 Circeus 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template isn't used anymore by any Article. Replaced by {{Swedish general election, 2006}}.Lord Metroid 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DrKiernan 14:41, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:Infobox Roswell episode 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 Circeus 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template isn't used anymore. Was superseded by {{Infobox Television episode}}. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that templates that do not need to detract from the mother template are generally unneeded and as this is now unused it seems logical to delete it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:12, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:Boondocks comic 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 deleted by author. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Infobox Television}}. Used solely to create an individual look to this specific page, by using different colors and a specific version of the titleheader. That goes exactly against the point of Infoboxes which is to create a consistent look among a larger set of articles. The template doesn't even use parameters, so there is little point in having this as a template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Infobox Comic}} Used solely to create an individual look to this specific page, by using different colors and a specific version of the titleheader. That goes exactly against the point of Infoboxes which is to create a consistent look among a larger set of articles. The template doesn't even use parameters, so there is little point in having this as a template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject. The three Boondocks templates created were done so to provide continuity among The Boondocks comic page, show page, and the comparison page that binds them, thereby combining simple, efficient navigation with a coherent, original look. Changeable parameters for a discontinued comic are superfluous and dispensable. That being said, a simple, appealing template such as this one provides the same information as a normal comic infobox while conforming to the unique visual style that remains constant for almost all Boondocks related pages.

The Boondocks is unlike other shows or comic strips in that its universes intertwine and rely on each other heavily. Much of the character development that took place in the strip has only been visualized differently as a result of the show. This is why it deserves an exception. The Boondocks show and comic strip are not inherently separate entities and should not be treated as such, save for the fact that each has its own Wikipedia page. By creating these templates, I wasn't trying to create a consistent look for a large set of articles, true; I was trying to create a consistent look for a set of closely related articles, which is a phenomenon that occurs frequently all over Wikipedia. Reverting this template back to a simple infobox could be construed as an attempt to censure an honest, conscious effort to improve Wikipedia by enhancing one small part of it, an would discourage future editors from devoting the time required to contribute their own original improvements. —GrittyLobo441 07:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom Albums, Anime, TV Series, Films, Animals are articles with common subjects. Boondocks is one subject with multiple pages. The navigational links (wow, a whole three ? ) can easily be well intertwined on the page and require no Infobox and no navigationbox. Infoboxes and navigation boxes are not requirements for articles neither. People are navigationbox crazy these days. The information in the infobox is now seperate from all other comic and tvseries infobox information (harder automated datamining, even though that's not something in use yet, it is a possible future use of these infoboxes). And again, there is no use in having this information as a template, since the templates are used on 1 page, and have no options. you could just as easily paste the template contents into the article. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every set of related articles on this site depends on congruence and clear navigation. There’s nothing wrong with using creativity to attain such correspondence, regardless of the scale of the topic in question. Uniformity is good on all scales, and creativity is far preferable to the standardized gray design inherent to Wikipedia’s infoboxes. Their simplicity is their only advantage.

I created the three Boondocks templates and implemented them simultaneously about three weeks ago, and there have been no complaints against them or attempts to change them back to the standard infoboxes I replaced. I can only take that as a sign that people appreciate the consistent look, and have not been offended, as you seem to be, to the extent that they propose them for deletion, as you indeed have.

Assuredly, I could integrate all the syntax into each separate article if you are hell-bent on deleting the templates, but that would only encourage vandalism. Keeping them as templates would prevent this. And as long as there are dedicated people willing to keep the templates up to date, then there is no discernable problem.—GrittyLobo441 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could alternately be seen as a way of discouraging people from fiddling with standard infoboxes for fiddling's sake. I don't see any compelling argument that Boondocks needs a significantly different infobox from any other comic that is also a licensed property. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The content is the same. Hence, the differences of which you speak are not significant at all. On the contrary, they are noticeable only in the sense of their apparent lack of conformity, and the amount of animosity the templates are currently being given is therefore undeserved. —GrittyLobo441 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anomisity ??? You apparently see this as an attack on your personal work. It has nothing to do about that. It has to do with the appropriate use of 1:Templates (which this fails. it does not require a template in this form) 2: Infoboxes 3: navigationboxes ( (see all the reasons above). To perceive this as an attack is simply more proof that you apparently have not yet totally grasped the workings of wikipedia. I would also like to point you at WP:OWN. You don't own anything you contribute. It's part of the community and the community can deal with it in any way it wants.TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My argument is based around an appeal to reason. There is substantial reason to assume that if the syntax in question is placed in the article itself rather than in a template, vandalism would become more likely.—GrittyLobo441 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah. That would imply that putting everything in Wikipedia in Template space, would prevent the content from being vandalized and spam. I'm sure a lot of people combatting those problems would really like to hear of this novel solution of yours. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What a very interesting conclusion you seem to have drawn from my statement. The templates were deleted per my request after it was brought to my attention that the logos being used within them violated Wikipedia's fair use policy.

Incidentally, your tactless causticity and the general manner in which you have presented yourself have not been appreciated.—GrittyLobo441 03:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have taken the liberty of condensing the two items, because all their comments are being duplicated. seemed reasonable.TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer Templates have been deleted by the author. (to settle a fair use problem with the images contained within then). Infoboxes have been subst: into the pages, which closes this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 January 2007 (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.

Template:Maintenance 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 Circeus 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible template that goes on article pages to fill a role now standardized to be the place of talk page wikiproject templates. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is completely pointless, the WikiProject assessment should appear in a template form coupled with its own category rather than a category alone. Besides, such categories should only include article talk pages. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michaelas10. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:Blizzard employees 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 Circeus 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template creep. This list could easily fit in Blizzard Entertainment, and, indeed, all of these articles are linked there. All of these articles are also in Category:Blizzard Entertainment. There's no need for a template linking everyone who worked for Blizzard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Combination 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, partial merge - At least half of the designers mentioned in this template shouldn't even have an article. The few that warrant mention (like Rob Pardo) should probably be linked to at {{Blizzard}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per anetode C mon 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 29 January 2007 (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.

Template:User against Fair Use 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 Deleting it as potentially inflamatory. Image:Say NO to Fair Use.svg is still at commons, so feel free to use it, but there's not usefulness whatsoever in making it a template. Circeus 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange, MySpace-ish (Wikipedia is not a social networking site) user page template. Its intended use is redundant to Template:User no fair use, and the template is only transcluded on one user page. --Core desat 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move: I'm not a fan of userboxes myself but if we condemn this template for being too "myspace-ish", then we should equally condemn >98% of all userboxes on the same grounds. Also, there's plenty and plenty of userboxes that are redundant, most especially after Wikipedia:Userbox migration started happening. If you want to move it to userspace, fine. You don't need to discuss that here; just do it. Delete outright? I don't see there being a basis. --Durin 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I nominated it because it's not only barely used and redundant, but it also isn't a conventional userbox. Why have this one at all when one already exists in template space? --Core desat 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy; it may be rotated 45 degrees with positioning and transparency styles, but it's still a user box. -/- Warren 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. No point in a redundant template in mainspace, but there's ample precedent for custom userboxes in userspace that few people use. -Amark moo! 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Definitely does not belong in the template space. Even in the userspace, it still could be considered divisive. The last thing we need is another template that further factionalizes users into anti-FU and pro-FU groups. --- RockMFR 14:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I do not appreciate being the victim of such a message. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should start a support group for victims of userboxes. There you could dissuade editors from reading user pages and succumbing to PTSD or other risks inherent in being exposed to other people's opinions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - certainly doesn't belong in template space, but it does promote the gist of WP:FU, and it's not nearly as ugly as most other userboxes. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: userfied at User:Anetode/userboxes/User against Fair Use, shortcut: User:Anetode/NOFU; will delete userfied version if tfd outcome suggests it) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, i don't see the difference between this and a regular userbox. It's even vaguely wikipedia-related (assuming the idea is that you're against fair-use images and will work to find replacements), unlike many userboxes. I thought minimizing fair use was policy. —Random8322007-01-25T00:42:51UT C(01/24 19:42EST)
Strong Delete, do not userfy - if it were just a userbox, that would be fine. But it's a css hack that annoyingly follows any user that clicks on the screen. This is exactly why javascript is disabled for userpages. Completely violates WP:SOAP. If someone wants to protest FU, fine; let them do it in a userbox that isn't a pain in everyone's rear end. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "annoyingly follows" is a funny way to say it sticks in the lower right corner, and what do you mean "any user that clicks on the screen"? To hear your description you'd think it sticks to the mouse cursor. (aside: javascript is no more enabled for article space than for user space) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, factionalizing. >Radiant< 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, userfy - I can't comprehend why anyone contributing to Wikipedia would be against the concept of free speech, but whatever. As long as the template is only on a user's own page, it's fine. It isn't too disruptive and only gets in the way of us reading their own pages. — Omegatron 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - It's not against free speech, it's against fair use, which is a reasonable position, and is at least to some extent policy - see WP:FU. —Random8322007-01-26 13:37 UT C (01/26 08:37 EST)
  - The whole point of fair use (or fair dealing, as it is called in most countries) is to protect freedom of speech. Without it, copyright holders could prevent criticism and commentary about their work. Saying "I am against fair use content on Wikipedia" is the same thing as saying "I am against the protection of free speech. I am against quotations. I am in favor of prohibiting the criticism and scholarship of copyrighted material." I'm well aware of WP:FU and the recent attempts to change our policies to prohibit fair use. See my comments on the talk page. — Omegatron 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy While I do not agree on the contents of the template, I think the best way would be to userfy this. It is obviously intended solely to be used on userpages, and I don't think it belongs into Template namespace, but I see no significant harm of it living in userpace, in addition to free speech and whatnot. Should this turn into campaigning, the sitation of course should be reviewed, but so far I see it only used in one instance. Charon X/talk 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not need annoying userboxes which follow you around the screen. -Amark moo! 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is used on more than one user page, by the way. It was substed on the others. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_against_Fair_Use and Image:Say_NO_to_Fair_Use.svg#filelinks. — Omegatron 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or otherwise keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy or~~ delete, but I strongly recommend the author request deletion himself. "Say what", you ask? While these kinds of "push this view" / "battle ground "/ etc -type thing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia... this is for fair use... a view backed by Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation itself. However, the method hurts that very argument more than it helps. We should not see this debate as a battle, and we shouldn't be creating this "us vs them" idea (fractionalizing, as Radiant put it). If you want to campaign the hell out of "fair use" then go ahead, but you hurt your own cause with this kind of dickery. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking more about it, deleting the template won't delete that image, so the only reason to keep the template would be for the annoying css hack. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a template like this. Pikminlover ^Meep!| | 16:07, 2 February 2007 (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.