Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

July 19

Template:Last.fm

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 no consensus. The key question seems to be if this meets points 1 and 10 of links normally to be avoided. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on if it hits these points or not. IronGargoyle 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously at TfD here as spam for a commercial site. I'm bringing it here for a different reason; it's not a very useful site for our purposes. The site is mostly networking and "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". In fact, many of the artists' descriptions were originally forked from Wikipedia. It would seem to fail #1 and #10 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. — 17Drew 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --maf (talk-cont) 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the site doesnt seem to add anything encyclopedic in any of the instances I've checked. --Quiddity 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think relative song popularity is important enough information, as we CONSTANTLY see entries for songs that say "this is one of the band's best known singles", etc. A site with user-generated statistics about relative song popularity is useful information that is not seen in any wiki entry. Rake 09:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemonflash (talk • contribs).
Keep. The lastfm pages include samples of the artists' music which can be a very useful complement to a writeup on wikipedia. For this reason I think it passes #1. I do not believe it is a "social networking site" in the same vein as MySpace or USENET as per #10. -- Jon Dowland 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Wikipedia's articles (what's the point of making an encyclopedia for the sake of free content if we link to copyrighted encyclopedias? Copyrighted sources are fine, but this is a tertiary source, some of it forked from us.) The artists' music is copyrighted as well, and besides that, I'm not sure what linking to it adds to encyclopedic understanding of a band. Gracenotes^T § 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nom and with Gracenotes. The only reason I could see for such a link is if the person somehow got famous trough last.fm perhaps, but that's not how this is being used atm. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackS 7 (talk • contribs).
Keep per Jon Dowland. --Dabigkid 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and does not really serve a functional encyclopedic purpose.MichaelProcton 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - External links to Last.fm are fine but a template is unnecessary. NSR77 ^T_C 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need templates to assist editors in (most likely unintentionally) violating the external links guideline. MER-C 05:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at last.fm, you can see actual listening data; the most popular tracks, album listening data and so on. It gives a relevant insight into what music is actually listened to by fans, as well as a good compendium of relevant information and, recently, music videos. Seegoon 13:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Seegoon and a to a slightly lesser extent Jon Downland. I disagree with Gracenotes in the fact we're not linking to the artist's descriptions on the site (which actually are GFDL...) but to the primary source which is basically track play statistics, licensed music samples and licensed music videos. (later edit signature: -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Delete - Agree with MichaelProcton, there is no encyclopedic purpose. Agree with MER-C, template for this is totally unnecessary. It seems to benefit last.fm, but doesn't increase knowledge. The first paragraph presented on last.fm Beatles is a blatant, direct fork from Wikipedia Beatles. Disagree with *unsigned* post before me, last.fm does NOT have licensed videos for any of the artists I have checked (search included the Beatles, Coldplay, Linkin Park, and Arctic Monkeys among others.) InnerRevolution7 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was me who made that comment, sorry. last.fm does have licensed vids see: My Chemical Romance, Natasha Bedingfield and Death Cab for Cutie to name 3. Obviously they're not going to have videos for everyone, at least not yet. It's up to the record companies to upload them. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is exactly the point I was making against. It should be the decision of the editors to link based on the quantity and quality of information available for each artist on last.fm, as to whether or not is furthers encyclopedic knowledge of that artist. A template makes a blanket rule for all artists. InnerRevolution7 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. I somewhat agree with your point. One shouldn't link to last.fm just because, but I do not believe the template forces anyone to link. If it's not in the article's interest, don't use the template. Editor's discretion still applies. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like you, I wouldn't agree that it forces anyone. I agree with Parzival418 below about implicit support for validity. That is a much better statement of the problem as a template wouldn't "force" anything. In the end though, it just doesn't seem to me that there is enough additional substance there to warrant a template based on these factors. InnerRevolution7 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Last.fm is completely commercial community networking site, not unlike myspace. The information there is not an accurate representation of popularity or any other features of an artist or album, other than how that particular community likes it. I could imagine some situations where an external link to last.fm would be useful as a reference, but certainly not often enough to require a template. Also, having the template available could encourage editors to link to last.fm, giving implicit support to its validity and discouraging editors from actually checking it per WP:RS for the particular use they are considering. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest reason for my support of this template is the fact that last.fm provides relatively stable statistics of specific song popularity. This is relevant information that would most likely not be replicated in any wiki entry. It puts into scope bands with claimed "one-hit wonders", or, for example, the popularity among fans of a new album. Like I said, this information cannot be replicated through a wiki entry. And while the site is commercially owned, the statistics are still completely user-generated. Rake 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is even more stupid a reasoning. These are the statistics of a very select group of people all part of a certain demographic. The statistics have 0 meaning and at best favors the opinion of those who think they are "music freaks/experts or whatever". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rake and Seegoon. Nothing more to add to their comments. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 81.104.79.141 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inx272
Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE. 17Drew 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot accept any site that uses Wikipedia as a source (see Christina Aguilera's entry for example). Thus, it might also violate WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #12. Also, some of the "keep" comments say that the site includes statistics of a song's popularity. But aren't the statistics only based on LastFM's members? The Billboard charts provide more accurate information of a song's popularity. Spellcast 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, the fact that it is derived from Wikipedia makes it useless. Compare Billy Talent and Billy Talent @ Last.fm. Stoopid. -- Reaper X 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the above two comments - Wikipedia is not linking directly to the artist bios, but to the general artist page, which contains different information than the WIki articles. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - So compare the last.fm general artist page with Wikipedia. It opens with the same heavily-forked parapraph from Wikipedia. Compare Billy Talent and Billy Talent @ Last.fm. The first thing you see on last.fm's general artist pages is redundant to what the viewer just saw on the Wiki page. Yes, other information does follow, but NOT useful encyclopedic info. It is not statistics of worldwide or national sales (or other useful knowledge), but rather the popularity results of last.fm users ONLY, which isolates this information from being useful for any other purpose than to track last.fm activity. Maybe in 20 years we will care what last.fm website users think about everything, and maybe we wont. Right now, only last.fm users do. It doesn't further encyclopedic knowledge of the artist to know this. The 4 free 30 second samples from each artist doesn't make up for this lack of encyclopedic substance. InnerRevolution7 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - A whole 3 and a half sentences of duplicated content. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website has interesting stuff that will never fit Wikipedia, that is audience estimations. Unless we stop quoting any other chart, we should have this one.--Luci_Sandor 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't quote Last.fm's "charts" though. They wouldn't be reliable sources, especially considering they only sample a small number of music listeners. 17Drew 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, plus why shouldn't a website with legal music samples be against #1? It would be stupid to delete. Martyy1 09:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come on! This is a free encyclopedia as in beer, besides being free as in freedom. We are building advertising for a tertiary source who uses US as secondary? We can do better than that!!!--Cerejota 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually...since we use third-party (re: secondary) sources as references, that makes us a tertiary source. And Last.fm a quaternary source. 17Drew 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and because they explicitly encourage copying from Wikipedia, yet barely pay lip service to the GFDL. They do not even mention or link the GFDL to non-logged in users viewing the wiki content, or have a coherent system for acknowledging or linking to our source articles. These concerns have been raised on their forums before with no response. We have no good reason to be linking to this site, therefore, we have no good reason for this template. heqs ·:. 09:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned somewhere above it does provide mainly stable charts. It also provides links to similar artists and is relevent to the content of a page. The Adept 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find LastFM a very useful resource for finding an artist's relative popularity, a good source to listen to example songs, finding related artists, as well as a real-world source of data of which of their songs are most listened-to. It definitely provides additional information only available because of their data collection algorithms, and I don't consider it to be primarily a social networking site. Joshw 19:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see why there needs to be a template for this site. I haven't spent enough time on the site itself to have an opinion on if it is a social networking site or not, but I don't think the template itself is necessary. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very handy template. LastFM is useful service and it provides extra info. --Zzzzzzzzzz 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is very useful, the source provides many worthy information, including artist biography, which is encyclopedical and supervised by admins.Garret Beaumain 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Luci_Sandor et al. The nominator clearly has missed the point; the site is not mostly networking, and it definitely contains information what would never be in Wikipedia, even in a Featured article. This includes, but is not limited to, many kinds of statistical info (such as the relative popularity of an artist's tracks or similar artists list which is great for finding new music) that is extracted using data mining techniques against a rather huge set of listening habit information gathered from millions of last.fm users. --Jonik 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I already entered a "delete" comment above - this comment is not another vote, but I want to provide some new information: CBS has now purchased last.fm. Here is one news story about it: [1]. (Also, last.fm is defined as a social networking site in this news story and others, it makes no pretense to accurately reflect overall popularity of records and artists.) All of the comments above should be reviewed in the light of how the CBS purchase will affect the information on last.fm, in that last.fm is not any longer an independent social network and music tracking site. Now, it is owned by a major media company that is in direct competition and/or partnerships with many of the labels represented on last.fm. So any prior idea that the results shown there are not manipulated must now be reconsidered. Sometimes of course, we do cite corporate website information and there may be appropriate reasons to cite last.fm at times. Each of those situations should be reviewed by the editors on the articles to determine if that particular use is WP:V and WP:RS. The question is, how does the existence of the template affect that debate process? Is it possible that a template may seem to some editors to imply an endorsement by Wikipedia of the validity of the source named in the template? --Parzival418 _Hello 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. No matter whoever will own Last.FM, it cannot affect its information, until it is user-edited, as in Wikipedia. And I doubt it can affect listening count, which is provided by player plugin. Also, it is impossible to imagine that CBS agents would delete "rival" bands or somehow distort onformation on their bios or discographies. I can't imagine which way CBS can affect Last.FM so much that it will become useless. Garret Beaumain 23:09, 27 July 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 section.

Template:Infobox Kloof

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 02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use. It was replaced by the standard infobox. MJCdetroit 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Standardisation is better. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a single-use template. — mholland (talk) 14:25, 22 July 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 section.

Template:Infobox Durban

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 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use. It was replaced by the standard infobox. — MJCdetroit 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Standardisation is better. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:33, 19 July 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 section.

Template:Primary_Sources

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 speedy redirect to Template:Primarysources in lieu of deletion by author request. Shalom ^Hello 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was already an informational template for Template:Primarysources. I intended to create a template cautioning against the use of primary sources. The names are too similar and consfusing. Ovadyah 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a TfD, this meets CSD G7. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok. Then I will just blank the page. Ovadyah 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Primarysources. {{Primary Sources}} is close enough that people might try to use it to transcribe the {{primarysources}} template. 17Drew 22:17, 19 July 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 section.

Template:HokiesRetired

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 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templatecruft. This is not something useful for navigation - the fact that their jerseys are retired is an interesting tidbit that should be mentioned in the article, but it's not a topic where it is meaningful to navigate with a navbox. — B 13:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Off-topic: you think the Hokies might un-retire Michael Vick's number? On the other hand, who would want it? :D Shalom ^Hello 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they're very quietly going to replace the 7 with a 5 and claim to have meant all along to retire Marcus's number; he is, after all, now (at least for the moment) the good Vick brother. Joe 18:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My personal conspiracy theory is that if he is convicted, we will decide that we need to take the jerseys down for construction. Then, when we put them back up, we will accidentally forget to put up Vick's and his name will be oversighted from hokiesports.com. --B 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that, given the team's recent success and number of quality VTech players to come through the system, the number of retired numbers will increase and this infobox will provide a solid link between those honored.MichaelProcton 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm ... well, for one, we no longer retire numbers. There are, and forever will be, four Hokies with retired numbers - Frank Loria, Jim Pyne, Bruce Smith, and Carroll Dale. This template lists retired jerseys, not retired numbers. At any rate, it's not Wikipedia's job to honor athletes. --B 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a cohesive topic that needs navigation. 17Drew 02:09, 22 July 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 section.

Template:NYCS station 4

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 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unused. Pascal.Tesson 10:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. Lilac Soul 11:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template appears to be a predecessor component of Template:Infobox NYCS. I guess it was replaced a while ago, and is not so worthy to keep compared with other certain deprecated/historical NYCPT templates. I would have nominated other similar templates, but since it's late in the game, I won't do so now. TLK^'in 08:47, 26 July 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 section.

Template:Gan-fail

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. No transclusions to subst. Also, the targets are nearly orphaned, so there doesn't seem to be much sense in redirecting. IronGargoyle 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{FGAN}} or {{GANotice}} depending on context. Giggy _U^CP 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and redirect to the more developed and better documented {{FGAN}}. heqs ·:. 10:19, 26 July 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 section.

Template:Disambig-Class

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 relisting twice generally is ineffective; closing this under the "apparently nobody cares" clause. One suggestion to deletion, one objection, equals no consensus. Oh and btw, redirecting a template is a regular editing action and does not require a deletion debate. >Radiant< 08:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Disambig-Class}} is a duplicate of {{Dab-Class}}. I do not think there is a reason to have two templates for the same quality assessment item. The two should be merged, and have instances of Disambig-Class replaced with Dab-Class. If that is not possible, Disambig-Class should at least be marked as deprecated. Scott Alter 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two are used for different styles of boxes, so they use different text and formatting code. Redirecting or deleting would break this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking again at the two templates, the two serve the exact same purpose. I think User:Night Gyr is mistaken with the above comment. They are the same style of box, used for the same purpose (article assessment). The difference is that {{Dab-Class}} has <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the table formatting, allowing it to display at {{Dab-Class}} as it will appear in a cell of a table. The transcluded code is in the same format, and serves the same purpose - to identify disambiguation-class articles. The Dab-Class template should be the one to stay because it is formatted like the other -Class templates (ex {{A-Class}} and {{Template-Class}}). --Scott Alter 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 00:42, 19 July 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 section.

Template:Rationale

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 subst and then redirect to {{fair use rationale}}. IronGargoyle 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's got two problems. First, the name is a problem: one of the more common responses to an image being tagged with {{no rationale}} is to remove the "no" from the template name. Second, it's redundant with the better-designed {{fair use rationale}}. -—Carnildo 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This template is still being worked on and is designed to be a small template which has easy to remember syntax and, is designed also to the aesthetics of the rationale. Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address the problem with the name, though. Two out of the sixteen current uses of the template are accidental transclusions where someone removed the "no" from {{no rationale}}. --Carnildo 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a simple tag is desirable (as per an argument above), then a better tag can first be engineered in user space and then created with a new name. —SlamDiego_←T 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move template to a more appropriate title, replace all uses, and then redirect {{rationale}} to {{no rationale}}. This may seem a little counter-intuitive, but consider: {{NPOV}} redirects to {{POV}}m {{Importance}} discusses a problem with importance, {{Accuracy}} redirects to {{Disputed}}, etc. {{rationale}} should probably note a problem in rationale, rather than an actual rationale, if only because of Carnildo's observation. Gracenotes^T § 01:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the template is a good idea and has great potential, but a better name would clarify its usage better. I can picture this template being widely used in non-free media namespace. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created it with this name so, it is simple to use and, you do not need to spend half a day typing the template out. Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better kept under a slightly longer name than deleted under a possibly undesirable one... Gracenotes^T § 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to {{Non-free media rationale}} Giggy _U^CP 04:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redirect The {{Fair use rationale}} should be used instead, but if people find this one easier to remember, perhaps it should just redirect to that template. Lilac Soul 06:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate all of these rationale templates, but either way this one is totally redundant. --Deskana (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have already said, I do not want it to be anything like {{Fair use rationale}} - I want it to be a simple, template. The following images use the template Category:Images_Using_The_Rationale_Template and, the template has been put to great use. one good example of where the image is used is at Image:Billy_Joel_-_The_Bridge.jpg Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reconsider name and function - it's useful in preventing perfectly good fair use from being nuked whilst efforts

are made to talk to the original uploaders. Sfan00 IMG 11:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transclude~~ (err) Subst all instances, then redirect to {{fair use rationale}} ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template does not provide much protection for Wikipedia from unintended copyright violations. Most editors (& most people in general) don't understand copyright law. The justification for fair use must be specific or the fair use law does not apply. The {{fair use rationale}} includes questions that guide editors to providing responses that will (a) enable someone reviewing the rationale to determine whether or not it's strong enough to keep the image, and (b) provide a solid demonstration that there was a good-faith effort by Wikipedia to validate the fair use, in case there is a legal complaint about the use of the image. For these reasons we should not weaken the process by providing a way for editors to explain in free prose why they want to use a non-free image. They might write something that they feel is strong enough but does not directly address the legal issues, then Wikipedia would lose the protection of the fair-use documentation for that image. (Aside from all that, the new icon in this template look cool, it could be moved to the fair use template.) --Parzival418 _Hello 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and redirect as Anetode. This template is not as good as {{fair use rationale}}, and it's uglier too. — The Storm Surfer 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect, the {{fair use rationale}} looks better. T Rex | talk 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and redirect straight up re-direct to {{fair use rationale}} might be against editor's original intention.--Cerejota 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and redirect per above. heqs ·:. 10:20, 26 July 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 section.