Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

October 3 edit

Template:Out of Jimmy's Head 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! 10:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Template only has three entries which also appear in the see also sections of the stated articles. As this is a TV show, the template will grow no larger than it is now. — MSJapan 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. This one won't grow with any practical value, pointless character forks is as good as you'll get on that basis. --treelo _talk 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scope is too narrow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EVula — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:57, 4 October 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:Atomic Betty 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! 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted. The user who created this template pointed it at a bunch of stubs he created that were so short as to only be a few lines and were mostly material he cut and pasted out of the main Atomic Betty article in the first place. I therefore incorporated all the material back into the main article, meaning the template only has two distinct links, and is therefore unneceesary. — MSJapan 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. which seems rational Guroadrunner 10:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unneeded. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:56, 4 October 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:POTDArchiveBar2005 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! 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused anywhere and replaced by {{POTDArchiveHeader}}. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already replaced as above. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its had its day: looks like its no longer useful. -- Solipsist 09:53, 5 October 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:POTDmain 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. matt br 08:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused anywhere. Possibly a test? — howcheng {chat} 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused, and I can't see a use for it — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:54, 4 October 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:PD-art-life-50-aus 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. Mike Peel 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, only one incoming link, does not appear to be useful. In particular, images uploaded under this rationale are quite likely to be copyright violations. Though someone may have died 50 years ago, and works created by them may be in the public domain in Australia, they are not automatically in the public domain in the United States, under whose jurisdiction Wikipedia operates. For more information about copyright terms and the public domain under United States copyright law, see Hirtle's chart. Also, we already have Template:PD-art-life-50, which is more accurate (under United States copyright law), though not widely used. Iamunknown 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The US is life+70, and does not observe the rule of the shorter term. --Carnildo 20:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, regardless of whether this template is useful my understanding is that artworks which were in the public domain in Australia when the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement came into effect, ie works of Australian authors who died before 1 January 1955, are in the public domain in the United States in accordance with the agreement.--Grahamec 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the specifics of this trade agreement beyond what the article provides, but from the "Intellectual Property Rights" it only indicates that, "Australia agreed to extend its copyright expiration period from 50 to 70 years after the author’s death where copyright is calculated on the basis of the life of a natural person, and 70 years after the first performance or publication in other cases." - I don't understand how that makes works by authors who died before 1 January 1955 in the public domain. Is there something missing from the article, or I am just misunderstanding that passage? --Iamunknown 04:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not set out in the article and the article needs to be improved. Under legislation passed in accordance with the agreement, Australian copyright protection was extended from 50 to 70 years after author's death with effect 1 January 2005, but copyright protection that expired up to and including 1 January 2005 (ie authors died before 1 January 1955) was not revived by the extension. Under US law, copyright protection is not extended to foreign authors who are not protected under their national law.--Grahamec 08:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: As far as my understanding of the FTA goes, I believe Grahamec is correct. Whether a template used for one person is useful is another point. JRG 00:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now pending the outcome of debates like this. JRG 07:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I agree that this template should be kept at least pending the outcome of research and debate. --Iamunknown 06:36, 13 October 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:Microsoft Flight Simulator series 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! 10:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of these links go to the same article: History of Microsoft Flight Simulator. With such a limited scope, there's little point in having a navbox. — Chris Cunningham 09:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful one-stop look at the many versions of Flight Simulator. Also, from an eventualist standpoint, it will need to be built again if all those individual sections are built into separate standalone articles for each version. -- Guroadrunner 10:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one-stop look can be put into article, and it's a navbox that (mostly) goes nowhere. If those other articles are created because they are deemed individually notable, then the navbox can be recreated. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are not enough articles about Microsoft flight Simulator. Maybe the microsoft template. --Astroview120mm 23:33, 5 October 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 PMP 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! 10:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Information appliance covers all queries of this template, and is virtually used in every 'PMP' (iriver clix, ZEN Vision:M, ZEN Vision W, ZEN V, iPod classic, iPod nano, iPod touch, iPod, Zune, SanDisk Sansa, M6 Mini Player, M3 Music Card and more). In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to keep this template. Delete. Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This infobox is used on the ~~Zune, IPod, M6 Mini Player, and M3 Music Card~~ articles. --Michael Greiner 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already converted to Template:Information appliance. Now there is really no article using this template. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, and unnecessary. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it's taking a very long time just to have an admin to attend to these, while the request come pouring in and pushing this one all the way down and into the logs. Should I use WP:CSD? --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TfD process takes seven days, so this will run to the 10th, so no, they aren't taking a long time. And WP:CSD is not a way to speed up a deletion discussion that you think is running slowly. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:59, 7 October 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:DbIAR 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. Not redirecting because it is unused. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good intentions when creating this template; however, I don't believe it's truly needed. --MZMcBride 01:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{db-reason}}, which is basically the same thing. Failing that, delete. —Scott5114 ↗ 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect needed, {{db}} is better. Rocket000 07:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use {{db}} if necessary. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, {{db}} is fine for this function. Gracenotes^T § 18:56, 6 October 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:PD-self 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion of this license tag in favor of {{PD-user}}. The reason is that this license tag does not specify exactly who created the content (it just says "I...release this into the public domain") and it's left to be assumed that the uploader is the copyright holder. This is normally unambiguous, but there are many cases in which images can be uploaded under a different name and the original upload deleted (for example, when an image is renamed) — in this case, the trail back to the original copyright holder could be lost. Recommend deprecation of this template for now - we can get a bot to convert most usages to {{PD-user}} and humans can handle the change in more complicated situations (for example, when there have been multiple versions uploaded). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says quite clearly, I, the copyright holder... There's usually no ambiguity about who owns the copyright. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 06:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to be ambiguous. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have the technical capabilities to move to Template:PD-user? First, we will have to change every single transclusion ... I imagine that is quite a lot. Of course, we can use bots, but bots aren't going to get it right all the time - e.g. if an image file were uploaded, later another revision (say, a crop of the first) were uploaded, then the first were deleted, a bot would indicate that the copyright holder is the cropper, not the original uploader. Second, at upload, we don't have an input box that allows the uploader to indicate who the copyright holder is. --Iamunknown 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As of now, there are about 136,000 images marked with {{PD-self}}. The main thing I would like to accomplish is to deprecate this template for now (to stop any new usages) and change the MediaWiki upload interface to use {{PD-user}} instead - shouldn't be a big deal for the devs. Then we can have a bot run through and change transclusions for images with only one version in the history, which is the vast majority based on the survey I've been doing through the free image cats over the past few days. The ultimate goal is to get all the image page data into a standard machine-readable format so that author of each image can be easily read, this is just a proposed initial step. You hit the nail on the head with your statement above - when a new version of a {{PD-self}} is uploaded, you can't immediately tell who the copyright holder is. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot-fix images with one uploader per Videmus Omnia. But I would imagine that if someone uploads a new version without changing the license tag, then that person licenses his or her changes under PD-self as well. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, technically they should be using {{PD-retouched-user}} but I don't think it matters much legally. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{PD-user}} does a very poor job of saying who created the content. We would lose a lot of source information by switching to that template. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Bot-fix per VO. Agree 100%. This tag is much misused and abused. The -user tag would make it easier for others to verify the identity of the user that claims ownership. -- But|seriously|folks 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eliminating ambiguity is good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the below, I'm unsure about deleting this template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not seeing how "This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator" is less ambiguous than "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." Can you please explain this to me? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{PD-user}} contains a parameter for copyright-holder username. When I request the bot-fix, I'll ask that the uploader name be included in the template. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now that you mention it, there's also a problem when people use {{PD-user}} without specifying the username - I'll also request a bot to add the username parameter when people leave it out. I think a lot of the problem will be solved (at least for future uploads) if the MediaWiki interface automatically adds this parameter on new uploads of user-created PD images. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, we currently have no way to make Template:PD-user work properly on the upload form. Is that correct? Because if so, it makes no sense to delete {{PD-self}} which actually works properly on the upload form. We'd just wind up with a plethora of images lacking source information. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm asking that {{PD-self}} be deprecated so we can change MediaWiki to {{PD-user}}, which, at its worst, is no less informative than {{PD-self}}, and, when correctly used, informs us exactly who claims copyright on the image. Do you really not understand this? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand how you plan to change the MediaWiki software configuration to automatically add the user's username as the first parameter of Template:PD-user when an image is uploaded with that option. Without that information, Template:PD-user tells us nothing about the source of the image. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not ambiguous at all. Furthermore, they are not the same license tag. This template (PD-self) is for the copyright holder, which sometimes is the creator (photographer), however PD-user is only for the creator (photographer) who doesn't own the copyright. This is especially true in situations when freedom of panorama is involved; an example would be someone taking a picture of People's Square's sculptures. As with changing MediaWiki, the status quo is that license tags are applied by a template only; no other parameters or syntax. —O (说 • 喝) 03:16, 04 October 2007 (GMT)

Comment -- if PD-self is deleted, will that mean that lots and lots of images will lose their licensing, meaning that something like Betacommandbot could tag them incorrectly for deletion? What is the safeguard if deleted that the images tagged don't end up without any licensing information? -- Guroadrunner 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any way to prevent mass deletions of PD-user images uploaded after PD-self is deleted. The ones currently tagged with PD-self would be transitioned to PD-user|username, but ones uploaded through the upload form would not record the username, and so they would be mass deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a big worry of mine as well. Orderinchaos 08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a bot can get to all of them. However, I actually prefer the way it's written in pd-self over pd-user. Wizardman 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least bot fix rather than create deletion mania of good images. LotLE×talk 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I prefer this over PD-user, and the wizard is not supposed to use parameters so that would cause problems. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having two templates helps to disambiguate. — Apple1976 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Please provide a reason why. XFD is not a vote. —O (说 • 喝) 22:03, 04 October 2007 (GMT)~~
Keep, if we want to transition or depreciate, we can do that, but we don't use TfD for that.. we'd just redirect (if that is the end decision). -- Ned Scott 06:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cleaning up the aftermath of the deletion of this template could be a significant technical hassle, and the use of the word "self" in this template does not appear to allow great scope for interpretation. The biggest problem with the use of this template actually is people who think that because they've created an image file, therefore they can dispose of all rights over the visual content of the image (even if this is actually a wire-service photo, paparazzi snapshot, etc. etc.). I don't see how shifting to PD-User will reduce this misapprehension. AnonMoos 06:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We may discourage the use of this template, but there's no urgent need to delete anything. Such a move would entail enormous confusion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if a user didn't create an image, but was the copyright holder and used this template correctly, to subsequently alter their statement isn't acceptable. Addhoc 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question If this template is deleted will it break the upload page ? Jackaranga 16:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The upload page can be modified so it isn't listed anymore, so no, not necessarily. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, removing PD-self from the upload page is not a good thing. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if the template were deleted, it would be even worse to still leave it on the upload page. :P As the initial nomination of the template points out, it would be replaced with {{PD-user}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And as I pointed out, there is not currently any good way to put PD-user on the upload form (technical limitations). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ...yes, but that has little to do with Jackaranga's question; I was just stating that yes, it would be possible to remove this template from the Upload page without breaking anything, not that it'd be a good idea to delete the template. :) Besides, it doesn't look like the template is going to be deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the nominators concerns and I like deleting things but, in this case I think it is not up to normal users to modify the upload form, and many new users like to use PD-Self also, perhaps because it is the only one in the list that does not contain a bunch of abbreviations and numbers in the description. Jackaranga 17:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Remember the dot's argument, the phrase "I, the copyright holder..." means whoever's name is stated next to the author is claiming ownership of copyrights. {{PD-user}} doesn't specify who the copyright holder is, just talks about the creator. There is a difference, for example: Ford Motor Company builds or creats cars but once they sell the cars to the public, they don't own them any longer person. The person that the car is registered to is the owner of the car.--Khan1982 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Remember the dot. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone said, the template links to over 100,000 pictures. And, what if I am the copyright holder and I release it into the public domain? Aside from the technical problems of the 100,000 linktos, it is useful if you are the copyright holder. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more useful than not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with most of the reasons for maintaining this template but especially Fastlizard4's two above. The language in the template is clear and it is not in violation of any laws. Orderinchaos 08:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fix the issue (ambiguity of creator due to wording) instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (deleting the template entirely, used by so many legit images). Timeshift 09:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Remember the Dot. If it turns out that the copyright creator did not create an image, then delete that image. Don't just throw the whole lot out. Let's stop the copyright paranoia and assume good faith and good images in all circumstances. JRG 10:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Remember the Dot - Satu Suro 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Remember the dot - thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question would it be possible to add a field to this template which allows equating "I", "the copyright holder", and the name of the user that uploaded the image? Then the description page could be independent from the image history, making the identity of the copyright holder even more unambiguous. Gracenotes^T § 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Remember the dot, especially the point that {{PD-user}} cannot easily be used on the upload form. Also, as Timeshift says, this would be a "baby/bathwater" thing. I can't see that deleting the template would cause anything other than mass confusion and mass deletion of free images. Loganberry (Talk) 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROBUSTLY KEEP as per everything above, it is one of the simplest and most straight-forward templates in use. Imagine changing two zillion files that already use this template very successfully. I would also like to call for a SPEEDY RESOLUTION under the SNOWBALL clause! FWIW Bzuk 06:52, 7 October 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:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat copyright holder is attributed 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. — Malcolm (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to {{attribution}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{attribution}}; redundant —O (说 • 喝) 03:16, 04 October 2007 (GMT)
- Nothing links to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat copyright holder is attributed}}. Why create a redirect when no one would use it? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and unlikely to be chosen over {{attribution}} — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused and redundant. -- Chris B • talk 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{attribution}}, there's absolutely no reason to have both. — Apple1976 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment as it's not even used, and isn't likely to be chosen accidently, any need for a redirect? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with {{Attribution}} Alx 91 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really nothing to merge...this template is pretty much redundant. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:16, 7 October 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.