Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kotepho (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 25 June 2007 (→‎[[Template:PD-Old regime Iraq]]: ofcourse I think it should be deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 23 June 25 >

June 24

Template:Dated episode notability

Template:Dated episode notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is similar in style to a prod -- 'cept it isn't a prod. The main purpose of this template is to set a deadline of when a page must be "cleaned up" (since when did we have a deadline?) The template is the result of a messy and long discussion at Wikipedia:Television episodes. It's quite arguable whether this template is part of the guideline -- though I don't believe it to be, due to its unencyclopaedic nature/non-NPOV. Matthew 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my previous nomination of it yesterday (which was improperly speedy closed by the template's author). It is duplicative of existing templates and has been added indiscriminately across the project without actually reading the articles in question. -N 23:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undid a speedy keep by User:Ned Scott, author's template. Ned Scott is not an administrator and speedy keeping a template he wrote is inappropriate. -N 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate I believe TfD to be the correct venue for this. Therefore as of right now (25 June) I will exercise policy (WP:IAR). Matthew 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's designed to give a deadline to establish notability. Regardless of what Matthew thinks, notability is not inherited. Just being a television episode is not notable, in case anyone hasn't seen the crap that is on television nowadays. There is nothing non-NPOV about it. It doesn't play favorites. It puts problem articles in a category where they can be reviewed later by the community. It doesn't single the community down to a few, because there is another tag that alerts that televisions show's community to the current review of an episode article. Unfortunately, people think Wikipedia is just a higher form of TV.com, and that they can create episode articles merely because they can write a plot about them. There is a general notability tag, but this one is specific to WP:EPISODE. There are thousands of episode articles that cannot establish notability, notability being any form of reception (i.e. critical reaction) to the episode. Some episodes can, and that should be established; most cannot and they should be merged in with parent articles. There isn't a consensus needed for the idea that they should be merged, it was established a long time ago. This tag only puts that consensus into action by providing free peer reviewing for all television episodes, to determine if they can possibly establish notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep My being the template's author has no significance in the speedy close. "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." In addition to Matthew not even having a clue about how the template is supposed to be used. (he cited NPOV for a cleanup template). This is painfully, clearly, totally obvious, that this is nothing more than editors who disagree with the guideline trying to retaliate. Trying to TFD this template is not only something not supposed to be done, but it's disruptive. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Episodes watched by millions in many different countries, and bought by thousands on DVD are notable. I sympathise with the concern about the state of many articles, but we don't delete everything in the cleanup cats on that basis (yeah, yeah, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). This TFD is genuine and should be allowed to run its course (someone heavily involved in its creation and management making closing this is naughty) despite the inconvenience to certain people who are flooding the place with this. The JPStalk to me 00:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be television shows that are notable. You don't give minor characters their own page. Show cultural impact, critical reaction. Simply saying "it's watched by millions" doesn't account for anything but 1 line of prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sheer amount of people that watch an episode make them notable -- just like a CD is notable for being purchased en masse. Nobody denies that lots of these articles could be significantly improved, I've cleaned up a fair few myself. Matthew 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gee, last time I checked they had reception sections too. People watch the show. The show is notable. Technically, by your definitions, every character of every show is notable because at any given episode they are watched by "millions", and thus that is notability enough for them to have their own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a deletion tag. It is pointing out that if an article does not assert notability, it will be considered for deletion, redirection, or merging. Also, our guidelines on episodes state that not every episode is automatically notable. The consensus that these articles are not notable automatically will exist regardless of the template, which is specifically why we are asked to not TFD templates like this. If you have an issue with the guideline, you take it to the talk page of the guideline. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above reasons. Why do people think the deletion of this will "save" the episodes? Merge tags and cleanup tags can replace it. It won't make too much of a difference (just a little more annoying). TTN 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reword - too vague - the only articles that fully satisfy all our guidelines are featured. Addhoc 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag isn't asking the article to satisfy all our guidelines, it's asking the article to assert notability. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, the wording is clear and in bold: An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline for television episodes.. It says nothing about cleaning up the article, or putting in production information. It's clearly about asserting that the episode is notable. Saying "millions watched it" doesn't prove anything other than "millions of fans watched it". Not only does that require an actual source, but it's 1 line of information. You're also more likely to find the Nielsen ratings for an entire season, as opposed for each individual episode. Road to Audition doesn't mention any type of receptive information. If being nominated for an award is the only thing it is notable for, then why can that not be said on a "List of" or "season" page? It's one line of out-of-univser information. The plot section out weighs everything else on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This template is part of a solution resulting from this issue. It is designed to let concerned editors know that the article does not assert notabiliy, and gives them ample time to do so. It does not delete the article, since it will always be in the history and can be undone by anyone. Alcemáe T • C 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template is superfluous (we already have "prod") and the whole date thing simply encourages the immediatist agenda. We must slow down the DIME Cabal. Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Regardless of the issue whether this template should be kept, it is unarguably being used improperly. As far as I can tell, episodes are being tagged randomly without any regard for quality and/or notability. If you're going to use this template, at least start with the completely hopeless articles first and then go from there. The sheer scope will result in a flood of articles that will not be able to be properly assessed. Hegria66 07:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly? Maybe, but most of them fit the criteria (I cannot be definitive, as I have not tagged them all). But even if it is, when they are reviewed, that will come to light, and the article will be left unchanged. Start with the hopeless articles? That would be the vast majority. And we can properly assess them, as there is no deadline, we can take as long as we wish; that even gives other articles longer to be fixed. Alcemáe T • C 07:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but once we pass the "event horizon" when article start pilling up en masse to be reviewed, there will be so many that we will not be able to proper review all of them before 2013 or so. Hegria66 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UC Riverside

Template:UC Riverside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{University of California, Riverside}} and unused.. --Dynaflow babble 23:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalwarn

Template:Vandalwarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please delete for I created this without any proper knowledge.. Dreamy 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-pvc

Template:S-pvc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant duplicate of Template:s-vac that produced the exact same results. It now redirects to s-vac and all instances of s-pvc have been removed from succession boxes. I propose that it should be deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-npr

Template:S-npr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant duplicate of Template:s-new that produced the exact same results. It now redirects to s-new and all instances of s-npr have been removed from succession boxes. I propose that it should be deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-subject2

Template:Expert-subject2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merely a duplicate of {{Expert-subject}}, but with a POV-ish "Several have already been chased away by this page's amateurs" rhetoric. Designed by editors unhappy with the consensus at cow tipping. — Whydoesthisexist 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - that's not AGF. I created it because it is true. You can read about lots and lots and lots of experts who were once at WP who have experienced similar things, including having been blocked for trying to work some sense into articles. Here's just one of the latest examples among WP's vast and ongoing brain drain, from just three days ago: User_talk:ScienceApologist#Departing essay ---C.m.jones 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please point me to an "expert" of cow tipping. Whydoesthisexist 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, how many dozens or hundreds do you want? One, there is the fact that there are three types of "cow tipping," one that is particularly historically rich and the article could have lots of public domain images and for the other lots of free images. For the pop culture aspect, there's lots of books on cows, many that deal with the matter. That article could be seven times longer, easy. But never mind, have your little club, keep causing The Great Wikipedia Brain Drain. Your own actions prove what the template says. Here's another nice read for you: User:Raymond_arritt. ---C.m.jones 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the relevant link, Jones. I particularly like Raymond's quote "This community's reluctance to rein in abusive editors leads me to ask what is the purpose of Wikipedia", which happens to be the first sentence on his page. If you want to judge this by the length of one's block log, I'm all game. - Merzbow 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am convinced that Wikipedia needs a plan to recruit and retain experts and other serious citizen-editors. However, the snarky language of this template does nothing to further that goal.Proabivouac 03:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't really see any use for this template, even if it were not made specifically for a certain dispute. Wikipedia doesn't rely on experts: indeed, it's pretty hard to tell who's an expert here and who isn't. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does not help to be critical of the current contributers, and is a copy of another template, with a POV twist. Alcemáe T • C 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:further

Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page. The editprotected template above is actually for {{see}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Further (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have waiting many months to know why this template has superseded {{see}}. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GunnarRene#RV_request_of_.7B.7Bfurther.7D.7D & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:See#Why, Gunnarrene has mentioned that the deprecation tagger is not responding, and is absent. I have asked posted on rfc and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Horrible_Mess, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Link, & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Why_see_-.3E_further_information.3F all ask why is this template so much more complicated and harder to use, & why it even exists. Why do two templates exist when they should be performing the same function?199.126.28.20 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the principle of least astonishment. I've never liked this level of freedom in linking in navigational templates, because it seems to always lend itself to quirky constructs like these:
For further information, see the Wikipedia article about [[Jogging]].
Self-reference, creates problems for mirror or fork sites
For further information, see [[Religion in the United States#Belief in God|Belief in God in the United States]].
no such article, though it sounds halfway plausible to some readers
For further information, please [[Adobe Flash|Click Here]].
We aren't giving out free iPods and ring tones. Also useless in a paper copy.
— CharlotteWebb 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is CharlotteWebb's vote, copied from the previous TfD debate. She has informed me that this IP is not her. There appears to be a bit of canvassing happening; I encourage editors to not vote because they were told to come here, but because of their own logic and reasoning. GracenotesT § 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not very familiar with the quirks of using this template, but I read through the previous TfD debate, which ended in Keep on 19 May, and I'd like to know what has changed that makes the case stronger for deletion. Also I have not seen a response to all the technical difficulties that were mentioned if occurrences of {{further}} are to be mass-replaced with uses of {{see}}. If 'Further' is really undesirable, why not at least begin by deprecating 'Further', and not insist that it be immediately deleted. A small beginning would be to edit the 'Further' documentation so that it doesn't still say that it supersedes 'See.' Pomte's vote in the last TfD was to 'Keep all and undeprecate {{see}},' and that still appears a logical stopping point. EdJohnston 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no reason to have two templates that output the same thing. The {{see}} template appears to be the superior one, so this should be converted to that. — Omegatron 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really dislike both of them. Why can't {see} actually read "See: [foo]"? Why does it read "further information"? It's awkward. And yes, I was canvassed. Stevage 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no superior template; they are each used in different circumstances. –Pomte 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recognize the flexibility, and I think it's useful. DGG 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominating user 199.126.28.20 (talk · contribs) canvassed about nine user talk pages and claimed to be banned on the talk page of Hdt83 (talk · contribs) in this edit and this other edit, but did not provide the username of the banned account. In any case, on to the question at hand, which boils down to "why do we need both {{see}} and {{further}}?". First, some examples of how they work:
  • Examples of {{see}} including some from {{see/doc}}:
Example with one parameter
{{see|Year Zero (alternate reality game)}}
Further information: Year Zero (alternate reality game)
Example with multiple parameters
{{see|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|Downing Street memo|Bush-Blair memo}}
Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo
Example of linking a category
{{see|:Category:Wikipedians}}
Further information: Category:Wikipedians
Counting example 1
{{see|1}}
Further information: 1
Counting example 2
{{see|1|2}}
Further information: 1 and 2
Counting example 3
{{see|1|2|3}}
Further information: 1, 2, and 3
Example using this anchor
{{see|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further}}
Further information: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24 § Template:further
Example using this anchor with piping via the artificial {{!}}
{{see|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further|this anchor}}
Further information: this anchor
Broken example using the diff that started this page and the 1= hack
{{[[Template:the diff that started this page|the diff that started this page]]}}
Further information: [[:the diff that started this page]]
  • Multiple parameters do work the way you expect them to, with vertical bars. However, there are two spaces, rather than the proper one, after each and every comma (BROKEN CONFIGURATION). You don't have to use square brackets, they are provided for you. This is more of a beginner template. You may only use piping if you know about the artificial {{!}} or another similar hack. You may not use URLs. You may not get any separator more esoteric than a comma, a space, or the word "and". A fixed version of it follows in comments.
Would you agree then that templates like this should be included for {{mainarticle}}, {{seealso}}, & {{details}}?199.126.28.20 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of {{further}} trying to achieve the same outcome as above:
Example with one parameter
{{further|Year Zero (alternate reality game)}}
Further information: [[:Year Zero (alternate reality game)]]
Example with multiple parameters
{{further|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo}}
Further information: [[:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo]]
Example of linking a category
{{further|Category:Wikipedians}}
Further information: [[:Category:Wikipedians]]
Counting example 1
{{further|1}}
Further information: [[:1]]
Counting example 2
{{further|1 and 2}}
Further information: [[:1 and 2]]
Counting example 3
{{further|1, 2, and 3}}
Further information: [[:1, 2, and 3]]
Example using this anchor
{{further|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further}}
Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24 § Template:further]]
Example using this anchor with piping via the artificial {{!}}
{{further|[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further{{!}}this anchor]]}} (sorry, had to use nowiki, this syntax broke {{tlx}})
Further information: [[:this anchor]]
Example using the diff that started this page and the 1= hack
{{further|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_24&oldid=140204570 the diff that started this page]}} (sorry, had to use nowiki, this syntax broke {{tlx}})
Further information: [[:the diff that started this page]]
  • Multiple parameters don't work the way you expect them to, you have to use commas instead of vertical bars because this template processes exactly one parameter. You have to use square brackets, they are not provided for you. This is more of an expert template. You have more flexibility with exactly how you want to present the information. You may use URLs, piping, etc. (anything that will fit in one parameter), including the artificial {{!}} and 1= hacks.
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to announce the birth of a brand new baby sister for all of the templates discussed in this section. Her name is {{go}}. Please try her out. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 22. The result of the discussion was keep. I want it reconsidered for deletion because I do not think that Jimbo's express intent as expressed in our copyright policy was given enough respect by this template or by the participants in the original discussion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV did not appear to cover this case (reviewing a keep). Perhaps it needs to.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I misspoke. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up. Have you had a chance to think about your opinion on this template?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Material from Saddam Hussein's government is very useful for understanding historical causes of the modern situation in Iraq. If we can legally use the material, we should. It's not like there's anyone in Iraq who could legally claim the rights anyway. I think we should take material covered by this exception down only if someone appears and claims the rights to it. -N 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the previous consensus to keep, and, it claims here that "Works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries." Although Jimbo also claims that we should respect their copyrights, but it basically says that we don't have to. It's nice to do it, but not necessary.  hmwith  talk 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You question Jimbo's dictatorship?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nooo, no, no, no! I'm am re-iterating what he said. I am agreeing with him. It would be nice to do it, but he says we don't have to, and that's correct.  hmwith  talk 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our copyright policy clearly states "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world." This template violates that policy by disrespecting the laws of the Iraqi people. Once Iraq joins the WTO, its copyright protections will probably be extended retroactively, and the WMF could immediately be sued for hosting any infringing works that use this template to justify remaining here and haven't been shown to meet our non-free content criteria. I don't want that to happen.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Commons. This content of this copyright tag was copied and pasted onto a commons image to give claim to the libre nature of the image. I nominated the image for deletion as the tag wasn't real, but just a C&P job and questioned the validity of the claim. The discussion continued along the lines of the unverifiability of the explicit copyright release and so forth. The image was deleted based on these arguments which, in my view, calls this specific licensing into question--and therefore until explicitly proven, should not be used. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons deleted it because Commons doesn't follow the quirks in United States law (except for images with provenance in the United States). The English Wikipedia does follow the quirks of American law. -N 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Jimbo, we are expected to respect the laws of other countries even in the absense of a reciprocal copyright agreement in the US (and I have no doubt there will be one eventually). Please also note, works published in non-RCC countries are legally considered "unpublished" in the US, not public domain. Signing an RCC would lead to retroactive protection of everything still under copyright in Iraq and prohibit any further use of such materials. IF something is out of copyright in Iraq, I would be prepared to consider using it here, but the tag never explains why one should assume that "All photographs released by the Iraqi state and Ba'ath party organs before 2003 invasion that are without a clear copyright notice are assumed to be in the public domain". I would assume that the new government inherited any copyrights held by the old. Altogether I find it dubious and not generally in keeping with what Wikipedia hopes to accomplish. Dragons flight 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The template states: "All photographs released by the Iraqi state and Ba'ath party organs before 2003 invasion...". What WP:RS are/would there be for such images? 8/9 of the images tagged are either specifically listed on their sources as being copyrighted, or have unverifiable sources at this time. Given the images tagged at this time, are there any specific sources w/in the Iraqi state and/or the Ba'ath party pre-2003 available to us for licensing verification? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
172 could pipe up with more specific sourcing for its uploads, and most of the images could be shown to meet our non-free content criteria.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per Jimbo.

I have had this discussion before, and it is always the same argument from the copyvio advocates: that we should respect copyright unless it is from some country we do not agree with the government, then copyvio is A-OK.

That is complete bantha pudu.

If the GFDL nature of wikipedia is to hold to a challenge, the community must show a complete respect for the principle of legal copyright, above and beyond de facto enforceability. Period. The geo-centric bias on respecting copyright only when there is a reciprocal relationship with the USA is a violation of WP:5P, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:COPY.

Now, this doesn't get into the contents of the template itself, which are complete and utter WP:OR, and a transparent attempt to create policy without discussion.

To my knowledge, when the CPA dissolved the RCC, it didn't remove all the RCC laws, only the constitution and some specific laws. Saddam Hussien was tried and hanged under laws that pre-date the RCC, for example. So the logic that the copyright laws in Iraq created by the RCC are no longer valid needs to be substantiated. To my knowledge neither the CPA nor the current Republic of Iraq have modified copyright law from the RCC period.

Perhaps ArbCom needs to rule on what the policy for wikipedia regarding copyright under regime transitions, and of non-reciprocal copyright enforcement. This free-for-all has to stop.--Cerejota 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Changed opinion because, having studied the arguments, I agree that sourcing problems, possible third party copyrights (PBS claims a copyright on one of them!), and current policy that actually says Iraqi copyrights must be respected, I can see no place for a template like this. Possibly the policy might be revisited, but until then, this template and any images that cannot remain otherwise should not be here. -N 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. We're here to build a free encyclopedia with free images, not the "almost free encyclopedia with lots of images that we just use because nobody complains about it". Lupo 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We observe North Korean and Iranian copyrights, and I see no reason not to extand that to Iraqi copyrights. --Carnildo 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Lupo's statement pretty much sums up my opinion. --Iamunknown 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lupo. Cumulus Clouds 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I obviously think it should be deleted since I tried to have it deleted already, and for the same reasons I stated then. It is dubious to say that all copyrights are void in all countries (instead of just the US) and it is even more confusing now. Any of these images that are actually needed can likely be used under fair use. Those that wished to rewrite this template should do it themselves and certainly not under a title that involves OldRegime (that is to say, make a template for works that were out of copyright, have not been ressurected by the new copyright laws written for Iraq or any international treaty, etc), but to keep a template with clearly dubious assertations until such a time as someone can spend significant effort to get to the bottom of this is foolish. (BTW, what is up with the sudden interest in this now? Nearly no one cared before and I couldn't be around to argue the case and 5 other people show up...) Kotepho 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_24&oldid=140480486"