< August 6	August 8 >

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 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Depreciated template, no longer in use. Replaced by Template:Infobox Government agency.. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 19:59, 8 August 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.

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. IronGargoyle 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video terminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not encyclopedic collection. More redlinks than blue links, and not much activity in getting the needed articles filled in. – Mikeblas 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm not sure that all of the redlinks need to become articles, and I'm certainly not sure that we need a template for this subject. Shalom ^Hello 18:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm interested in seeing articles on the missing terminals; I hope this template will encourage knowledgeable editors to fill in the redlinks. —Psychonaut 15:11, 31 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, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nom and Shalom. –sebi 09:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The information in the template appears useful, but it would better exist as List of computer terminals. (Deleted template content available on request, of course.) Such a list could contain all notable computer terminals, not just those from one corporation. But if no one wants to create such a list, well, the template itself isn't that useful as a navigational tool (although its information is). /me suggests deletion. Gracenotes^T § 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Links many articles together in an appealing and logical way. Dfrg.msc 08:41, 9 August 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.

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 keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTG set symbol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Templates used in place of unique, clear use rationales can be problematic, and this is a classic example of why. A consensus here found that the use described is not appropriate, so the template provides a "rationale" which does not on-face satisfy our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The uses should be removed (and replaced with an appropriate rationale, ((nrd)), or ((orfud)) as appropriate), and the template should be deleted. – (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The supposed consensus was that the use of the images on Magic: The Gathering sets article was inappropriate but that the use of the images on the individual set articles themselves was not problematic. There still needs to be rationales for the fifty or so images spread across fifty or so individual set articles. The rationale for all of them is the same. How is it better to copy and paste the exact same rationale fifty times rather than to use a template? —Lowellian (reply) 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use rationales need to name the article the image is to be used in, which this template does not do. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Templated fair use rationales are a bad idea. A fair use rationale needs to be unique and specific to the image and the article in which it appears. Jay32183 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? I've heard this said a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen it explained. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because fair use rationales are supposed to explain why image X is used in article Y. Saying image X is image X so it's ok doesn't do that. The reason also needs to show that the particular use of the image meets all of WP:NFCC. An image can't pass, it's the use of the image that passes or fails. Templating the image page doesn't take the contents of the article into account. Jay32183 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Am I missing something here? The template is infobox game containing a fair use image. What is being proposed here, deleting the generic infobox or the image? – Bill Reid | Talk 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a rationale for dozens of images with essentially identical copyright status. The rest is just talking about how the images are used.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, If the uses are inappropriate, change those, don't blame this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uses of the images aren't necessarily inappropriate, but the templated rationale is inappropriate. Jay32183 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as the nominator mentioned, this template should not be used in place of unique, clear use rationale. But there appears to be no reason why it can't be used in addition to such a rationale. This template explains the rationale relating to the image itself, outside of the context of its use. (And as Night Gyr mentioned, inaccurate transclusions can be removed.) A handwritten rationale can explain the image's use (specifically, to fulfill criteria 3a, 8, 10c, and probably others). Gracenotes^T § 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Necessary and Important. Dfrg.msc 08:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fair use rationale should be entirely unique for each image IMHO; a little copyright paranoia is good. --Kjoonlee 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above arguments. Simple rationale, applicable for all uses I can see. If image is used wrongly, just remove it from the article it shouldn't be used at.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:31, 13 August 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.