< January 18	January 20 >

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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Football biography II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and out of date fork of Template:Infobox Football biography. — Nanonic (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Nanonic (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. – PeeJay 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Woody (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just added un-nnessary physical to replace height, next time BMI? Matthew_hk tc 09:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom BanRay 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - ye gods I want to be able to speedy this! Happy‑melon 12:20, 22 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

6th place squad; precedent is to only keep championship squads. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not really-most of Europeans teams that has participated in the championships over the years has templates, even not medal wining ones (silver and bronze one). I know most of Americans would like to wipe their shameful teams of the last years-fortunentelly its not up to them.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there has already been a discussion on the matter regarding the deletion of the 2004 and 2006 American teams, resulting in keeping both templates. See the talk page on the 2006 template and remove other nominations for deletion you already suggested on the matter.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Recent concensus contradicts the nomination. The world championships are just like the soccer world cup. All competing teams in the final round should have the template. Neier (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the FIBA World Championship is the equivalent of the FIFA World Cup so roster lists are appropriate. (Also, keep for the next two nominations below.) --Howard the Duck 15:39, 23 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angola squad 2006 FIBA World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

10th place squad; precedent is to only keep championship squads. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Seriously? At template for 10th Place?!) JPG-GR (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where is this precedent?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Recent concensus contradicts the nomination. The world championships are just like the soccer world cup. All competing teams in the final round should have the template. Neier (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Neier.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Squad 1990 FIBA World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bronze medal-winning squad; precedent is to only keep championship squads.. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Recent concensus contradicts the nomination. The world championships are just like the soccer world cup. All competing teams in the final round should have the template. Neier (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Neier.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DA Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete template, due to the main Template:dadsarmy featuring the same links. — Bob talk 23:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant per nom. (It's worth noting that ((dadsarmy)) doesn't appear to be working properly at the moment, though - perhaps someone can work out why and fix it? Terraxos (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd noticed that, but I can't work out what the problem is, because it only does that "text outside the box" thing sometimes, but seems fine mostly. It's probably just a code missing. Some assistance would be much appreciated. Bob talk 12:12, 26 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD G2) by User:SGGH. Non-admin closure. 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship propulsion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and, as far as I can tell, not working. — Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a test page that has always transcluded a non-existant template, and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD G6) by User:SGGH. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A&M (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused navbox with only red links. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted template, and tagged as such. Comprised entirely of red links which have also been speedy deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Userfy. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thepulse07 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template belongs in user space, should be a sub page of User:Thepulse07. — Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy –Pomte 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. Happy‑melon 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 22 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asian Currency Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

subst and delete One use template. Overlaps too much with ((Currencies of Asia)). ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, per nom Happy‑melon 12:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant per nom. Terraxos (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Although this template is frequently misused, some have pointed out that it serves as a bit of a honeypot for those uploading improper images. Also, for those images where it is used for appropriately, it highlights the fact the image is not harmful to commercial opportunities of the copyright holder. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free promotional (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is useless (template, not images with it) - the some freedom in term of use for promoimages is completely useless for Wikipedia purposes (in definition of FCW). The respective images are still non-free. Let's delete this template and redirect it to Template:Restricted use (or retag). Alex Spade (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The similar template Template:Promotional in Ru-Wiki have been redirected already. Alex Spade (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This reasoning makes sense; the template seems to be sort of a leftover from the outdated Wikipedia:Publicity photos. However, I would like to request that before creating the redirect, Template:Restricted use should be updated with the text from Template:Non-free promotional starting with Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images ..., as this helps to avoid a lot of misunderstandings (users uploading press photos of living people in good faith which later have to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1). Regards, High on a tree (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template is NOT useless. Please withdraw nomination. Noah¢s (Talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you please explain what the added value of this template is, in your opinion? A simple WP:ILIKEIT statement is not very useful in deletion debates. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is nothing inherently fair-use about promotional photos. Any images using this should either be deleted or re-tagged with a generic non-free image tag and a rationale. --Carnildo (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotional photos have fewer restrictions on their use, lumping them with every other type of non-free content doesn't make sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we go ahead and delete every image that uses the template while we're at it? Actually, I kinda like it as a trap template - it makes it easier to find replaceable fair use images. --B (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For removal of misunderstanding. I don't want to delete images with discussing template. They can be usefull. But template is useless. I see necessity in non-free templates like ((bookcover)), ((Non-free 2D art)), ((USPSstamp))... Alex Spade (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful. Prone to abuse, but so is any other non-free license tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason anymore for a separate promotional photo template. For Wikipedia there is no difference between promotional and other fair use, it's all non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I find it useful. ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as someone who has actually been going through the images that use this template, I've come across several that are of dead people, so not replaceable in the normal way (go out and take a photo of them). Image:Johnnewtonchance.jpg is one example. This refutes the assertion that this template only serves to trap replaceable images. If people are unconvinced that the category needs more careful monitoring, I can provide other examples. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Non-free promotional is a blanket category for a variety of media types, not just pictures of people. Unless you're going to replace it with seperate categories for what it covers, then it needs to stay.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This template is often misused, applied to images for which people believe that illustrating something in a Wikipedia article serves to promote that thing, rather than applying it where it's supposed to be applied ("images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media"). It is when it is misused like this that the template tends to become a catch-all for non-free images, and hence becomes useless. —Bkell (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's useless when it's not useful? Kind of a shady justification to delete it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not giving an argument for deletion. I'm saying that if kept the conditions of this tag need to be enforced. —Bkell (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with your assessment, I was just irked by the tendency to bring up the word "useless" when discussing a widely used template. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps the fact that it is so widely used decreases its usefulness? If everything is tagged "promotional", then there isn't much point. (I might be just acting the Devil's advocate here.) —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're reaching too far with that logic. Even with the existence of dozens of specialized tags for different types of promotional content there is a clear utility in a more generic template to handle instances when no special tag applies. The major problem currently lies with the use of publicity photographs of living people. These may be appropriate to illustrate articles about fictional characters those people portray, but inappropriate for use in articles on the actors themselves. I'm all up for redesigning the generic template to make that point absolutely clear or for stepping up enforcement in order to weed out replaceable uses. Also, there is a trap option in the upload wizard for people who attempt to upload replaceable fair use photographs of living people. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What? Keep, you have no idea what you're doing. How else are, say, artworks depicting subjects/fictional characters in video games meant to stay? You might as well have said the images that go with the template are useless, too. ^Dlae│_here 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images are useless, or at least replaceable with free ones. Tag the few valid uses as ((fair use in)) and give them rationales, and delete the rest. --Carnildo (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I have no clue why you find this template "useless". What other template are we supposed to use for promotional images? Rappingwonders (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is ((non-free character)), you know, which is probably better for video game characters as it is more specific than "promotional." —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough for this, and for some reason the rationale template isn't working. Why? Anyway, this thing is going to cause so many problems. ^Dlae│_here 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a missing ]]. I fixed it. —Bkell (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thank you. ^Dlae│_here 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or there is universal ((fairusein)). Alex Spade (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. After thinking about this for a bit, I think I agree with the arguments given by Alex Spade, Carnildo, and Garion96. The reason for image copyright tags is to explain why the image meets Wikipedia's policies about image licensing. In the case of a "non-free" copyright tag like this one, the tag should make a preliminary justification that the image meets the non-free content criteria. The primary message of ((non-free promotional)), however, is that the image came from a press kit. This seems to imply that somehow images from press kits are automatically OK on Wikipedia; just tag them with ((non-free promotional)) and you're good to go. The problem is that there is nothing special about images from press kits, at least as far as the non-free content criteria go. It might be argued that images from press kits are likely to meet criterion 2 (respect for commercial opportunities), and certainly they meet criterion 4 (previous publication), but tagging an image with something more specific (for example, ((non-free character))) should provide some justification for these criteria as well as criterion 1 (no free equivalent), criterion 5 (content), and criterion 8 (significance). In short, it seems that ((non-free promotional)) primarily indicates the source of the image, which is not very relevant toward explaining why a use of a non-free image meets the non-free content criteria. (This is not to be construed as saying that non-free use rationales are not necessary if the right image copyright tag is chosen, since image copyright tags can give only a preliminary justification.) And "promotional" is really too broad to say much of anything besides "it came from a press kit." —Bkell (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perfectly!! You have catched the main meaning of my offer for deletion. Alex Spade (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of what I said here are my own impressions about the purpose of non-free image copyright tags (mainly that they should provide a preliminary justification that the use of the image meets the non-free content criteria). I don't have any Wikipedia policy or guidelines to cite to back up these impressions. If this template is kept, which would apparently indicate that my impressions are wrong, can someone please explain to me the value of having non-free image copyright tags at all? Non-free images have to have an individually written rationale anyway; what's the point of having things like ((non-free promotional)) or ((non-free film screenshot)) in addition? Is it merely for categorization? —Bkell (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is historical. First there was nothing. Then came the blessed Wiki and the article writers. Soon after there followed the Fair Use Picture users, pursued by the Free Picture generators. Then the mighty Wiki-gods declared that copyright license tags were needed. And there was peace for a long age. Then a wiki-gnat pointed out that things weren't really free enough and the Non Free monument building age began. This led to the copyright tags being changed (mostly) to say "Non-free...". Then the wiki-copyright gnomes looked at the small print and the Rationale Age began with the all-mighty Foundation Resolution descending from the skies and crushing all before it. That led to rationales being added separately to the license tags. Historically, as the ur-wikipedians had always, secretly, been aware of the True Way (tm), some of the license tags used rationale-like wording. So that's why there is some duplication of purpose. Hope that helped. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) corrections to this inaccurate history welcomed...[reply]
• Keep. The template name (Non-free promotional) says in no uncertain terms that the image is non-free. Thus, the argument that, "the some freedom in term of use for promoimages is completely useless for Wikipedia purposes" is unconvincing at best and disingenuous at worst. Images with this tag are promotional in nature (which is useful to note), but the template is also explicit that a valid fair use rationale is needed. I see no reason to delete. Superm401 - Talk 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace (or redirect), I see no reason not to. It should avoid confusion and assumptions. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. From having done cleanup in the category of publicity photos, I nominated hundreds of images for deletion. This tag is used incorrectly far more often than it is used correctly, and publicity photos and ads etc are different enough that this adds very little to an appropriate claim of fair use. The fact that a photo is an ad should be noted in the rationale where commercial opportunities are discussed. Whatever this tag adds in ease of tracking is minimal compared to the problems caused by its misuse. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not the template's fault. Confusion should be avoided by making the requirements clearer. Deletion is not the way to solve this, and as shown before, the template does have appropriate uses. ^Dlae│_here 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images with this template and without FU-rationables are not the main problem of this template. Tell me - what is the difference between ((Non-free promotional)) and universal ((fairusein))? The some freedom of promoimages? It is nothing for Wikipedia. The necessity to show the specific article(s)? This is general demand for non-free works. I see the difference between ((bookcover)) and ((DVD-cover)), I don't see it between ((promotional)) and ((fairusein)), or even worse deprecated ((fairuse)). Alex Spade (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Bkell's argument is convincing. Fundamentally, the purpose of subdividing fair use images is to categorise them based on the type of fair use rationale. That is, fair use images of real people are categorised separately from fair use images of fictional characters, because in many cases fair usee images of real people can be replaced by free images, but fictional characters almost invariably cannot. But if a press pack contains an image of the fictional cast of a computer game, say, but also a photo of the game's creators, the two images fall under completely different fair use categories, but could easily be tagged together with this template. Simply put, categorising fair use images by origin rather than nature is not useful. Happy‑melon 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - it certainly is useful for proper tagging of press kit photos for deceased individuals, where free images obviously can't be obtained. See for example Image:D James Kennedy.jpg. The template is clear that it's non-free. JGHowes ^talk - 05:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why doesn't ((fairusein|D. James Kennedy)) suit you? Alex Spade (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, ((fairusein)) could be used, and no doubt will, if this template is deleted. But this template has more specificity and identifies the origin of the image: "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit...", etc. which ((fairusein)) lacks. This, I think, is helpful, especially since these press kit photos are likely to appear in the news media, as this one did. JGHowes ^talk - 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Could this be deprecated in favor of a more specific tag for press kit photos of deceased individuals? Currently we aren't tracking pictures of dead people with any fair use tag, which I think is problematic considering how many there are floating around out there. Using a more specific tag gets around the problem of this tag being applied incorrectly to so many things that violate WP policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its incorrect application is not a reason to delete it IMO. It's a reason to go through the category and properly retag the images that need it. Image uploaders' failure to understand how to use it is totally unsurprising given our confusing and unstable policy that few on Wikipedia, and no one outside, really understand. Agree with Dlae. Daniel Case (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Strong keep' per Dlae and Daniel Case. There is no good reason to delete this apart from editor laziness - fix the images which aren't used properly. It's as simple as that. JRG (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the fair use requirements is that there should be no commercial harm to the copyright holder. If an organisation releases a promotional image, they have implicitly stated that they do not consider its use will cause them commercial harm. Thus this template fulfils a valuable purpose in making that clear. Tyrenius (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tyrenius. It does make a difference when we are reusing a photo specifically meant to be reused. No, that's not enough for our more stringent requirements, but it does help.--GRuban (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -((restricted use)) has the following text, "This tag should not be used." Accordingly, I don't consider that a redirect is going to improve matters. Addhoc (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Promotional photos are meant to be spread and distributed freely. Starczamora (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only is this useful but it also serves as a general category for promotional images which might not fall under a more specific category. Tarret ^talk 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there is a distinct difference between choosing some random photo to represent something and calling it "fair use" and choosing a photo that the copyright owners have specifically available. No, it's not "free enough" for Wikipedia, but neither are a massive quantity of fair use images that nevertheless have valid and legal use. As long as the images that use this template fit the fair use criteria (some of them don't, this can be fixed) then I'd much prefer using an image that has this template versus one that just has some fair use photo.--TexasDex ★ 08:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest further debate on purpose and possible rescope as "additional information" rather than a copyright tag per se - as a general matter I very very rarely participate in debates but I thought I should write here. The "commercial value" aspect of a fair use rationale may differ between a promotional image (intended for widespread reuse) and other restricted images, so there is some rationale for a distinction. However, the majority of instances of use of this template are simply incorrect. I think it's a soft option to say "it's not the template's fault, it's the users'" - a template that is prone to misuse needs tweaking at the very least (e.g. a stronger statement about its relevant application, as a minimum), not just heavier policing. This debate has thrown up two distinct issues: (1) whether the template performs a useful function (i.e. a valid categorization of fair use images) and (2) whether the fact that the template is in general horrifically misapplied (there is widespread agreement this is a problem) negates its function. We should address these issues separately.

(1) Does the template perform a useful function? One part of the gut reaction of "it's useful/indispensable" is "because I can use it on lots of images!" but this clearly not, per se, a reason to think of it as useful - we could also make ((Fair use images with sky in the background)) which would be widely used, and there are some feasible copyright/fair use implications (atmospheric effects at the time of the photograph may be irreproducible; alternatively, those sections of the photo containing only plain blue sky may be effectively copyright-free). But it'd be a genuinely useless template. On the other hand, some gut criticism of a promo image template is that "but all kinds of unrelated types of image could be put in there!". It's a very mixed box of chocolates. However, templates about specific things (((Fair use images of Russian politicians in February)), ((Fair use images of white sheep (or at least which are white on the side visible in the image)))) are also useless. The purpose of image copyright tags is to locate an image within the web of our image copyright policies and the surrounding legal framework. For example, a tag explaining that a photograph is copyrighted because, although the rights to photo are "free", it illustrates a 3D work of art with the term of the sculptor's copyright limits, and is being critically commentated on in an article relevant to that work, is a good, useful tag. So is a tag that explains that a photograph is copyright but being used to illustrate an irreproducible historically important event for which no free images are available. These blanket tags address fundamental matters such as why the image has an associated copyright, why we are using it (within our policy) and why this is legal (the wider U.S. doctrine of fair use). They do not completely determine the position of the image within our policy (especially since no image is fair use, only its uses are fair use) which is why we also demand specific rationales for each usage in an article. The problem with the promo image tag is that it does a poor job of locating an image within our policies - promo images are just as copyright as any other, and the fact that distributors want them to circulate freely is different from saying that the copyright is "freer". But it does mean that the image is likely to lack commercial value and there's less likely to be anybody chasing for royalty payments. The fact that "therefore we can get away with using promo images without being sued" is not a valid reason to encourage their use (especially in a project aiming for genuinely free copyright status), but the lack of commercial value to be diminished is a relevant aspect of the site's fair use policy and legal doctrine. The promotional nature therefore is germane to our image policies, but it leaves a lot of gaps to fill in, which is why it's important that images using this tag should have carefully considered fair use rationales (this is rare, but that can change). Moreover, in most cases, a "better" tag could be found that located the image more specifically within our web of policy, but it's also true that use of this tag would lose sight of the the "promotional" aspect even though a promotional source is relevant, so it should at least be included in the fair use rationale.

(2) As a general rule, uploaders seem to think the template is useful and people who police image policy are finding it a nightmare. We should not criticize the promo image tag on the grounds that "many available promotional images breach our non-free content policy" - that is true for all other copyright tags (think how many images from an internet image search would fit some tag or another even though they wouldn't meet our fair use policy). However, the large scale misuse of the template for images that actually have been uploaded is a genuine problem. This is not unique, of course - the magazine cover tag explains which uses are valid and which not, but they still get overused to illustrate celebrities, for example. One particular problem here is that "promotional" is being interpreted far more broadly than the original intention (apparently restricted to press kit images and similar). Uploaders need to be aware that not everything published on the internet is a "publicity" photo - faculty profile pages at colleges, photographs of politicians on government pages (other than U.S. Federal of course), images cropped from advertising, and various other images need careful consideration before use, especially bearing in mind the policy of not including images of living people when a free image could be created even if one does not currently exist. Something does need to be done to address the large scale misuse - for example, including more detail on the promo image tag explaining some valid and invalid uses. It might be rescoped so that the only images allowed are those that have been issued in press packs and for which conventional media have been explicitly exempted from paying royalties. What exactly needs to happen is a debate that needs to take place, but not necessarily on TFD here and now.

I have a proposal that may ease problems with both of these issues, but which is quite distinct from anything suggested above. We could actually downgrade this template from being a copyright tag per se. In most cases a more specific and relevant replacement copyright tag could be found (or at least, the fairusein template used and a good rationale produced) - and if it can't be, the image almost certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. However, we might want to keep the "promotional" tag as an extra piece of information for those photographs, to indicate that as a class, they all lack commercial value, which supports the primary fair use claim. The crux of the problem at the moment is that the "promotional" status is really only a secondary claim to fair use, but the tag exists as if it is a primary one, and then the widespread availability of promotional (or "plausibly promotional") images has overencouraged some users to upload without full consideration of how the image fits into our fair use policies, outside the "commercial value" limb of the legal fair use test. Rescoping it as a secondary template - not indicating whether or not the use is fair, but serving as supporting evidence that the commercial value test is met - might maintain its usefulness in distinguishing some images while also discouraging excessive use, and encouraging better analysis of how such images fit into our non free image scheme (and whether or not they are really acceptable), and would not be incompatible with redefining "promotional" (e.g. back down to the original idea of press pack pictures, or ones that conventional media have been explicitly permitted - and encouraged - to reproduce free of charge). Purgatorio (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal reminds me of what happened to the Library of Congress copyright tag when it was deprecated on Commons (see commons:template talk:PD-LOC#Template deprecated). WT:NFC is the better place to discuss its merits, indeed the concerns behind this whole nomination should have been discussed at that forum. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:28, 26 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippines-politician-photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless non-free template. Not used. Alex Spade (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Appears to provide a specific clarifying link that the image may be used under Philippine law. LinaMishima (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • English Wikipedia locates in USA and uses rule "US-law only" for image/copyright policy. The some abilities of Philippine law is unimpotant and useless. Alex Spade (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • changed opinion, see below LinaMishima (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. English Wikipedia is not US/CA/Aus/NZ/UK-only Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ((PhilippinesGov with fair use)) already does the trick. We don't need two tags for the same thing. --Howard the Duck 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once appropriate replacements including ((PhilippinesGov with fair use)) have been placed on all images using this. LinaMishima (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quebec-politician-photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless non-free template. It is used only on five pages. Alex Spade (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saskatchewan-politician-photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless non-free template. It is used only on three pages. Alex Spade (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Permission-Microsoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless non-free template. It is used only on seven pages. — Alex Spade (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolute keep, bad faith nom Most Microsoft screenshots are improperly tagged as fair use. Which then causes fair use image deleters to find where they are used and delete them. This template is underused and should be put on a hundred or more screenshots. Bad faith nom because the nominator is apparently finding templates that are under used, calling them "useless" and trying for deletion. Sorry, accuracy trumps utilization, particularly when they point out the direct legal basis for use of a copyrighted image SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep per (at least part of what was said by) User:SchmuckyTheCat. I don't know if I'd call it a bad faith nomination, but this does seem to be an instance where underused =/= useless. JPG-GR (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redesign based on the regular fair use template design. Wikipedia does not accept "by permission" images - we only use them if we feel confident that we could use the image under a claim of fair use even without the permission. As is, this tag may confuse some users into believing that this is a free license and does not need a fair use rationale. --B (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images can be non-free or free (according to defenition of FCW). It's unimpotant, how non-free images are not free. The some permission in using of Microsoft screenshot is totally useless for Wikipedia purposes. Early it was deleted or redirected some similar templates, for example: template:Kremlin.ru, template:Hqfl logo. The sone freedom in them was, but such freedom was not in line with definition of FCW. Alex Spade (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/redirect. It was decided that to meet the Foundation's licensing policy, fair use templates should match the regex \{\{[Nn]on-free.+ to be machine-readable. Or barring that, simply redirect it to ((Non-free software screenshot)). MER-C 12:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but adjust so that it doesn't have a fair use rationale, allowing deletion of the image if no fair use rationale is provided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, usufeul template. Please make the lettering advertising template AfD's bigger so they are visible in future. Lobojo (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (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.