Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19

5695:. So why are we crediting the site owner as the author of these images? We might credit him with digitizing the images as a courtesy, but the issuing bank would be the actual "author" in most cases. If on the other hand we do accept that they have a valid copyright claim then regardles of theyr terms of use we have to delete this tag ASAP, Seeing as they make a living out of selling prints of the images using those images where would directly impact the economic value of those images, and thus violate the actual US fair use law (not merely the Knowledge policy). Furthermore the images would be replacable per Knowledge policy since presumably any scans we make outselves would then be copyrighted by us. But as I said I don't think the scanner of such images have any rights to them... -- 1451:- There's an implicit POV issue, and something inherently distasteful, about the "Notable Victims" subtitle. What we really mean (I assume) is "Victims whose biographies were found to meet the current criteria for inclusion in Knowledge", but that isn't really the same thing. In any other article where the template is used, the same issue will come up. It is very easy to work the existing Wikilinks into the text of an article or list of victims, but I don't see a clear and respectful way to do it in a template of that size. Nor do I see any real need for a pseudo-table of contents for other subtopics in this article, when there is already an established way to have a table of contents. 2442:

case with this template, since I find it easier to use categories. Moreover, it is also said that: it can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large. However, instead of being unmanageably large, it is rather small, and I think the category gives a better view of the entire spectrum of the issue. However, adding to what ForumYoshi said, the template is probably useful to people who are not familiar with Knowledge, but are using the site to learn more about the event. I remember when I started using Knowledge, categories were intimidating things... --

2640:- Quite obviously because I can't count. My problem is with the poor design of the template, not necessarily with its mere existence. That said, I think that those who wish to see it included should take an effort to make it something worth inclusion, rather than the (admittedly POV) eyesore that it is. As I don't see a reason for its existence in the first place, I won't endeavour to improve it; however others obviously disagree, and therefore I wonder why it is they don't spruce it up. As is, it is an extremely ugly and pointless waste, buried 2/3rds of the way into the article. 5395:

backlogged already. One extra category might not be a big deal, but what if other projects followed suit. Imagine if admins didn't just have to process everyting in "images with no source as of XXX", but also had to go though a dozen categories like "images of pokemon with no source", "images of dogs with no source", "images of cars with no source", "images of fish with no source" and so on. It would just make the system even more complex and tedious to administrate for no real benefit. Besides there is no guarantee that people would apply the "right" tag in the first place. --

2474:- No need to wait; delete it now. It's overkill. Looking at the template, all I see is a map and four links. We can easily put that in a series of "see also" links. Also, the template gives a feeling that Knowledge is "exploiting" the event for its own gain, and it invokes a message like "Come here to Knowledge, where we will give you 24/7 follow-up info on this tragic shooting"; this is not the point of Knowledge. Finally, the truth is the media will stop caring in six months. We cannot allow templates like this to be created that will be deleted in six months' time. 3992:. Keep in mind that the main page may have been deleted for good cause (vandal images, or unintentional libellous information in the DYK section for example). Finally, I question the need for a template like this. Mistaken deletions of the main page are in fact a rare occurence, even though a disgruntled administrator did so recently, and in most of those cases I think a customised message will suffice. Newbies testing the edit tools and/or vandalizing are a common occurence, justifying the presence of templates like 3297:. While I understand the reasons, I disagree. If an already-sourced fact is verified as true via e-mail, the existing source should be left in and there is no reason to add a new one. If an already-sourced fact is contradicted via e-mail, the text should be removed, and no source is necessary for this. An explanation on the talk page may be required, but we don't generally use citation templates for those. 4191:- this is really a joke of the moment, and the seriousness of the nom does somewhat surprise me (having read the comment on ANI where Radiant! introduced the template). I have no doubt that Radiant! has a plan for what he wants to do with the template when the joke expires, and unfortunately the TfD notice at the top of it now take some off the gloss off the joke :(. Anyway - delete/userfy. 2628:- Could you please explain how your math shows a concensus for delete? My quick head count showed about 43 keep and 36 delete. I'm curious how you weighted and/or discounted opinions to get to your conclusion. Also, it semes like you are trying to affect the change before concensus is established by removing the template from articles while it is still under discussion. Thanks. -- 5724:

the page that I have found, it says Y. Even at the bottom of all of his pages, it says "all rights reserved." I have no problem with the going through of each currency image and figuring out what we can keep or not, but I just do not feel easy having a template license that is very shaky being used to tag our images appropriately. That is why I brought the template here.

1439:- While tragic, it is largely the "media event of the week". Over time, this will fade as much as Columbine did; it will only be brought up as an example for comparison in future mass shootings. The entire event isn't complicated enough to merit its own template, nor is it general enough. Maybe an argument could be made for a "mass murder" template or similar? 1620:. Not useful at all beyond linking back to the main VT massacre page. There aren't going to be more than maybe 5 pages for the entire thing, so see also links and links within the text of the articles themselves is more than enough to navigate between the pages. You're not going to have a page for every victim, and it is rude to have "Notable Victims." 5747:

must claim fair use. Either way, this template is irrelevant and merely serves to confuse the issue. If his images are somehow restricted, we should make our own unrestricted scans and make them as freely available as possible. It's not like we have any sort of problem finding people from any given country (see the other Wikipedias). --

4285:- I'm disappointed about the Radiant!'s momently lapse of judgement, it seems clear from this discussion that other editors, not being aware of the context, have not understood the intention of the template. Whilst it may be funny, such creations serve no useful purpose and have the potential to cause confusion as has been demonstrated. 3335:, people here don't understand what OR means, and remember that not every source in Knowledge needs to pass WP:V, for example primary sources that are then discussed in other sources. An email from the subject of a biography on his birthday or other some such trivial information is perfectly acceptable in the form of a private email. 3857:- Flagrently unverifiable. Would not be opposed to salting the template, then rolling it up in a carpet, throwing the carpet off a bridge into a river, then launching the river into a star, which could then be chucked into a black hole. Hopefully the information about the template would be destroyed as it was converted into 491:, and can simply be subst:. Some have survived a previous "delete colored episode infoboxes"-tfd. I do not consider this to be a problem, except perhaps for the M*A*S*H one, which might see some opposition. I could be construed as "killing creativity". the other infoboxes are probably less controversial (and less in use). -- 2134:. South Korean flag sounds like a bad idea. It would make it seem as if S. Korea sanctioned the attack, as opposed to some nut job who happened to be from S. Korea did it. That'd be inappropriate. After all, S. Korea specifically stated their regret (along with the rest of the world) and that's just provocative. 5746:

own any of the copyrights on the bank note images that he is hosting; rather, the respective countries that designed them do. So I really see no point in this template whatsoever. We need to figure out the legal issues behind the currency themselves, and whether we can use them freely or whether we

3964:

I am hesitant about nominating this template for deletion, becuase the creator is one of our most experienced administrators and has a very good grasp on what kind of pages should be in Knowledge, and what kind of things should not, and who has logged a lot of edits on the TFD pages. I trust his good

3260:

Sometimes an email is authenticated, and there should be some standard way to cite it, along with all the other possibilities. Furthermore, Some few moderated notable mailing lists recognized by the relevant profession as important channels of communication are RSs, and this is the closest template.

2597:

of this template, it was intended to provide links for the core articles and notable victims who have articles. If you take just the professors, then we have about eight total articles. If it is decided that the template will not represent, nor be used in, the victims who have articles then even I,

2282:

This topic is relevant as of now, and being that Knowledge is there to change with the times, this template to link between the pages could be kept up for easy access for those in grief, those doing current event reports, and other groups trying to piece things together. Staying now and deleted later

1506:

Vital navigation source; proposal for deletion speculates on page merges in ongoing AfD discussions, & concensus does not seem to be going the way the proposer assumes they will. The template itself is still subject to modification if it's kept, so questions about POV etc. within the template can

5723:

Pretty much, we have a lot of copyright tags on Knowledge, and me and others are going through them all to figure out which is a legit license or not. I know we have a tag for currency, which is embeded into this template. The problem I had is while the image tag says X, the copyright information on

4139:

as the number of admin accounts increases, and with our obviously poor management of these rights we will undoubtedly have an increasing need for this very serious template. ... or we could desysop inactive people and require strong passwords and SSL login... nah, more silly warning templates is our

2441:

I love templates as much as the next guy. I am also very saddened by this tragic event. However, there is already a category for all of the articles relating to the event. It is said that a template such as this one should be easier to navigate than a category, and I do not think this is the current

2209:

and hundreds or thousands of editors are going to see it - plenty for a consensus. If it's something minor like this, there's no real harm one way or the other in having the template and I would ask that an uninvolved admin make a determination and close this TFD, without prejudice to revisiting the

2205:- I don't care any more if we keep the thing or delete it - any uninvolved admin should use their best judgment to decide. But these articles are all high visibility and we ought to keep xFD templates off of them for a couple of weeks. If a discussion is absolutely necessary, we can link to it from 1009:

Given that the two unnecessary extra articles will soon be merged into the main article i see no reason to keep this template. To keep it would only serve to relate the individuals mentioned to this topic top to the massace and given that it has been arguesd there are reasons beyond that they should

5077:

Seems that in certain situations, this could easily be a good way to solve any smoldering arguments, as well as cut down on garbage articles. If necessary, two articles can easily be merged into one at several different points. Just surf around the site for awhile, and you'll soon be able to find

4942:

merge idea (which given the current level of support for it looks reasonable enough). But again, this is beyond the scope of this discussion. Oh and I did not vote because I don't particularly feel strongly about the idea either way (I do prefer the "punch" of single distinct policy pages however).

2960:

This template, while it may seem a little iffy, is actually useful. How do you cite something if what you did to locate the information was e-mail the editor of a newspaper, or something to that effect? That is how this comes in handy, and people just have to know to use it properly. Realistically,

1554:

Yes, I've made the point on the relevant talk pages, including the talk page for the template itself. Meanwhile, because of the offensiveness of the template being used on those pages, the POV nature of the "Victims of the massacre with their own pages" section, & the brevity of the navigation

2705:

I'd like to strengthen my delete vote above by pointing out that this template is being used on the pages of otherwise notable people who died, thus placing undue weight & distorting otherwise notable articles. Please remove it from those articles if you see find it there. A category is more

1159:

I'll have to agree. At this moment, there are pages that are probably going to be deleted, and the other 3 below are of three teachers who were killed whose notability is questioned. It's a good attempt at linking together various pages, but at a time when the pages are questioned, it doesn't seem

5977:

Nope; the quote said the images can be used for "educational or scientific purposes." As I been driving into people's heads, those kind of images have disallowed on Knowledge since May 2005. Partially, this is done by the site itself since it is selling the scans they do for people; which is used

5322:

etc. There is no good reason to further complicate an already backlogged process by introducing Wikiproject specific forks of all sorts of deletion templates with accompanying categories. It doesn't matter if it's a picture of a Pokemon or not, all images without source or fair use rationales are

3832:

I dislike "private correspondence" citations in "real" publications enough, and in those places the reader can at least consider the reputation of the author and editor in order to decide whether the source is reliable. In Knowledge we don't have that luxury. Web-accessible emails such as mailing

3138:

can write a book about political intrigue and cite confidential sources and personal email. If the lawyers for his publisher are concerned, they can privately double-check these sources, but ordinary readers can not, we have to take Bernstein's word for it (which, since he has a long record as a

1078:

My point exactly! People spent alot of time arguing that these proffesors had more merit than just their deaths to deserve articles. By linking them here we associate them with this one event and completely undermine that argument, therefore making the need for their articles unncessary, therfore

4019:

kept however, I recommend changing the lead sentence which currently reads "Welcome to Knowledge", since admin-talkpages usually already have a welcome message of some sort on them. (I have realized that the talkpage of several regular contributors, including my own, don't have a welcome message

5394:

Subcategories are for making related content easier to find yes. However in this case there is no need to find related content. All we need to know is if the image is missing source or not (and when it was "tagged"), what is depicted on the image is irrelevant. The deletion process is fairly

2192:

Based on the premise that we don't have similar infoboxes for Columbine or Jonestown. The articles themselves, particularly the ones on the shooter and Prof. Librescu obviously pass the notability test, but does that mean we need an infobox linking them? I agree that a category is probably

5709:

Agreed. This is not a valid image copyright tag; further research is required on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not particular digital reproductions are free. This may be valid image source tag, but it should definitely be deprecated and, in this case, I say it should be

5045:, but apparently not. There are way too many already, so I volunteer to merge them into a minimal set of intuitive templates with optional parameters. The intended function of this particular template is definitely a possible case for merging, and it'd be instruction creep to use both 5642:

The copyright disclaimer claims rights that the site owner does not in fact have, at least not under US law. Scans of 2_D objects such as banknotes do not create a copyright for the scanner, adn any copyright in the underlying note itself does not belong to this site.

1335:

despite that fact that Knowledge is not a crystal ball I think it is safe to assume that the coverage of this event is going to only grow larger and break-away articles are going to become more numerous which therefore will render this template very useful.

5795:: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see 4689:

18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Unnecessary, redundant with existing merge templates, and created for pushing one's opinion in a particular dispute. The suggestion that a page should be renamed to be merged, or should be merged to be renamed, is an unnecessary

1853:. It is not necessary, and not useful. Perhaps it's mroe useful than a lot of the navigation templates out there, but a lot of the navigation templates out there should be deleted. In comparing it to other navigation templates, such as the one for the 4896:

About as telling as the fact that you did not. But of course this isn't about ATT at all, where this template wasn't used; this is about you creating it for pushing your opinion in another dispute, namely that renaming a page should be a contingency or

2660:

later on the image, but with the deletion discussion ongoing I didn't want to introduce too much volatility into the template. Once this discussion is settled, presuming the template is kept, then a deeper discussion can be held on the template

2249:

This is one horrible, unfortunate incident, but one incident, all of the hype in the media and here IS EXCESSIVE, and certainly not a broad enough topic to merit a template box. And there, I just added to the excess, are you happy now?

1400: 2509:

Some readers prefer to naviagate through categories, some through templates. I see no reason not to accommodate both. As for notability, we cannot decide that now; look in six months, and see if this as notable a meme as Columbine.

4771:

Actually, ATT was deliberately done in a different way to avoid confusion. So no, this would not have been useful. It's cute how you presuppose that the ATT poll was a necessity, considering it did not in fact resolve anything.

3012:

Well, if you are just saying that e-mail is hearsay, then what about citing a television program, or a professor, or any other unconventional means that MLA gives citation guides for. If MLA allows it, we certainly should.

5422:

While it doesn't seem important to me whether these get deleted, I would like to comment that the templates as they stand should put the images in the previously-extant categories in addition to the Pokémon-specific ones.

3176:, which are currently in there as bare URLs. On the other hand, since this is a special case, I'm open to creating a new 'cite mailing list' for that purpose. Personal, unarchived emails are most definitely out of bounds. 1053:

That defeats the point, deterents are the best way to stop people adding sub articles. There is a consensus that this event needs no more than the main article, so way give people the oppertunity to create unwanted pages.

1222:, not nearly enough links yet to justify existence. Maybe in time, but right now it's ugly and takes up room. (That is by far the worst map that could have ever been made of the mid-Atlantic, the FBI should be ashamed) -- 3139:

journalist, is not an unreasonable thing to ask). Knowledge is quite different. We do not expect readers to accept as accurate statements made by pseudonymous editors like "Radiant!" or "Mangojuice." We require that

1937:

per everyone else. As an aside, I'd rather this template than infinite hours of media coverage on the damn shooting while other equally important stories (like the Supreme Court's recent abortion ruling) get ignored.

3381:

Every source on Knowledge does indeed need to pass WP:V, David. Which ones don't, in your view? Primary sources discussed by secondary sources are fine, for example; in fact, that's probably most of what we publish.

3218:

for that purpose; a mailing list is a different resource than a website, and it should have a different citation template. That said, as there now exists a citation template for that situation, I change my vote to

1701:- anything that makes a subject with multiple articles more easy to navigate must be a good thing. Some people think that there should only be one article in this subject, that is why this template annoys them so. 1533:- Even if they are notable in their own right, they are and always will be closely associated with this incident. Still, that debate is best held on the individual bio talk pages and on the template talk page. -- 1881:

The majority of the victim's articles may be deleted soon, and it may be a long time before sections of the main article (criticisms, Cho's manifesto, media involvement, etc.) could become articles themselves.

3607:- obvious case of violation of WP:V. There is no need to have this AfD: we cannot have templates that encourage violations of policy. If an email was published in a RS, cite that, otherwise, don't cite it. 1656:

it indeed does serve the function as See also; and ideally all decently sized notable See also section sshould be turned into templates like this. We shouldn't be degrading the aesthetics of our content. -

4012:, but I feel the scope that this template intends to serve is too limited in nature, and will wind up as an unused and redundant warning message, leading to clutter on our table of user-talkpage warnings. 2016:- We don't need a template for this. Why should we have one for this when we don't have it for Columbine? We're getting way to deep into the details if you can't tell already. 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 2578:, as there simply are not enough articles to justify its existence. Navigational templates are nice, but when all the articles are already intertwined together with internal links, they become redundant. 1758:, but my opinion might change as time goes on. I personally thing that the template should remain, seeing how this tragedy was quite a notable one. As said, however, my opinion may change on the vote. -- 2555:

as emotions simmer down and extraneous articles get merged out of existence), and it takes up valuable space in the page layout that could be used for, I dunno, germane text or images or something else

1404: 2004:- it's a little premature to make a template for this. Event is tragic, it is crime of a mad man and it's not clear what impact it will have. Does wikipedia has template for September 11th attack? 1387:

Already usefull, and will probably grow in the coming weeks, don't be rash. And Jimmi Hugh's reasons are flawed, as commented already, as they may very well continue to stand as their own articles.

5688:, but the site's terms of use is wholly irrelevant. Fair use rights can not be removed by a copyright statement. The question is do they have a copyright? I'd say no, they even say so themselves: " 1950:

I would consider deleting if months after the incident the template was empty. It is far too soon to say whether it should be kept or deleted, though I have a feeling it will still be keep worthy.

1467: 1181:

Keep - Nomination reasoning is speculative. Valid navigation aid. If enough sub-articles go away then it may be time to remove template, but not trying to predict what will happen later. --

3089:; no point even bothering citing an email unless it's actually been published somewhere, in which case we cite the published version using one of the existing citation templates. HTH HAND — 4207:

I was actually having a hard time keeping myself from rolling over in laughter when I saw the template... I thought I would make the nomination a ridiculously serious one in return... :-)

3046:. How I can demand to see a private email to verify its contents? Or listen to a remark that a professor made than never got recorded. Now, a television program I might be able to verify, 1359:

Why would you predict more breach of Knowledge Policy? I think you underestimate people's want to make this a nice clean site. Therefore assuming good faith, this template is redundent. --

3945: 3106: 3944:(The warning was a funny one however, and I thought the ridiculous level of seriousness in the nomination would shine through, which it apparently didn't. The template can be viewed at 2266:. The incident was unfortunate but the shear number of related articles doesn't even cross 2 digits. For those saying it should be kept to see what happens to it with time, please see 5918:

The reason is the power of template - ease to update and tracking. Should the webmaster of banknote.com change his mind one day, we would need to spend less effort to update stuff. --

1279:- while I disagree fundamentally with the premise of nominator's argument (in fact consensus seems to be exactly the opposite at the moment), I don't see the value of this template. 2616:

deletion, coupled with the unprofessional appearance of said box, and its overall lack of necessity, I feel justified in removing it anyway. How much more consensus doth one need?

1399:- The argument for deleting this ("the two unnecessary extra articles will soon be merged into the main article") is both incorrect and premature. All of the important discussions ( 2551:

Goes beyond "not useful" into "counterproductive" territory. There aren't enough articles in about the subject to justify the navigation template (and, God willing, there will be

5801:)." Since the banknote scans in question have no creative aspect, they do not generate a new copyright for Banknotes.com, and standard currency templates should be used instead. 611:

Delete all per nom, redundant and inconsistent. Plus there's a (very) minor efficiency issue: the more widely used a template, the more likely it is to be fresh in the caches.

4831:"someone asked the entire community, most of whom don't care; and now they feel compelled to randomly make up an opinion very much on the fly, on a relatively short time scale" 3811:

or some custum text, meanwhile having this template around gives the impression that private correspondense can be used as source material for ensyclopeic articles wich is a

1857:, there is no list of notable victims. Let alone that half of the articles will be deleted or merged in the future, and that the picture is terrible, it's not necessary. -- 5690:(...)Actual copyright of all the banknotes on Banknotes.com belongs to their issuing banks, authorities and/or authors and/or designers of the banknotes and their designs. 3400:. Unless there is something on Knowledge which says that e-mail is not a legitimate source, then we keep it. Delete it when there is a policy against e-mail sources. -- 42: 37: 3782:, an email cannot be a reliable source. If it is trivial enough to be backed up by an email then it does not need a citation. This template is really no more useful than 3732:

In a few cases, emails can be reliable sources (especially when an article refers to an email, or a series of events that occurred via emails, or in mailing lists - e.g.

3535:, this template is needed to get information from the author of a source. The author can e-mail wikipedia editors so they can use it as a source for their articles. Take 2706:

tasteful. As I see it this template can be used on at most four articles, main, timelines, victims list, and the killer. 4 pages can't really justify the template.

1521:. However, I do find it tasteless & insensitive to include this template in the articles for those victims who were notable enough to warrant their own pages. -- 2040:

for now, and maybe relist in two weeks' time. A lot depends on the fate of the articles involved. If they are all kept, then the template helps to organize them.

4549:. Can't say I cared much for the man's movies myself, but if someone else did, it's no skin off my nose. Certainly doesn't need to be in template-space, though. 1371:- Parent article is already pushing 70K, and has a notice that the ariticle is long. Part of the cleanup for the article will be splitting it up into a group. -- 514: 4054:(or BJAODN) - I strongly suspect Radiant was joking here, but the humour seems to have been lost on some people. Note that "undeletion" in the template links to 1408: 542:

Good points: tho' I'd remind people that it's not our job to be creative! The MASH! template is pretty, but it's inconsistent, and therefore unprofessional.

5936:

What I am trying to get at is even if we use an image from the website, the owner doesn't want us to, based on the copyright/terms of use statement he has.

4868:

Obviously we differ largely over this (the fact that you voted in the poll is telling however). Alas.. this discussion is now beyond the scope of this TfD.

1427:- it's way too early to make a whole template on this event. Maybe in time, once an investigation has been carried out. I think it's a little premature. - 5865:, which address the issue of fair use. And the rest of the template specifies where the image comes from. I don't see a problem with this template. -- 2683:, there's nothing useful here that isn't already in the article proper. As Krimpet said, "main article" hatnotes and "see also" links are sufficient. 5812: 4081: 3509: 2390: 2237:. Plus, all this attention given to the perpetrator only makes other crazy people think this is the way to achieve fame, like that NASA guy. -- 1246:. There's not enough content on the massacre to justify a bulky infobox; for now, "main article" hatnotes and "see also" links are sufficient. 4305:

satire by keeping it in the template namespace? It's not like article space, wherein everything must be encyclopedic. If needed, mark it with

324: 316: 3968:

First off, the only people capable of deleting pages are administrators, who are in most cases regular contributors. With that in mind, the

6103:- I don't understand why a template would be useful in this situation, surely there would only ever be one image that would use it anyway. 3050:

it was recorded or its contents were reported on. MLA is not an encyclopedia and we aren't a standards body or a professional association.

2662: 2657: 984: 21: 3109:

which shows the MLA email style, which is apparently condoned as a reputable source by what is arguably the biggest citation style guide.

1415:) look extremely likely to end in "keep" or "no consensus". And, Jimmi Hugh, "good faith" and "will agree with me" are not equivalent. -- 3042:

it. MLA has guidelines for everything under the sun, but there's a difference between that and what Knowledge is prepared to accept as a

885: 863: 805: 687: 570: 485: 452: 307: 3965:

judgment. However I think this template, while a well-intentioned attempt at preventing disruption to the main page, is a poor idea.

3294: 3447:. This is clearly in direct contradiction to our V and NOR sourcing policies. Only material in a reliable publication may be cited. 3349: 2359: 1715: 1105: 4403:- In general, warning templates should not be posted to the talk pages of experienced users - a personal message should be used. -- 656:

but in this case i don't think it's very useful for most of these series. SATC and desperate housewives use it though I believe. --

4250: 2402: 423: 17: 3683:

I'd rather not encourage closed communication as a means of a reference. References must somehow be public in this encyclopedia.

2989:. Books can be gotten from libraries. Web pages can be viewed. Private emails, however, are not published documents. If someone 2054:, redesign to address concerns (ie. don't list individuals in the template), and revisit issue later, after fuss has died down. 214: 4591: 1255: 975: 934: 694: 5855:

Yes, it is most likely the central bank or the individual artists hold the copyright. So the template in question transcludes

431: 180: 5968: 5927: 5874: 5673: 4991: 4740: 2364: 350: 248: 414: 222: 112: 5662:

The images in this online gallery may be downloaded for reuse by the news media, or for educational or scientific purposes.

776: 205: 5627:

of the website, we do not have permission to us his images at all. The terms he gave is pretty much "No Rights Reserved."

188: 4809:

poll did that extremely well by demonstrating that the state of consensus on the merging idea was that there wasn't one.

962:. I think we need to wait until the passion simmers down a bit before deciding whether this should go. Simply too early. 171: 1795: 1464: 358: 341: 256: 239: 5598: 2993:

publish email correspondence on the web, then it's a web site and we have existing templates we handle that just fine.

2718:- Useful navigation aid for a significant event in American history. Perhaps it could be made more colourful, however. 120: 103: 5808: 4604: 4230: 4077: 3505: 2485: 2206: 820: 784: 767: 726: 665: 526: 500: 6065: 5382:

How does it make any difference? I mean, aren't subcategories for easy finding? I'll vote, but first I want answer.

3141:

any reader should be able to check that material added to Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source.

2527:- I don't see a problem with it. Makes it a lot easier to navigate through the massacre if you want to read about it 992: 5764: 4995: 4748: 4744: 3758: 3212: 1854: 146: 5589: 5536: 5240: 2799:- some users get a little too excited when something happens, trying to be the first to add it to Wiki. The event 2022:- templates are useful for navigating across related articles. If someone explains the relations here better than 6134: 6031: 6005: 5552: 5526: 5133: 5109: 4669: 4643: 4483: 4457: 4274: 4170:. Er- it was a joke... I'm sure Radiant would have deleted it in due course... Is this process really necessary? 3906: 3880: 3361: 2880: 2854: 1727: 1412: 1117: 950: 924: 742: 716: 74: 6133: