Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27 edit

(moon) templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an unused template intended to make it easier to link to a page ending with (moon). It isn't any easier than just using a Pipe trick. (Moon) is a redirect to (moon). -- kenb215 talk 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator -- kenb215 talk 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial play apparently // FrankB 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and unneeded. Jmlk17 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's useless and orphaned. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- useless template. Eaomatrix 12:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is useful, because it decreases the risk of a typo always present with a pipe trick. For example, one could write [[Hyrokkin (moon)|Hrokkin]] without noticing the typo in the apparent part. Urhixidur 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a pipe trick. A pipe trick, as shown in the link, is typing this [[Hyrokkin (moon)|]], which creates this Hyrokkin. -- kenb215 talk 15:32, 30 April 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.

Several unnecessary "copyright" templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not entirely similar, but they are all unnecessary, formerly used in only a couple of instances (but then substituted by me) and, in general, seem to be made out of mistaken assumptions regarding image use policy. I'll be nominating more in batches as I go through User:Kotepho/reports/templates used in ns:6, but the index is currently too large to realistically go through and deal with all of the templates in one run. --Iamunknown 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all mistakes, or misinformed creation. - cohesion 03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Junk templates. Jmlk17 07:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User no GFDL edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by David Gerard as "a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion review discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 27#Template:User_no_GFDL - David Gerard 11:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno where to start, but it just simply shouldn't exist on Wikipedia - we cannot give away a free encyclopedia built on fair use images. Anyway, it may encourage users to use fair use images where a free image would be more appropriate - most users seem to think fair use to represent a living person is fine, we must not reinforce this idea, and it could feasibly encourage edit wars, who constitutes a better fair use image, so in that respect it's too ambiguous. We need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia only uses fair use images when a free image cannot be used, created or can exist. Deletion of this userbox is a step in the right direction. -- Nick ^t 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with a stick - this is grossly inappropriate and a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy. It's as inappropriate as "Wikipedians against Neutral Point Of View". Or "Wikipedians against Wikipedia". Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation - David Gerard 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been zapped on sight. It abuses the resources of a free encyclopedia to agitate against the encyclopedia's founding principles. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop -- Goodness, it's just a userbox, it won't harm you. The prior "no consensus" hasn't changed, and certainly two comments here aren't enough to indicate it has. I've userfied the box at {{User:Jenolen/Userboxes/User no GFDL}}. Or did you mean to take this action: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL to deletion review? Because the result of the debate was no consensus... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting! -- I tried to follow what seemed to be the most common theme of the previous deletion debate - "Keep and Userfy" -- but this box was deemed "an attack on the Foundation" -- and deleted from my user space. Some ideas, I guess, are really dangerous, although the idea that a poor quality GFDL image should be prefered to a professional quality fair use image is, thankfully, a minority viewpoint. Jenolen 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember that "fair use" in this case means "non-free". One of the elements of the fair use defense is that no alternative image exists. It's hard to argue that you're not infringing someone's copyright massively if you put their property onto a top-ten website when you had access to an alternative. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "the idea that a poor quality GFDL image should be prefered to a professional quality fair use image" is a Foundation viewpoint. It's policy and the way things are here. I'm a staunch fan of fair use as appropriate - talking about things requires quoting them, and that applies to images as well as text - but your viewpoint is completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, implicitly and explicitly. This is mission-statement level stuff - David Gerard 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill advocacy templates (like this one). Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement. -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BaixSegura edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neither of the two commenters seem to have arguments beyond the fact that this is the Valencian equivalent of the Spanish name. Redirects from other languages are fine for articles but not every helpful for templates. Picaroon (Talk) 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan redirected to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. — SueHay 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirection. I hadn't even noticed that it was a seperate template. The predominant language in this region is Castillian Spanish, not Valencian, so the main title of the template shoulc be an approximation to the Spanish name. Redirects are, of course, welcome! Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't state that very clearly. I didn't redirect the template myself. You redirected Template:BaixSegura to Template:Vega Baja del Segura back on 27 June 2006. I'm merely suggesting that the unused template be deleted so that it stops appearing on template maintenance lists. Since this was all quite some time ago, you might've forgotten that you also redirected Template:ElBaixSegura to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. I didn't know there was a language issue over this, I'm just trying to clean up lists of templates with red links. --SueHay 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're having trouble running your bot, program it better, don't delete perfectly good redirects. Nardman1 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep redirect per language issues. Nardman1 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a redirect discussion. The Template:BaixSegura was previously redirected to Template:Vega Baja del Segura. This is a discussion about whether or not to delete the unused Template:BaixSegura. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that. --SueHay 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "keep redirect" (per current status) wasn't I plain about? I'm pretty sure my vote (or opinion if you will) is clear enough. I say keep the template, with the redirect. Simple, no? Nardman1 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep it if nothing links to it? I don't understand. Only Template:Vega Baja del Segura is in use now. --SueHay 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian federal election, 2005/on-n edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template. Template:Canadian federal election, 2006/on-n used instead. — SueHay 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Phoenix 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 01:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MathSymbols edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template not used. Written in HTML. — SueHay 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsightly and unused. Jmlk17 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. —dima /talk/ 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my goodness that's some messy syntax. -Phoenix 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above Booksworm Talk to me! 15:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete orphaned template that isn't needed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed, and if kept (Which I doubt will happen.) whould need serious wikifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flubeca (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Brugg edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template. Template in use is Template:Municipalities of the district of Brugg — SueHay 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. Delete it. Jmlk17 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Used now... this is one of a whole category Category: Swiss district templates part of the Swiss project. // FrankB 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this template would give rationale for deleting many other templates that concern Switzerland. There are more pointless templates that can be deleted. Booksworm Talk to me! 10:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as those articles exist. Navigation between municipalities of a district is useful. –Pomte 02:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete orphaned template that doesn't do anything. Currently redirects to another template. Deleting this won't delete Template:Municipalities of the district of Brugg. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Malevious, for making clear what I didn't make clear. --SueHay 03:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Military-Insignia (2nd nomination) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keeping, with changes, per the discussion below, this template should be refactored (which I just finished doing) to indicate that a more appropriate copyright tag needs to be used. In addition, I have created Category:Military Insignia images needing copyright status check, which will reside within Category:Images_requiring_maintenance ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a previous no consensus debate about this template I am bringing it here again. This template doesn't appear to reflect international copyright law - it vaguely asserts that military symbols of rank are exempt from copyright. Nobody has been able to produce anything to that effect. Military symbols in certain countries may not be protected by copyright - but it's certainly not a blanket exemption. I would propose that we deprecate this template (indicating that images uploaded after 30 April 2007 will be speedy deleted) and migrate the existing images to a either a non-free template (i.e. something like non-free-military-insignia) under fair use or appropraite nation PD templates. Megapixie 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and repurpose (preferred choice), or, ~~delete~~ deprecate. I agree that the current text appears to be completely at odds with reality, and something should be done about this ASAP. But I don't necessarily think that deleting the template is the best solution. I would suggest, instead, repurposing this as a maintenance template. Rewrite the text completely, to explain what the situation actually is (US Gov't insignia are PD, most other countries' insignia are not, but some may have lapsed copyrights, etc.), and to suggest some cleanup strategies (might need a separate page for that). Have the template put the images in a "copyright uncertain" category (I assume we have one like that), and unleash the cleanup crews and wikignomes. Xtifr _tälk 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After further reflection, I think deletion would be a very bad idea, since it would leave a bunch of images in limbo. If the "what links here" page ever becomes empty, then we can discuss deletion. Xtifr _tälk 09:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xtifr - the only additional comments I have are that insignia (especially unit citations) may actually be also trademarks, which don't always have an expiration date. Another important note is that commons (and probably other wikis) has it too: commons:Template:Military Insignia. one the other hand thay also have commons:Template:Insignia which seems to say the same as this discussion. DGtal 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Megapixie, you're making a second deletion proposal three days after the first one was rejected? What's the purpose with having these debates at all if people simply repropose them when they don't like the result? Is it even in conformity with deletion policy to make a new proposal three days after the last one was rejected? Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't personally interpret WP:DEL otherwise than renominations should happen after a "reasonable amount of time" has passed. Do we have any precedent on what such a time frame is? Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It depends heavily on the circumstances. Re-nominating after a no-consensus close usually has a much lower threshold. It also depends on whether people are actually having a discussion, or simply trying to out-shout each other. I just saw a case where a no-consensus was re-opened the next day, and many of the participants came back, and nobody objected, because they all wanted to find a consensus and believed they could. It's rare, but it happens. Basically, the more it looks like you're trying to game the system by re-nominating till you get the result you want, the more likely you are to be shut down. In this case, Megapixel isn't even asking for deletion, he's asking for the template to be deprecated, which is a whole new question. Xtifr _tälk 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace template on all pages with other, more appropriate tags, and only renominate for deletion once the template is not used. Until then, Keep. --Qyd 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult situation. We should not have a blanket template for insignia, because the copyright situation is too complex. However, I don't think that we should be taking hasty action either. Should be deleted, but not yet. A WP:RFC might be more appropriate in the meantime, and affected WikiProjects should be asked to propose replacements. Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - RFC has been done already. (See links in previous nomination.) —xyzzy_n 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While all US insignia fall under the PD flag for works of the US goverment, This May differ from Country to country, While there may not be an expression of Copyright ownership in other countries, this is mostly for 1. To Stop Illegal production of the Insignia as wearing them is against the law in a lot of countries. 2. Using them for Commercial purposes. 3. Other forces using the particular insignia. This Template doesn't reflect what international copright law? Insignia are not Copyright in the United States, with particular regulations for their use, European Union Copyright law is extrememly Vague although being reviewed, and in some parts of Asia Copyright Law is almost non existant. Queens Copyright states that the information may be used as long as it doens't bring the forces into disrepute (Britain and Commonwealth Countries this was discussed in the previous nomination). AND I AGREE just because there was no consensus last time, doesn't mean you keep putting it up here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stabilo boss (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unlike last time, Megapixel is not asking for the article to be deleted; he's suggesting that it be deprecated. Which was actually suggested by one of the people who opined keep at the last discussion. Furthermore, this is a complex issue, and the last debate had almost as many different opinions as participants. If this were a simple thumbs-up/down question, then I would tend to agree about the speed of the relisting, but it's not, and I think the topic warrants further discussion. Although this may be the wrong forum, and I don't envy the person who'll attempt to close this. :) Xtifr _tälk 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least deprecate. The template still contains no sane reasoning for any particular copyright status. On the matter of procedure, ‘no consensus’ means exactly what it says; apparently Megapixie feels that consensus can be achieved and the standard means for achieving consensus is a discussion in the relvant forum, which is what’s happening. —xyzzy_n 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I believe this is precisely and exactly correct as worded; Military rank insignia are not subject to copyright laws. Period. NO AMBIGUITY. Someone is confusing use of (as in wearing) with display of Insignia in general (Note the disclaimer on the bottom of that article.) It is improper and illegal to drive a car marked Police if one is not employed as one, that does not make it improper, illegal, nor protected by copyright to display what symbols one carries, and the prohibition on copyrighting such makes tons of sense under various international conventions, beginning with the Geneva convention. Combatants must be able to identify the personel and ranks of their adversaries or face international condemnation for mistreatment of persons of rank. Taking the point made in the first link (RFC) about one side providing them to the other, how many copies would one provide?... They are not copyrighted simply because they need to be copied. Lastly, can't you guys find something serious and important to worry about? The worst that will happen if some government takes umbrage is they will send a letter, and THEN and ONLY THEN should all this man-power be put into worrying about it. Bet you if you checked the local library most encyclopedia's have color plates showing tons of these inconsequential artifacts. Granted the designs are copyrighted and the uses are constrained both nationally and internationally, but this when all is said and done is a huge amount of effort discussing an image of an artifact. Can you copyright a building, a bridge, or a shirt? Worry about something worth your time. This is a tempest in a teapot! (IMHO, it's AGF to have this re-nominated so soon, and shame on anyone supporting that too!) // FrankB 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For your first claim, that these are not subject to copyright: it was clearly established at the RFC discussion that Canadian insignia are subject to Crown copyright, administered by the Dept. Of National Defence . Unless you can provide a reliable source to trump the existing evidence and prove your claim, I think we have to dismiss it as sheer speculation, and not a justification for violating fundamental Wikipedia policy. Worse, you then attack the policy ("the worst that will happen ... is they will send a letter... and ONLY THEN should ... [we] worry about it"). Believe it or not, some of us actually care about the goals of this project. Some of us also prefer to obey the law without being forced. You then, confusingly, go on to add, "Granted the designs are copyrighted..." which seems to contradict your initial premise. And we're not, as you state, "discussing an image of an artifact"; we are discussing a label that happens to be applied to a whole bunch of images. The images themselves are fine (although the copyrighted ones need to be tagged for fair use). Nobody is suggesting that any images be deleted, if that's your concern! We're suggesting that some text be changed or removed (or deprecated) because it contains serious misinformation. I think that lying to our users is more than a tempest in a teapot. (And yes, buildings, bridges and shirts can be copyrighted, but only if they contain "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article".[1] Since you asked.) cheers, Xtifr _tälk 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Military insignia are extremely utilitarian, let me tell you (as an active duty Sailor). It is extremely critical to be able to instantaneously understand a military person's relative rank and which country he represents. Any supposed artistic elements in the designs serve not an artistic function, but utilitarian. They are founded in each country's heraldic traditions and serve to quickly identifies them by their country and rank, and if not actually recognized by the viewer, then the heraldic traditions at least give you a good idea. These images are PD as utilitarian and as required by the Geneva Convention. Nardman1 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Utilitarian objects are copyrighted to the extent that they contain creative material which is independent of their normal use. The amount of creativity required to cause copyright protection is minimal. For example, the eagle from a colonel’s insignia, used in a non-utilitarian context, would be indubitably copyrighted; since this design is not implied by the purpose of the insignia (say ‘colonel’ on the uniform), it makes the insignia subject to copyright.

Regardless of the precise balance of utility and creativity in actual insignia, it should be obvious that drawings of insignia are not in any way utilitarian, but are creative works. —xyzzy_n 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It obviously serves at least SOME purpose; it links to numerous article pages. Also, per above comment(s). Jmlk17 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It currently serves the purpose of misinforming our users and, worse yet, categorizing a bunch of images—some of which are public domain and some aren't—as public domain. I agree that it's used on too many pages to be deleted, but it also, obviously, needs to be fixed. What we're trying to figure out is how. Got any suggestions? Xtifr _tälk 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Geneva conventions REQUIRE that military insignia be recognizable by other armed forces. Other countries are REQUIRED to instruct their personnel on the appearances of other countries' insignia. The only way to do so is by reproducing them. International law thus implicitly forbids disallowing copies of these insignia. Nardman1 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This legal argument was already in the first discussion (here), a few people in that discussion said they did some research on the treaties but nobody managed to find the legal basis. Could you back this claim with any specific wording? DGtal 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately while I believe this to be true, it is probably original research. The Geneva Convention doesn't even require organized militaries to have insignias, only irregular militias. See [2] for counter-argument. Getting from A to B in this argument requires going through C-Z. I still think the patches are entirely utilitarian though, and might be PD under that angle. Nardman1 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some nations, like Russia, Belarus, United States and others do not place military insignia under copyright, others do. The copyright and recognition of insignia are two different issues, we should focus on the first issue. I have asked others before to provide information on if any of the Genevea Conventions provide for the copyright of insignia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no conclusive evidence or case law suggesting that military insignia is by default ineligible for copyright; until we can find such information, we should consider digital reproductions on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. --Iamunknown 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've so far only found indirect references to badges of rank; The 3rd Geneva Convention, § 43 states Upon the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties to the conflict shall communicate to one another the titles and ranks of all the persons mentioned in Article 4 of the present Convention, in order to ensure equality of treatment between prisoners of equivalent rank. Titles and ranks which are subsequently created shall form the subject of similar communications. [3] The purpose of establishing the comparative rank of soldiers from the two armies is expressly mentioned but § 17 of the same convention makes it the POW's responsibility to relay such information in his / her own case: Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. But to be the devil's advocate, if one army isn't able to identify members of the other correctly, that will seriously undermine the entire construction. Has somebody tried contacting the U.S. military? They must have lawyers employed that know this stuff by heart. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but none of that has any necessary effect on copyright status. The copyright holder can certainly communicate such information without putting the copyrighted works into the public domain or under a free licence. —xyzzy_n 18:41, 3 May 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.