Talk:Roses Tournament
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
2008 Roses Tournament was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Roses Tournament. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Fair use rationale for Image:Roses2006.png
[edit]Image:Roses2006.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Too many sources?
[edit]The 2008, 2009, and 2010 results look a bit messy with three or four sources each. It doesn't seem that there was any controversy surrounding these results, so would it be reasonable to reduce it to one reference each, bringing the rows in line with the rest of the table? Stuart Newmanite (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)