Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 28

January 28

Template:PD-UK-unknown

Template:PD-UK-unknown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is being used, at present, as a justification for treating a British image as PD. However, in this deletion discussion it is being claimed that it is not adequate as a justification, and therefore I would surmise that we shouldn't be using this template at all. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It is true that it doesn't provide much information about the copyright status of the work in the United States. In fact, the template is only relevant for determining the copyright status in the United States if the work was first published in 1923, 1924 or 1925, and it tells nothing about the copyright status in the United States if the work was first published at some other point. However, the template tells if the work is in the public domain in the United Kingdom, which is very useful information if you wish to move a file to Commons (since British files on Commons have to be in the public domain in both the United Kingdom and in the United States). It is also very useful for people who may wish to use the file in the United Kingdom since it tells those people that the file is in the public domain there and that you don't have to depend on any fair dealing. However, I think that the template should be reworded to indicate that a file with this template sometimes isn't free in the United States and thus doesn't count as a freely licensed file on Wikipedia. Also, non-US templates like this (and {{PD-Australia}}, {{PD-Canada}}, {{PD-old-70}} et cetera) are useful when determining if a file qualifies for {{PD-URAA}} or not.

If the work was published before 1923, use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} in addition to {{PD-UK-unknown}} and consider moving the file to Commons (with Commons:Template:PD-1923+Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown).

If the work was published in 1923, 1924 or 1925, and without United States copyright formalities (notice+renewal), use {{PD-URAA}} in addition to {{PD-UK-unknown}} and consider moving the file to Commons (with Commons:Template:PD-1996+Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown).

If the work was published in 1923, 1924 or 1925 and with United States copyright formalities (very unlikely for a UK work from that time), then the file needs a non-free licence tag and needs to comply with WP:NFCC.

If the work was published in 1926 or later, then the file needs a non-free licence tag and needs to comply with WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Stefan2. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 19:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Injury

Template:Injury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Referee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Minutes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and largely decorative templates (see prior discussion). Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add

Template:Str (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Stre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

into consideration on the same discussion, for the same reasons. C679 20:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, these should be considered as well. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete All – per nom. C679 09:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete especially "str" and "stre" which look like some of the extensions to MediaWiki parser functions -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all - None of these have any discernible use. – PeeJay 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Template:Injury, as I think it could be a useful indicator as to when a player couldn't continue during a game but wasn't replaced by a substitute (e.g. if a team ran out of substitutions, or the game was played in an era before substitutes were commonplace) Delete the rest, as they aren't of any apparent use. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:NFL / NFC Champion coaches

Template:NFL / NFC Champion coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AFL / AFC Champion coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN, I'm failing to see how being the winning coach of an NFC champion is worthy of its navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no precedent for a Wikipedia navbox for championship coaches in either professional or college football. Jrcla is right: not everything needs a navbox. We have lists and navboxes for championship teams, not individuals, in college and professional football. Detailed biographies of those coaches (and players) of those championship teams is never more than a mouse click away from the existing Wikipedia lists and articles regarding NFL championships. Likewise, we do not need navboxes for NFL (or NFC or AFC) championship quarterbacks, running backs, tight ends, defensive coordinators or punters. Football is a team sport; it does not have individual champions.

With regard to applicable Wikipedia policy, this navbox appears to fails at least three of the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX:

"All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

"The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

"There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."

This navbox mixes NFL (league-wide) championships with NFC (sub-league/conference) championships; therefore, there is not "a single, coherent subject." There are virtually no cross-references among these articles. And there is no stand-alone article or list on the subject of the navbox. Wikipedia articles regarding NFL coaches do not suffer from a lack of inter-wiki links via navboxes; quite the contrary, in fact. We do not need another poorly-thought-out NFL navbox that contributes to the existing fancruft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Per Dirtlayer that it doesnt meet Wikipedia:NAVBOX. There is a reason there will never be a standalone article on the subject: fails WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Should Template:AFL / AFC Champion coaches have been nominated also here? Seems these two should be assessed together. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I have added it, and we should probably extend the time for discussion for another week as a result. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Geographic Location 2

Template:Geographic Location 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

General duplicate of Template:Geographic location, although there are some more parameters containing here than there, all of which do appear useful. I would propose merging this template's contents into the above template, because it does not seem necessary to have two seperate templates. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• A merge is obviously the right approach here, but if it were easy it'd probably have been done by now. This really needs its technical details discussed on talk: TfD is unlikely to move that forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• merge, perhaps with a simple "#if" switch to check for the additional directions so as to not generate unnecessary blank cells in the simple case. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:2004 TNA pay-per-view events

Template:2004 TNA pay-per-view events (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

DELETE Navigates two articles already linked by infobox succession markers on both of the articles. WP:NENAN -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rob Letterman

Template:Rob Letterman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Director has only three films to his credit, two of which are from the same studio. Three is way too small for a template, especially when two are already on the DreamWorks template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• keep, useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep. A legitimate exception to NENAN, I think. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• It's not obvious that we need a quicker navigation tool between these articles than via the director's article. As the nom states, two of these films are already linked via a navbox, and the third is of quite a different genre; the two are not obviously of interest to readers of the other articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)