Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25

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

The result of the discussion was delete –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-presumed

Note: This discussion is transcluded from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed.

Also including-

Outmoded and unused template. While certainly well-intentioned, this license goes against current practices. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that this tag was widely-used until 2006, but the images have been sorted out. Some were retagged, some were deleted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that any visit to the deleted template will show a link to this discussion (for those concerned about history), and even disallowing the tag didn't stop new uploaders from using it. For this, and other reasons, I would heavily support delete over "mark as historical".▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woh, uploading an image to Wikipedia does not automatically make it GFDL. We have a few choices for licenses when it comes to images. If someone does not give a license we ask them for one and if we don't get it we delete the image, we don't assume that the user picked on of the several available licenses. It is good that this template's category is empty. Chillum 18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Chillum said, this template pretty much goes against our current practices. At this point everything listed above is phased out and is no longer needed. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoo-ray! Let me tell you a little story. I created this template and category way back in 2005; that's forty years ago in internet-time. Back then, there was a notice on the upload page that stated that by uploading an image you created, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. Many user-created images were uploaded before there were license tags. (Sources weren't required either -- ah, such an innocent time!) I was part of the team that went through all of these old images, asking the uploaders for details and applying the first tags. When the uploader was missing, but we thought the image was self-created, we tagged it with this. At one point there were thousands of images so tagged.

Of course times change. In a few years, many of the original license tags -- such as {{PD}}, {{Fair use}}, and this one -- were deprecated. Those images had to be gone through again to figure out what to do with them. It's been a lot of work, but we've finally cleared this one out. It's had a good run, but it's time for it to go to that great wiki in the sky. Bye old friend. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and great work to those that did the work to resolve the images - I had done some work on the category a while back -- leaving message on talk pages of users and also projects.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep useful as an archived example of "it's been done and it's not a good idea".Geni 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template. It is a good idea that this template becomes a redlink. Do not delete the template talk page (Template talk:GFDL-presumed), but keep it for our records. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geni. Definitely do not permit any current use, but should be kept for the historical record. Franamax (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the nominators : This shall be on TfD. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be there, but on WP these templates are representative of a policy, and what with the categories, I put it here. Also, TfD isn't transcludable, in case anyone wants to do that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I dont know it. Thanks. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move the categories to WP:CFD and the templates to WP:TFD; this isn't really the appropriate venue. If consensus is already to remove them as deprecated, then they will face the same fate there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2009
Why should these pages all representative of a single deprecated license/policy have separate discussions? What is the benefit of that? Further, what would be the benefit of moving the discussions at this point? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Ninja. The templates are useless without the categories, and vice versa. They should all be discussed together, and this is the best venue for that. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and transcluded it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25 anyway, mainly because transcluding things is fun, and I'll use any excuse to type the word transclude. If anyone wants to transclude it at CfD, feel free to transclude it, but that seems a bit overkill. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluder. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to hang on to it. Merely making a basic copy through "subst" for historical purposes would be sufficient. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template (Template:GFDL-presumed). Although not used on any image pages any more, there are still hundreds of talk pages that reference this template. For understanding the history we need to keep something on the template to explain what it meant and why not to use it. I would suggest however that if it is transcluded that a suitable ugly warning appears. delete the categories, as they should be useless and unused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main template for historical reasons, with a warning as Graeme suggests. Delete the other templates and the categories. -- Avenue (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories, redirect and protect template to custom speedy deletion tag using F3 as its rationale. Deprecated practice, no longer acceptable. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this was transcluded at CFD for seven days and there was consensus to delete at least the categories, I have done so. I'll leave someone who is well-versed at MFD's to close this discussion. --Kbdank71 13:57, 4 May 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Good Article

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 discussion was Delete. If consensus to flag GAs emerges, the template can be restored. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good Article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template adds a GA icon, like an FA star, in mainspace, but there is currently no consensus to give GAs recognition other than behind the scenes. A similar template was deleted in the past (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article), but I didn't speedy this as re-creation of deleted content because a) I can't see the old template to see how similar it was, and b) it's been 3 years, people might feel like revisiting this. I posted a message a couple days ago at WT:WGA#Template:Good Article but got no response. Anyway, the template is no longer used anywhere (it was used in 3 articles, and I removed it from all of them). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the forum to revisit the issue of whether GAs should be flagged. There has been no consensus to do so in the past, but if such consensus emerges it will be trivially easy to recreate it. On the grounds that this template ought not be used in articles, I move that it be deleted. Skomorokh 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no consensus to have such a template, and speedy delete as recreation of deleted material (G4 for future reference); considering the conclusions of all the discussions over it, unlikely to ever have support, but support comes first, not a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on reasons stated above. Finell (Talk) 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A TfD is not the place to revisit a contentious issue like this. By all means delete the template if it causes offence. It, or something similar, can be recreated if there is a future need. Geometry guy 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to creator's user space (without redirect); the issue of whether articles should be marked in this manner should be discussed elsewhere. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion This template is the centerpiece of a larger debate on whether to tag GAs with a small icon in the upper-right corner the way FAs are tagged with a star. While thus far, it appears that the debate is going the way of WP:PERENNIAL, I don't think that the template should be removed immediately. Rather, why not tag it with some type of historical identifier, or link the details of the template to the "great green dot debate" articles. But overall, I think for historical purposes in reviewing the debates, it helps to have this template present to put those debates into context. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no consensus for this icon, so template serves no purpose. Garion96 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is what we have a Village Pump for. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 April 2009 (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:NZDCurrencyConversion

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 discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nowadays it is unsd, there are better soulutions to this problem. Last modified in 2006.. Ksanyi (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is redundant with {{CurrencyConversion}}. If that template is kept, this one isn't needed. If that one is deleted, this one would surely have to be deleted for the same reasons anyway. Also, only 4 pages link to this (and three of them are these deletion discussions), so deleting it won't have any consequences. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:11, 25 April 2009 (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:CurrencyConversion

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 discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is redundant, nowadays there are better soltions to this prblem. It was last canged in 2006.. Ksanyi (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, and presumably no longer needed. Robofish (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2009 (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:Jackie Chan Films

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 discussion was speedy delete as G4. Per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_16#Template:Fred_Astaire_Films. So Why 18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackie Chan Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

From a previous discussion that actors should not have their filmographies in template form. Note that this template has previously been deleted before, albeit under a slightly different name. Lugnuts (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussions. Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Garion96 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - recreation of previously deleted material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWy delete Not necessary, already a precedent not to have these, G6.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and maybe replace template with Jackie Chan filmography in a "See also" section. We don't need to clog articles with a template covering bit roles to major roles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material, and per other discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for every reason already cited. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it serves a useful purpose. --Jonathan Drain (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (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:Susan Boyle

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 discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Susan Boyle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

She's a great story but there is way too little on her for a navigational template. She's never released any of the songs listed as hers. It's just simply too early. Once she's released a CD, maybe there should be a template. But not now. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete – Nothing in the navbox is solely about her, so delete for now. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I hope there will be need for this one day. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, not enough articles for a template.--Otterathome (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I created this template, it was to tidy up from the previous misusing of the KT Tunstall Template, which you can see was originally setup from this edit here. I hope deleting of the Susan Boyle template does not result in reusing other artists templates. Regard, SunCreator (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any such template is readded after the close of this TfD, then simply remove it. Such is entirely unnecessary at this stage of the game. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No problem with her having an article but there is no point her having a template just yet. BUC (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnecessary. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too premature. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too early for her own template. Recreate when/if she becomes a recording star! Giant Snowman 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the subarticles in the template are about songs that Susan Boyle actually wrote, only those that she sung! And Britain's Got Talent is in a lone category. This template is completely premature and does not compile a list of related articles like template boxes are supposed to do. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete association with songs merely by a single performance/very limited release does not justify inclusion. Hekerui (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (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:Infobox McDonald's

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 discussion was keep Erik9 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox McDonald's (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary use of prose in template space. ~~Also encourages use of non-free logo outside of the main article (which is the only article it should be on).~~ ViperSnake151 Talk 02:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Jeremy (blah blah) 07:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this template is used to identify the main McDonald's set of articles that were split from the main article per WP:Summary style. The purpose of this information box is to including a single, uniform info box in the main McDonald's articles so that all of the articles would have an identically configured info box without any conflicting information. Please see the comments in the similar discussion for the Burger King version of this template.

The template is not prose but a legitimate use of Template:Infobox to create a template that has been applied to the McDonald's family of articles that cover the basic operations of the company including the history, structure and products. As to the use of the logo of the company, I think it is within the acceptable application of fair use because these articles are basically one major article in several parts (per summary style, above). Even if that is not the case, the logo portion can modified to display any image pertinent to the article in which the template is employed. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is normal within the broad scope of WikiProject Food and Drink and specifically WikiProject Foodservice. Further, I am completely confused about the claim of "Unnecessary use of prose in template space". I don't see any prose. I see quite a bit of information, similar to what you would find in infoboxes on hundreds of other articles (like any city or country, most large corporations, etc.). Brief, factual information belongs in infoboxes; it would be stupid to replicate that information across the entire series of McD's-related articles. The infobox is succinct, appropriate, and factual. Furthermore, it does not encourage the use of a trademarked logo on pages outside of those directly-related to McD's, because that's the only place that this infobox should appear. The "prose" issue is totally a non-issue. I can see the potential issue with the logo, but that is only a reason to alter the image that is displayed, but not to delete the entire template--especially as good and informational a template as that one is that improves the comprehension of the articles. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 05:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my interpretation of NFCC 8, we can only use the McDonalds logo outside of the McDonalds article if it is critically discussed within the article. It is not in any other case. ViperSnake151 Talk 13:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That sounded reasonable, and it was also an easy fix. I substituted a non-trademarked default image instead of the trademarked logo, and only override the default image on the main article page and the page discussing McD's trademarks. Both of those seem directly related to the logo, thus qualifying as Fair Use.

Now that the trademark issue is no longer an issue, I'd appreciate it if that part of the TfD justification was removed since it is no longer applicable. And if it still seems too "prose-y", then please offer suggestions for improving it (as could have been done originally on the template's talk page instead of TfDing this useful template). I think that Jerem43 and I both are willing to adapt the template if folks agree it needs changing, but I don't think this is the right forum for that discussion. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 17:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Based on this same rationale, I updated the {{Infobox Burger King}} logo to work the same way as the McDonald's one now does (to avoid NFCC problems). The very similar Burger King template was previously TfD's (and Kept). An important point that was brought up in that TfD was:
…according to Wikipedia:Infoboxes, the definition of an infobox is: An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject. These articles all have a common subject, the corporate operations of the company ~~Burger King~~[McDonald's]. The box also conforms to the standards as defined in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes): Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format. However, the template technique allows updates of style and of common text from a central place, the template page. Again, the articles all have a similar subject, different parts of the Operations of the company ~~Burger King~~[McDonald's]. According to the WP documents, the box is being used exactly the way it is supposed to be, which is not spurious.

That certainly applies to this template, too. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Common subject" as in, We don't use {{Infobox song}} on an article about a Super Bowl game, Super Bowl games have their own infobox. Also, Wikipedia:Template namespace also says that "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Would this count as "article content"? ViperSnake151 Talk 18:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. These articles in fact do have a related subject - McDonald's corporation and its operations, including advertising, trademarks, products and legal issues. This infobox, like all of the uses of {{infobox company}}, is a quick summary of the facts concerning the company. --Jeremy (blah blah) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful navigational tool.--Caspian blue 20:05, 27 April 2009 (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.