Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

July 19[edit]

Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why do we have this? Such subjective proposals for deletion due to disputed rationales should be brought to the non-free content review or files for deletion. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is clearly useful in some cases. The fact that something is potentially subjective does not mean that it is not a valid reason for deletion- some time is still given for people to oppose, and, if opposed with merit, then the image can be sent to IfD. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This template is used manually and by Twinkle to tag files according to criterion WP:CSD#I7, "Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added". Feel free to discuss this aspect of the criterion at WT:CSD. Unless it is repealed though, this discussion is way premature. Amalthea 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Amalthea. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J Milburn and Amalthea. (I added the notice to the template...correctly, I hope. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, pushing discussion to more prominent locations works better, especially in more controversial cases. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but the template is simply there to coordinate with policy, and as long as we have the policy, the template has a job. I really think Amalthea is right that the place for the conversation is at WT:CSD. If the policy is changed to eliminate its job, the template would no longer be useful. At least you might want to consider proposing a caution in the policy not to use it for controversial cases? (That should be understood, with CSD, but I never assume that.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the CSD policy is repealed. _→AzaToth 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are often uncontroversial or obvious cases anyway. This is needed to avoid having even more images brought to FFD which don't really need discussion. Anyway, I think that this discussion should be closed speedily and something can be started at WT:CSD... TFD really is not the place to discuss policy changes, which is what this really is. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:CSD and WP:F. WP:NFR is toothless and has no closure, despite images being listed there for weeks, and the sheer amount of bad fair use images would swamp WP:FFD. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 20 July 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:Lotd scroll[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lotd scroll (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template moves through an awful lot of articles, transcluding them, images and all. This creates the very real problem of the use of non-free content outside the mainspace (at this template and at the main page alternative where it is transcluded, as well as anywhere else it ends up) which is clearly contrary to our non-free content criteria. This in itself would be an issue that should be dealt with through editing, not through deletion, but, basically, the author has said he has no interest in resolving the issue, and reccomended that the template should probably be deleted unless a solution can be found. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What non-free content is being used? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on the day. If you click "edit this page" you will see the vast number of articles this template is set to transclude; for instance, see File:2001nfldraft.png, which is currently, according to the image page, transcluded in two places it should not be. The sheer scale of the problem and the fact no one wants to deal with it suggests to me that the template should be deleted, and it can be recreated when someone is willing to deal with this issue. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a real problem right now, as the template is hardly used. Mostly, it demonstrates that transcluding lists in scrollboxes isn't a very good idea. Just remove the lists containing non-free images from rotation if the template starts getting used. Kusma (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The template is used, and, even if it wasn't, the images shouldn't be shown in the template space anyway. I'm not going to set up some kind of system to remove lists, and I'm certainly not going to check each list. If someone else is, I will withdraw my nomination, but I will hold them responsible if I find images being abused again... J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LotD proposal seems pretty much dead anyway, but if this still is found useful, then I'd propose copying one list with no unfree images to WP:Today's featured list proposal/Featured List or something, and that one list can then be shown as an example in the scrollbox. For the demonstration, there is no need to cycle through actual articles, and since this is a demonstrated problem (today's list is showing a nonfree image, for example) and can't even be contained by scanning all lists once since any list might get additional non-free images at any time, this has to be solved per WP:F.
So, either do the above, or delete. Amalthea 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as creator. J Milburn is right. It violates copyrights and therefore must be nuked. The Transhumanist 02:54, 22 July 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 Simpsons episode[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 section.

The result of the discussion was snowball keep. No need to let this discussion carry on. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary series specific infobox; redundant to {{Infobox Television episode}}. Any additions in this template should either be dropped or brought up at Template talk:Infobox Television episode for possible inclusion in the main template. JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have extras on The Simpsons infobox, such as couch gag and chalkboard gag which obviously wouldn't work for any other TV show. CTJF83Talk 08:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ctjf83. We also have "show runners" and "DVD commentary", and the {{Infobox Television episode}} template does not have the "episode list" and "seasons" function at the end (at least I don't think so). The leftorium 09:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. And it's hardly as though it's only used on a few articles. Gran² 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - necessary per Ctjf83. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the others. It's on hundreds of articles, and I think it works well. Brettalan (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the couch gag reasoning above.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the clear cut reasons mentioned above. The Flash ^{talk} 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the extras justify keeping it. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. I see no reason for it to be deleted. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains unique extras as said Theleftorium (same reason for keeping Futurama series' infobox I think) --Downlife (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every Simpsons episode article has one. Portillo (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Bobak (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; absolutely no reason to delete it. NewYork1956 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's farm more than just an infobox Cokehabit (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful fields in this infobox specific to the Simpsons series. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the above arguements. Cyclonius (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 21:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The couch gag and chalkboard gag don't work for other shows. There's no reason to delete this, as it's on every Simpsons episode article. Splintersag (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per everyone else. --MicahBrwn (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's used in over 400 articles. No reason to demolish that... --Evildevil (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the reasons above. User:JustWong (talk) 09:47, 21 July 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 The Wire episode[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 section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. JPG-GR (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Wire episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary series specific infobox; redundant to {{Infobox Television episode}}. Any additions in this template should either be dropped or brought up at Template talk:Infobox Television episode for possible inclusion in the main template. JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this and want to keep it. It uses a couple of extras unique to The Wire, such as the epigraph, which is placed directly under the title, and the teleplay by/story by credit per default.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 11:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Funkyvoltron above.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the extras and accurate story credits are needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. All unique parameters should be merged into the main Infobox, that includes the very useful full episode list. The "Episode chronology" section, and the link to the episodes list article just limit the navigation. --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 06:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JPG-GR Bob talk 10:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not unnecessary (at least, as necessary as an article for each episode). No valid reason not to keep it. SaulPerdomo (talk) 16:15, 24 July 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:Parallel discussion[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parallel discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This doesn't really to be in use. Moreover, it doesn't work! (Check the 3 articles "using" it). Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate, is there something else which does the same job? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that. I just know that parallel discussions have been held to Wikipedia for years and a template was never needed as far as I remember. Usually an editor would say: "There is a discussion being held...". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see this as being very useful at one time. To respond to Magioladitis' comment, if we delete templates for the sole reason that "a user could write it out", you could pretty much delete every template on Wikipedia. :-P GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems useful to me, I have been involved in discussions before where other related discussions were manually linked, and they can be hard to find and follow in that way. This draws attention to the other discussion and makes it easier to click over to.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst/delete. In the two years this template's existed, it's been used twice - and one of those (Talk:Solomon Brothers Building) is using it incorrectly. In any case, this template describes a practice which is frowned upon - centralized discussion is preferred to fragmented discussions; see WP:MULTI. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fixed the template, for whatever that's worth. Amalthea 13:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To strengthen my argument above. This template doesn't indicate where a centralised discussion should be held but only that there are more discussions on the subject at the same time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 25 July 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.