Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

September 29

Delete. Unnecessary and too imposing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close We've already been through this haven't we? Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I put that in the form of a question? Yes, we have been through this before - with the Logic header. So I don't know why you are denying this. Is it your intention to nickel and dime all of these? I find that very distasteful. - GB

I was discussed but they were not put through the formal deletion process. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- These headers provide very closely related links which are otherwise two clicks away. Greg Bard (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I support most navigational devices, but having multiple redundant ones distracts from the article--especially when used as a header. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But they are not used in any articles, the headers are for categories. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Useful implementation of navigation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to use a simple {{category tree}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Did not know it existed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category tree does not serve the same purpose, and will be accomplish the same goals. This header has links to categories that are "to the side" rather than above or below. Removal of these headers will remove convenient links that are otherwise two clicks away, and should not be.Greg Bard (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary and to imposing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close We've already been through this haven't we? Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I put that in the form of a question? Yes, we have been through this before - with the Logic header. So I don't know why you are denying this. Is it your intenetion to nickel and dime all of these? I find that very distasteful. - GB

I was discussed but they were not put through the formal deletion process. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- These headers provide very closely related links which are otherwise two clicks away. Greg Bard (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in an attempt to possibly save some users the need to make one extra click you have made the page less usable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to use a simple {{category tree}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category tree does not serve the same purpose, and will be accomplish the same goals. This header has links to categories that are "to the side" rather than above or below. Removal of these headers will remove convenient links that are otherwise two clicks away, and should not be. Greg Bard (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free with permission

Template:Non-free with permission (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is proposed for deletion in that ALL of the images tagged with it have other 'non-free' licenceses. The place to note that an image has 'permission' is in the NFUR. "Permission" should also clearly mean 'permission' under a 'free' license in my view. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last three TFDs that ended in keep. There is no reason to not indicate that permission was given to Wikipedia for its use, whatever the need of Wikipedia to use NFCC guideline to judge its inclusion criteria. Permission clearly does not mean "free", since they are not synonyms. It is important to indicate we have had permission to use something, even if we use it only according to fair-use rules, because we've got actual legal permission, instead of thinking we may be legally in the clear with our interpretation of fair-use rules. -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old TFDs (all resulted in keep results): 2011 Oct, 2011 March, 2009 May -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to address your assumption of everything with permission means "free", you should create a template for {{free with permission}} for those cases where files are available under a "free" license but which are not free enough for wikipedia to use without using fair-use guidelines (ie. free-no-derivatives, free-non-commercial) which would always be accompanied by a FUR template, and deleted when a free-no-FUR-required version is available. -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates already exist :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last TfD was a weak close which seems to have been inspired more by a head count than a reading of the discussion. If 70.24.245.122 would care to rebut the points made there then he can go ahead, but KEEP PER WAS KEPT BEFORE is by itself no argument at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What points? I've already rebutted the nominator's points. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free restricted use

Template:Non-free restricted use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has no tansclusions other than a redirect, it's marked as 'Do Not' use. I see no reason to retain this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be sad to see this go. I created this and what was Template:GFDL (I can't seem to find where the history for the old version of that has been moved to, sadly) back in 2004, to try and bring some semblance of systematic categorization. But looks like it's outlived its usefulness. Which was the point, after all. Morwen - Talk 11:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's wonderful that what once seemed to be an impossible task (the accurate categorisation, documentation and use of non-free media, together with the strong pushing of free media) is now the status quo. It's fantastic that we no longer need to track potential infringement so finely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Streets in Gibraltar

Template:Streets in Gibraltar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Predominately redlinks therefore not a suitable template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with its eight blue links, as a perfectly acceptable navbox, but remove (comment out?) the red links, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I've just commented them out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andy above. New articles are being created all the time but if the redlinks are the issue is should be OK to comment them out for the moment as Andy has already done. That said, it's not uncommon to find navboxes with redlinks... --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 13:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I think I'd probably prefer a merger into a wider Gibraltar template like the main one, unless of course we plan on having an article on every street..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when have redlinks in a template been a problem as long as those articles should be created? Some have already and have survived AfD. Agathoclea (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:11th Plenum

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:11th Plenum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Seems a little too specific. An article such as Film censorship in East Germany or suchlike would be preferable. If kept, the template name should be changed to something more descriptive. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overly specific (and full of redlinks). Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As template creator, I can't say I have a valid reason for keeping it. If you believe it does not meet policy, it should be deleted. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (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:Honda D16

Template:Honda D16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used (albeit multiple times) in one article (Honda D engine). Other engine series in the same article (D14, D15, D17, etc) don't use templates. Subst and delete. DH85868993 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the template in order to slow down the myriad well-meaning ip's who consistently ruin the D engine article by breaking code and inserting errata. The D16 gets the most hits, which is why I chose that one. It has helped in my opinion, and I can't see any downside to its existence. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after substitution, or consolidate this information to a single location near the top of the "D16 Series Engines (1.6 Liter)" section. if there is a problem with IPs vandalizing the page, then have it semiprotected. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having it semi-protected is only temporary, and the D engine seems to be of permanent interest to lots of well-meaning but underinformed and easily confused fanboys. It is only about 50% vandalism, most of the edits are well intended but frequently break code and enter erroneous information. Is the template really that offensive? Is there some way to incorporate it into the page itself if it is not allowed to remain at Template:Honda D16? Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]