Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:36, 4 April 2009

< March 29	March 31 >

March 30

Template:YouTube

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

YouTube, like most video sites are generally not linked to except in rare circumstances. Sites that allow free uploads of material from the public are always way more problematic than general, due to the extreme amounts of copyright violations there. The existence of a template to make such links easier is a clear violation of WP:EL standards. On those rare occasions where a YouTube link is appropriate it should not by via a template of this sort, it should have real description written on a case by case basis. DreamGuy (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The template does not violate or encourage violation of copyright policy or the external links guideline, since there is no explicit prohibition on linking to valid content hosted on a website that also contains some copyright violations (if the website contains excessive copyright violations, however defined, then that's another issue...). Deleting the template will not prevent users from adding external links to copyright violations—and the added effort needed to create such a link is so minimal that it will not be an effective deterrent—but it will increase inconsistency in the appearance of links. (By the way, the template is still untagged.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most editors adding Youtube links are inexperienced, and a template makes it seem that such links are generally welcome, rather than the true case of them being 99% of the time contibutory-copyright infringment. A template is not needed for the very few instances that youtube links are valid.Yob Mod 10:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yobmod. (An administrator should add the tfd tag to the template since it is protected). GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Changed to Keep I have thought about this, and many inexperienced users will continue to add Youtube links without the template anyway so it would probably be better to keep it. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (See: Wikipedia:External links/YouTube.) What data shows the template encourages YouTube links more than bare external links would? Deleting the template would be collective punishment against people who use the template correctly (for example, I like the template for linking to user-generated videos of wind farms, since these are common on YouTube and illustrate wind turbines in a way that text and still photos do not). When we see copyvios, we remove them individually from Wikipedia. YouTube has a copyright policy, which they enforce when someone reports copyvios to them. A constructive compromise would be to edit the template to inform users about reporting copyright violations. Currently the displayed text links to our generic YouTube article; perhaps this could link instead to a project page that explains Wikipedia's policy for YouTube links, tells the user about removing links to copyvios from Wikipedia, and encourages them to report copyvios to YouTube, thereby helping to make YouTube a more useful resource for Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no vote whether the template should stay or not - but I think YT needs to fight back against (C) law FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Individual users cannot report copyvios to YouTube - Only the copyright holders themselves can complain about it. However people can contact the copyright holders themselves, and those holders can then contact YouTube. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This FAQ page, for example, says: "Anytime YouTube becomes aware that a video or any part of a video on our site infringes the copyrights of a third party, we will take it down from the site as required by law." The entry goes on to tell copyright holders how to report copyvios, but does not say YouTube ignores reports from other parties. YouTube is required by law to remove copyright violations (just as Wikipedia is), so it wouldn't seem to matter who reports them. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to make sure we document this correctly, so let me know if you've found a source that I missed. --Teratornis (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if I, as a YouTube user, try to report a video for copyvios I get a notice saying "Thank you for sharing your concerns. We can only process copyright complaints submitted by authorized parties in accordance with processes defined in law. There may be significant legal penalties for false notices. Please refer to our Help Center for more information and the complete instructions." - I then get sent to this page: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for that. --Teratornis (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template does not demonstrate how it can improve Wikipedia. This is one of those cases of having a template only for the sake of having a template. —Mythdon (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, I don't see how a template can increase copyright violations. Unexperienced users will keep adding these links whether this template stays or not. By the way, if anything this template is probably most used by experienced and knowlegdeable users who are aware of its existence and how to use it. Secondly, most of my work is in the music field and deleting this template would be a disaster. This template is present in thousands of song articles and it is very often used to post links to music videos uploaded by major record labels such as Universal Music Group (9405 videos), Sony Music (1784 videos plus all their national channel accounts) and all those hundreds of smaller labels or even artist themselves. If template was to be deleted, all of these links would suddenly from our pages for no real justified reason at all. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is absurd that a template could be construed as a promoter of copyright violation.Scientus (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed above, the copyright argument is a bum argument, and this template provides the same benefit of standardising an external link as the extensively {{imdb}} template does. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per Udonknome. A template cannot promote copyvios. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 10:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mojska (m) 11:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With this template, legitimate YouTube links benefit from consistent appearance, like {{imdb title}} or pretty much any other external link template. (And "real description written on a case by case basis" is precisely what title paremeter is for.) On the other hand, links that violate WP:EL should be removed anyway. I don't think that deletion of this template would help us one iota in either removing the existing violations, or keeping out the new ones. So, this is not even a slippery slope argument. GregorB (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Removing this template seems like it wouldn't curb links in violation of copyright law and policy, but rather just leave us with the same number of links in widely disparate formats. Disallowing YouTube links in general is a matter that may or may not be open to discussion, but it should have no bearing on an otherwise useful and legitimate template. Agent Zero (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is fairly easy to distinguish legal from not legal videos. In this day and age many companies, people, and organizations use YouTube, so this is a legitimate template. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Youtube links (and other aspects of the Wikipedia:External links#Rich media section) are being argued about at these 2 threads Wikipedia talk:External links#YouTube, yet again and Wikipedia talk:External links#YouTube official channels. Please join the larger discussion there. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:POINT—yet again. Tothwolf (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does can a deletion of this template disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point?. —Mythdon (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the Wikipedia talk:External links discussion links Quiddity provided above. This isn't the first time I've see this sort of thing from the editor who nominated this template for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WCSchools

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

This is a navigation template for "Secondary schools in the Western Cape". There are at least 350 such schools; currently there are 33 with articles linked in the template.

According to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates: "They are particularly useful for small and more or less complete sets; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." This template is for a set that is both large and incomplete.

This navigation template doesn't provide anything that Category:Schools in the Western Cape (and subcategories) don't. htonl (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - htonl (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you can use the Western Cape Education Department Find-A-School website to see how large the set of potential articles is. (Select "Find Institution" and select "Secondary School" from "School Type"; then click "Submit". - htonl (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For a case like this one (a set consisting of 350 members, most of which do not yet have their own articles), a list and/or category is a better option than a navbox. An incomplete navbox is misleading as it suggests that there are only 30-something secondary schools in the Western Cape and a full navbox without hundreds of links would be too cluttered. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subdivide this into more manageable templates based on geographic regions WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bubble tea

Template:Bubble tea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template doesn't really serve any tangible purpose other than ~~spamming~~ cluttering up user-talk pages... I'm sure that if someone really wants it preserved, it can be userfied, but it's really abstruse and of little use otherwise. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst the single transclusion and userfy ~~delete~~ – While I can appreciate the value of WikiLove templates to slightly improve someone's day, I don't think there is any use from having variations for every possible cute, sweet, tasty, good thing. It just adds to clutter. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Optionally userfy if the creator really wants it. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed from "subst and delete" to "subst and userfy" per creator's comment below. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete. It isn't in wide use. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Xmas templates aren't in wide use either, but there are still 3 of them. Why should Bubble tea be deleted because it is not in wide use? GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what if it isn't in wide use? I do want to preserve it; what's the difference between userfying and leaving it as it is? There is no point, and these templates make users' days better. -down load | sign! 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no difference, then you wouldn't mind userfying it? It just clutters up a "public" namespace and isn't very useful. Should we have a template for every comfort food? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't do any harm being in a public namespace, so why not leave it there? In any case, it would be more convenient to type {{bubble tea}} rather than {{User:Someone/Bubble tea}}. In addition, how does it "clutter up" the template namespace? This doesn't make a significant difference to the already numerous pages in the template namespace. -down load | sign! 22:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this template clutters up user talk pages more than any other WikiLove template. It doesn't really do any harm to be in a public namespace anyway. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 19:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. If only a few people use it, it doesn't need to be in main space. I think most/all such "fun" talk templates should be in user space anyway.Yob Mod 09:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - WikiLove templates are fine, but this one isn't in wide use. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 *'''Speedy Keep''' [[WP:POINT]]{{mdash}}yet again. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 **How does can a deletion of this template disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point?. —'''<font color="Black">[[User:Mythdon|Mythdon]]</font>''' (<font color="black">[[User talk:Mythdon|talk]]</font>) 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
+***See the [[Wikipedia talk:External links]] discussion links [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] provided above. This isn't the first time I've see this sort of thing from the editor who nominated this template for deletion. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 06:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:WCSchools]] ====