Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.62.7.22 (talk) at 06:32, 2 May 2007 (→[[Template:Universal Press Syndicate]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability

Template:Usertag-Energy-Development-Sustainability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not linked anywhere and should thus be speedily deleted — JEF 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OurStory

Template:OurStory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Outside opinion wanted on external links, nominating for deletion as nonencyclopedic/unreliable self-promotional/spam link — DreamGuy 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nights series

Template:Nights series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Navigational template for two video games, one of which has not even been released. Not useful. — Pagrashtak 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24 Series Regulars

Template:24 Series Regulars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is totally redundant as there are already several existing templates for past and present characters. —T smitts 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox South African Alternatives

Template:Infobox South African Alternatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This infobox was created for use in articles that fall within the scope of WikiProject on South African Alternatives, an inactive project that has been nominated for deletion here. It is currently unused, seemingly incomplete, and redundant to Template:South African topics. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Politician (Alternative)

Template:Infobox Politician (Alternative) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and unneeded, Template:Infobox Politician does its job.— Philip Stevens 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redundant duplication. --Dweller 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created this template because I disliked a certain aspect of infobox politician. That infobox has since been changed in an acceptable way, and I'm ok with deleting this. However, please note the following in dealing with similar situations in the future:
  • It is not a duplication and actually differs significantly from infobox politician.
  • It was used until the person nominating this for deletion removed it from the page it was being used on.
  • Corresponding directly with the creator of a template to determine why it was created and why it may be needed, before nominating it for deletion, seems like the right thing to do.

Harrykirk 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-invalid

While well-intended, I think this is a bad idea. This template is used to indicate other templates are invalid, by redirecting those templates to this one. I think that instead, we should delete those invalid templates (and indeed we generally do). >Radiant< 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AVFC-infobox

Template:AVFC-infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template contains an instance of {{Infobox football club}} pertaining to Aston Villa, currently used in articles Aston Villa F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. statistics. However the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it - not least because it includes a fair use image, inclusion of which should be minimal under Wikipedia rules, and inclusion of FU images in templates is forbidden by policy. This template should only be used in one page and thus it is a waste to have it, not to mention a bad precedent (it could lead to hundreds of similar templates created for other football clubs). Therefore delete and revert to using {{Infobox football club}} in the main Aston Villa F.C. article Qwghlm 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary infobox. --Dweller 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having this is wrong in every way. Punkmorten 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Applies, with fair use in each case, to two current pages and a future, planned age splitting of the history of the club. The claim that "the infobox is only intended to be used in the main article about the club itself, and not every single page to do with it" is unsubstantiated. The policy referred to is not cited, but if there is such a policy, a better solution would be to replace the image with a free one. Better still would be to fix the policy to apply to situations like this one. The "precedence" claim is "Slippery slope" and thus false logic. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited and linked to the fair use policy already. The two most relevant parts are:
"8. The material must' contribute significantly to the article."
"9. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates"
No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article (and the burden of proof is on the editor who proposes adding it), nor the history article for that matter, and in any case it should not be included in the template under #9. And I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template.
Quite apart from the fair use reasons, the infobox should not be replicated freely over any page to do with a club; infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects and not every topic to do with them. That's not policy, it's just mere common sense. I'd quite happily admit my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead? Qwghlm 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No reason, let alone a good reason, has been put for how the crest would contribute significantly to the statistics article" It provides a visual clue to the subject of the article, as it does on the club's main article.
"I see no reason why policy should be "fixed" just for this template" - I donlt say that iot should,.
"infoboxes should be kept to the articles that are directly about their subjects" all of teh pages discussed are directly about Aston Villa.
"my argument that it is bad precedent is a slippery slope argument, but that does not make it inherently illogical or wrong. Perhaps you could discuss it on its merits instead?" It has none.
Andy Mabbett 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on Give or take the image it seems a good idea to have an AV-specific template to put on all AV related articles (which has to be updated just the once rather than once per AV-page). If other FC pages follow suit, does it matter? (The fair use image should be used just once, in the crest section of the main article, which looks a bit odd with no crests in sight. Apparently a new crest is imminent anyway.) -- roundhouse 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no objection to a navbox at the bottom of the article, like {{Arsenal F.C.}} or {{Manchester United}}. But my main objections are the misuse of a fair use image and the misuse of the {{football club infobox}} at the top of articles that are not about clubs in general. Qwghlm 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neither use is a misuse, you should be content, then. Andy Mabbett 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, basically a copy of {{Football club infobox}}, and therefore surplus to requirements. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"basically a copy of {{Football club infobox}}" : No it is not. Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" these pages do not even exist yet" which pages do not exist yet? Andy Mabbett 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal Press Syndicate

Template:Universal Press Syndicate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ridiculously bloated template, should use a category instead, see comments proposing deletion on template's talk page. The template also creates a subtle (probably not intentional) spamming effect by splatting an enormous, obtrusive box festooned with names of Universal Press Syndicate products across dozens of articles. 75.62.7.22 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. How is this intentional spamming? I can see splitting the template into two, UPS comics and UPS columns, but this template is helpful for fans people to discover new comics, and for Wikipedians to discover comics that need articles. -- Zanimum 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I'd made it clear that I don't consider the spamming effect to be intentional. It's just a side effect of having a template so large that it dwarfs a lot of the articles it's transcluded in, blasting the reader with the names of all those products. Splitting to smaller templates would be an improvement though I'd still prefer using a category. As for helping fans discover new comics, maybe I'm a bit POV on the issue, but I don't think we're here for that. 75.62.7.22 06:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Zanimum, but template looks like crap right now with all the deadlinks. Jmlk17 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The permission must be cleary given, otherwise it's still non-free image (red mark of copyright). The day before yesterday the {{Kremlin.ru}} (which has got permission for free using, but hasn't got permission for derivative works) was deleted exactly in this maner without discussion. Also, for example, CC-BY-ND permits free use without derivative works, but we delete speedy images with it as CSD I3. — Alex Spade 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this template is authorized, I ask for undeletion of {{Kremlin.ru}} for reload of its images from commons to en-wiki. Alex Spade 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be used for any purpose" is free enough for me. deleting a tag outright isn't the way to resolve copyright questions, it's just going to make things worse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's abou derivative works? Repeat: CC-BY-ND - allowed free use, but not der.works and we delete images with them. This is unfair and inconsequent.Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - something similar is seen on Commons Booksworm Talk to me! 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not similar, let's compare them:
      Commons: derivative work and commercial use must be allowed.
      En-wiki: must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives
    • This is large difference. First template cleary demand of permission for der.works, second is not. The Kremlin.ru not allowed cleary commercial use and der.works, and was deleted from commons - it's all right. But it not include evident restriction - so it can be use at en-wiki. Alex Spade 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What are exactly possibilities of this license tags?
  1. Is it nevertheless variant of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} (initial version, free use only, see above) or {{Attribution}} (last version, free use and modification)?
  2. Why the text of license had been change from FreeUse-variant to Attribution-variant? Many images were loaded before text change, under another conditions, did all authors receive the information about changing of conditions, did all of them they cleary agree with chaging?

I offer two decisions

  1. If change is correct and appropriate, we can just redirect it to Template:Attribution, which can used as {{Attribution|User:Login}}
  2. If change is incorrect, we must revise template text for early edition, and perhaps delete template as subvariant of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, which is discussed above.

Alex Spade 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's already deprecated. Deleting it and replacing it without the consent of the uploaders will just make the license situation even more confused. The text doesn't seem to have undergone any changes in meaning since april 2005, within a day of its creation. Plus, this one doesn't require attribution, so replacing it with attribution would be misleading. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this much abused template. use a separate template for each different license, then we can decide for each single one that it isn't appropriate. --rtc 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People falsely declare stuff as gfdl-self all the time. We aren't going to delete that template because of that. Neither would we delete this one because of that. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for historical purposes, especially because some images are still tagged with it. Nardman1 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand this nomination; this is different from Attribution. What does the nominator propose to do with the images that use this tag? We cannot redirect to Attribution or make any significant revisions to the text. Pagrashtak 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_1&oldid=127623525"