Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26 edit

Template:Replacethisimage 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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may well have been created with good intentions but it has three flaws. (1) All it will achieve is to encourage new visitors to the site to start looking for what they think are "free" images. Having cleared so many illegal images off Wikipedia, the last thing we need is a template that can be interpreted as urging people to start scouring the internet for more supposedly free images. (2) It is also being posted on images where, by definition, there will be no alternative to fair use images, eg, buildings that are not public or are in grounds so large and well hidden that non-official images aren't available. So it may well in such cases lead to the replacement of the least worst images with images taken from sources that are neither free nor better fair use alternatives. (3) Such a dramatic change should have been discussed with users, not unilaterally posted on images all over Wikipedia, without discussion as to its advisability, usefulness, workability or other issues. Given the danger that it will backfire badly, given its (unintentional) misuse and given the complete lack of any discussion on evidence on its talk page, this template should be binned and something like this only introduced after a full community discussion, not merely the comments (if any) of a few. FearÉIREANN \^{^(caint) 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep (I created this). This template addresses the problem of the large number of images populating Category:Fair use image replacement request, many of which have been sitting there for months if not years. For the most part, users can't tell if an image is fair use without clicking to the image description page. The use of this template draws attention to the fact that this image should be more or less easily replaceable. If our goal is to make to make the 'pedia as free as possible, we should be encouraging users to help. Why not let this run for a little while and see how it goes? I just created this and started tagging images with this today and already a few have been replaced (albeit by admins). If this starts to create a headache, I'll be glad to delete it and undo all the tagging myself. As a side note, if free images cannot be created for certain things, then their corresponding fair use images shouldn't be tagged with {{fair use replace}} in the first place. howch e ng {chat} 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fair point. I would however suggest a variant — not this template but a graphic included in the caption of all fair use images which links to a page explaining the rationale and gives detailed information on what sort of image could be legally downloaded as a replacement. So everyone would know automatically that the image is fair use, but it wouldn't run the risk of encouraging people to go on a binge of downloading their interpretation of free images without first reading the rationale for the existing image, and information of what is allowed and what isn't. Such a page might also be a suitable to list practical criteria that we want an image to fulfil (eg, official portrait shots of popes on WP use one type of image where possible: popes in "choral dress" – a particular part of the papal dress, used in the image for a specific reason. Such a page could tell people "please find an free image if possible, which contains the following components/visual requirements". But I'm not being critical of Howcheng here. I think the idea needs reshaping to avoid pitfalls that the current template has. FearÉIREANN \^{^(caint) 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the MediaWiki software doesn't allow linking of pages to images (à la <a href="..."><img src="..."></a>) so unless we are going to put that information on the image description page of the proposed graphic I don't see how that would work. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]}
Comment - I like the idea, but as with Jtdirl, I don't like the idea of this template being all over article space ... WP:ASR or something like that. I would suggest some kind of advisory box that suggests to use it sparingly. BigDT 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now, per howcheng. Seems like a good idea to me. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems that editing, not deletion, is the solution to concerns presented so far. Jkelly 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could prove useful. Obviously it should only be used where the fair-use image is realistically replaceable, though, and the "free" link should point to a page describing what exactly qualifies as free rather than the rather vague term free content. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am more inclined to explore the usefullness of this template than be hesitant over the concerns from Jtdirl which I feel are exaggerated. __meco 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per howch e ng {chat}.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchociej (talk • contribs) 07:39, July 29, 2006 (UTC)
Delete This template compromises the quality of the article it appears in. Delete. Karrmann 00:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Karrrmann. Delete it. --Trounce 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it will help in increasing the amount of free use images on the Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And see how it goes, I think it could be very helpful. Although I do understand point 1 of Jtdirl's concerns. Garion96 (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:User free palestine 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted T1 --BigDT 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template created by indef-blocked user:Still Standing. I'm not an anti-userbox guy, but this (and the one following) are either inappropriate or redundant. The language of both ("Zionist") makes me suspect that this might qualify as a speed delete, but I'm new to TFD and not an expert. ---J.S (t|c) 17:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post my thoughts on these userboxes here. Delete one and Rewrite and Germanize the other. This may be a possible T1 violation, but it can be rewritten so that it's not. Barring the rewrite, Delete per T1. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete T1 - if someone wants to make it in their userspace, there is no reason they can't, but it's obviously T1. BigDT 02:07, 27 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:User palestinian cause 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted T1 --BigDT 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly unused template created by indef-blocked user:Still Standing. Used only by his suspected sock. ---J.S (t|c) 17:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete T1 - if someone wants to make it in their userspace, there is no reason they can't, but it's obviously T1. BigDT 02:08, 27 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Mac-game-screenshot 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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep, until orphaned. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!)

Not really needed; will be orphaned and replaced with {{Mac-software-screenshot}}. Here T oHelp 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. EVula 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —M in un ^Spiderman 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Mac deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have other such platform game screenshot templates: {{NES-screenshot}}, {{C64-game-screenshot}}, {{ZX-Spectrum-game-screenshot}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyberskull. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:49, 29 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Sc+Template:Fsd+Template:Fst 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 page.

The result of the debate was deleted by Patrick. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Fs | Template talk:Fsd | Template talk:Co | Template talk:Cod | edit this line

Merely an interconnection of four template talks by same author... used solely on the four Talks, two of which are nominated in this batch cleaning.

Edit out other deleteds, Subst on {{Co}} and {{Cod}} talks and Delete // FrankB

{{Fsd}} {{fs|1|{{{1}}}}} {{fs|2|{{{1}}}}} {{fs|3|{{{1}}}}} {{fs|4|{{{1}}}}} {{fs|5|{{{1}}}}}

This one merely tests the template {{fs}}, apparently to work out a bug, per exposition on Template talk:fsd.

Subst into Template talk:fs and delete // FrankB

Template:Fst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a redirect link to the above {{fsd}}

Speedy-Delete if allowed. // FrankB 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As their main author, I deleted them, see logs.--Patrick 11:50, 27 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:User Shirley 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!)

Delete - This is in an effort avoid confusion with another Airplane! user template (Template:User Airplane! test - the old Template:User Airplane!). The author of this template agreed to a merger earlier this week. Chris 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As author, please delete as the above user has merged the two userboxes together. --Nehrams2020 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:User Airplane! test 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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted but not closed. Viridae ^Talk 04:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a test to merge a template Template:User Shirley in order to avoid a potential conflict among fans of the movie Airplane!. Chris 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:35, 26 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:TakarazukaRelated 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on four images. All four could be tagged with {{promotional}}. Company-specific tags are appropriate when special instructions are needed (eg, {{TIME Person of the Year}}) or there are eleventy billion images in the category (eg, {{Linux-software-screenshot}}), but it's gratuitous when you have a small number and, if unchecked, could result in making picking the correct tag extremely difficult. (It's already hard for newbies to figure out which tag to use.) BigDT 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; use promo Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EVula 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 04:15, 29 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:PCW-photo and Template:TWE-photo 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two templates have four images between them, only one of which is actually a "photo". Total Wrestling Entertainment has a whopping 59 g-hits and probably deserves a trip through AFD. BigDT 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:38, 26 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Philippinecopyright 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, just as with the Malaysia copyright, I can envision no possible use for this one. BigDT 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:38, 26 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:parody 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was nominated once before and there was no consensus. If you take a look at Category:Parody images, everything in there should either have a different fair use criteria or should be deleted. This template would only be appropriate if the Wikipedia user were the one creating the parody. As that would consitute original research, it is never appropriate. BigDT 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a useful class of images to keep track of. Since we will never be using them as parody the fact that they are parody has no bearing on their availability as fair use images. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless & unneeded, i hardly see how those images are parodys. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parodies are better protected by US law than fair use, it's useful for illustrating various parodies. --TheTruthiness 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Parody is a type of usage, not a characteristic of the image. Since Wikipedia would never look to parody something that aspect of fair use law is not relevant. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A parody is a characteristic of an image. For example, this image [1] of "Harry Pothead" is a parody of Harry Potter. It's not where that image is used, that image on its own is a parody. It doesn't need to be on a webpage talking about Harry Potter for it to be a parody. --TheTruthiness 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Parodic usage does not infringe on the copyright of the base work, but that doesn't mean that the derivative parody has no copyright. The maker of that Harry Pothead image is not infringing on the Harry Potter copyright, because it's parody and therefore fair use; if you used the image, you wouldn't be infringing on the Harry Potter copyright either, but you would be infringing on the copyright of the Harry Pothead image. Parodies are copyrightable; people can't just reuse them, otherwise how would parodists stay in business? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful template. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's it useful for? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{no license}}. Parody is not a valid fair-use criterion in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia does not parody anything in article space. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone opining to keep, please understand - this template is NOT appropriate to use when posting an image of a parody that SOMEBODY ELSE created. If we were writing an article about Galaxy Quest, a parody of Star Trek, and wanted to include a screenshot from the Galaxy Quest movie, we would just tag it as a screenshot - the same as with any other movie. Similarly, if we were writing about an internet meme that is a parody of something, we would tag the image with an appropriate tag for whatever media from which it is derived. The {{parody}} tag is ONLY appropriate if Wikipedia is creating its own parody. Unless you can come up with an occasion that Wikipedia itself would create a parody, there is never a valid use for this tag. BigDT 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is valid for images created by someone else that are parodies of something, when those images are used in an article describing the parody and the effect that parody had on the original thing being parodied or on popular culture or whatever. Just because it's being misused doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. howch e ng {chat} 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That the work we're commenting on is a parody is irrelevant to its fair use, and so there's no reason to have a separate fair-use tag when it will cause such confusion. The mere existence of a template named "Parody" is inherently confusing, because so many people have some vague idea that parody is fair use. Fair-use tags that don't provide a rationale aren't especially useful to begin with; those that can cause confusion (see also {{HistoricPhoto}}) are damaging. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Welkitia 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, user-specific template should be in userspace, and is (User:Kitia/Welcome). Λυδ α cιτγ 03:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom BigDT 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and move to user-space Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page may be deleated if the users I welcomed from it are shown the same template. My peersonal thoughts are don not delete, because I welcomed users from it and dont wannt to see a blank page. Kitia 00:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All instances subst'ed; in other words, the template can now be deleted without affecting anything. Λυδ α cιτγ 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that can be done, than this template may be deleted. Kitia 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hist-merge and delete to User:Kitia/Welcome. It probably wouldn't be a GFDL violation to delete the edit history as User:Kitia has made the only non-deletion-related edits, but I don't see a reason to destroy the history. --ais523 13:11, 31 July 2006 (U T C)

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 page.

Template:Malaysiancopyright 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... what's the point? The creator of the template gives this as their reason for creating it at User talk:Shahirshamsir, "About the copyright thing, I meant to indicate that the images are sourced from within Malaysia. The photos are taken by friends who has given permission." The user apparantly misunderstood the purpose of copyright tags. This tag is otherwise unused and thus should be deleted. BigDT 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unused & waste of space. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:33, 26 July 2006 (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 page.