Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12 edit

Template:Orphaned replaced 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 by admin NawlinWiki (g7). Non-admin closure of orphaned XFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Free but unwanted images, this template is not wanted or needed. --—Remember the dot (t) 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How does the discussion you linked to relate to this template? --Oden 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I confused this template with {{Orphaned fairuse replaced}}.--Oden 04:29, 13 January 2007 (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:Orphaned not replaced 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 by admin NawlinWiki (g7). Non-admin closure of orphaned XFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Free but unwanted images, this template is not wanted or needed. —Remember the dot (t) 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How does the discussion you linked to relate to this template? --Oden 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I confused this template with {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}}.--Oden 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G7. --Rory096 01:49, 13 January 2007 (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:Standard 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket fair use category which violates WP:FUC criterion #1. Any image which cannot be considered replaceable should use a standard fair use template, such as {{Non-free fair use in}} --Oden 21:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP These images are not "replaceable". They are specific, standardized test images that are used in the image processing literature and industry. Change one pixel, and it will not be the standard test image. Some are copyrighted, some are not. All have been used freely in the image processing literature. The copyrighted ones have not had their copyright defended. The most famous example (Lenna)) was taken from a Playboy centerfold, and was used to analyze a number of image compression algorithms in the literature. (Please see this article) Playboy subsequently sued, but then gave it up when they realized that it was being used for scientific purposes, and that defending it gave them negative PR.

This is not a simple gallery of pictures. It is a resource, a repository for images that can be used to test image processing and compression algorithms, and the results can be compared to the results obtained in the image processing literature. The pictures have been chosen because they have a particular pattern or a number of patterns which serve as useful tests of image processing. In the Lenna image, there are high spatial frequency regions (e.g. the feather) combined with low spatial frequency regions (walls). There are also sharp edges (facial features). The human eye and brain is especially attuned to differences in facial characteristics. The use of a human face for image process testing increases the ability of the scientist to informally assess the ability of a given algorithm to reconstruct the image.

Please, take some time to investigate these images and how they are being used before slapping random delete tags on them. PAR 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regarding "Please, take some time to investigate these images and how they are being used before slapping random delete tags on them." See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

No need to up the level of Wiki-lawyering, thank-you very much. Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62, this applies to you too. Comment on contributions, not on contributors. --Oden 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Regarding "Some are copyrighted, some are not." If there are standard test images which are not copyrighted we should be using them to illustrate the article. Some images, like Image:Lenna.png might be considered iconic, but in such instances a standard fair use template is sufficient. Also, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Any fair use images will need to be resized to thumbnail size in order to comply with our fair use policy, which will render them useless as standardized test images. --Oden 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "standard fair use template"? Do you have any particular one in mind? I vote keep for the template until these images (18 in total) have been considered individually for deletion. The template as it stands is descriptive as to how this images might be used on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've orphaned all of the images except one, which I have resized. In 7 days this template will only be used for one image on Wikipedia. --Oden 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've un-orphaned them. How about leaving things as they were until a consensus is reached? PAR 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blanket fair use template for a category of images where a free replacement could be created. Blanket fair use templates are for categories of images where it is highly unlikely that a free replacement could be procured.

The reason I orphaned the images has to do with how they are being used (in a montage/gallery in the article Standard test image), and not with this template (see talk:Standard test image). --Oden 17:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that there are no "free replacements? for these images? PAR 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are contradicting yourself. --Oden 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oden:Oden - I am an expert in this field. I am telling you without contradiction that there is utterly no possibility of obtaining alternatives or free or GFDL or other replacements for these images. I've worked in the computer graphics business for 35 years. You can take that one to the bank. SteveBaker 04:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Do you understand that there are no "free replacements? for these images? PAR 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Some are copyrighted, some are not" here.--Oden 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have taken several signal processing classes (including a graduate level digital image processing (DIP) class) and I recognize many of these images. They are unique, specific images used throughout DIP classes, literature, books, and journal articles. It is their ubiquity that makes that unreplaceable. Until the images are deleted, these template should remain. Cburnett 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The template is self-explanatory. What, exactly, about those images is not fair use? -- Jeff G. 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The one super-mega-critical thing about these images is that they are standard computer image processing test patterns. If you drop the resolution by the tiniest amount, crop them by one scanline or change one itty-bitty little pixel, then their use as test patterns evaporates - they are quite utterly useless as test patterns. So we should allow cropped or reduced resolution images - under the usual fair-use provisions - but disallow full resolution/uncropped versions of these images. Note also that there is quite literally NO way to make or obtain free versions of these images. Any image of the same general subject is not descriptive of the standard test image because subtle details of lighting and colour are all important in what makes these images standards. So long as their usefulness as test images is destroyed, and so long as we only use them if we are discussing the image and not as general illustrations - then there is no reason why these should be any less 'fair use' than works of art or similar things. The status of this template is no different than Template:Art - it serves to warn people writing articles about Mandrils not to use the Mandril standard test image. It also tells habitual fair-use removers that this is an extremely special case. Many of these images have become extremely widely known in the computer graphics and imaging communities - there are stories to be told about them. There are articles to be written about image processing that will need to talk about them. These are important. SteveBaker 04:50, 15 January 2007 (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:Extended Episcopal Succession 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template in April 2006. Following the discussions here and here, the consensus was that we should not use it. It has been unused ever since. Coemgenus 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unused. — coelacan talk — 01:44, 17 January 2007 (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 would smoke 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 by admin Ral315, implicitly stating T1 criteria. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful; obvious attempt to offend --John Reaves 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, no more obvious an attempt to offend than the anti-smoking templates.Dogface 16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia template space. -/- Warren 16:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Delete. Not useful and slightly offensive. I'd also like to invoke Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Charon X/talk 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Delete leaning towards delete. This should not be in wikipedia space and can most certainly be considered offensive. Arjun 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete - The template, as mentioned above by another user is offensive and it would not be used in any article and probably not in any user/user talk page either.

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:Wikipedia too neutral 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 Userfy, conforming with WP:GUS. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially divisive userbox, inappropriate for template space. Conflicts with core policies; uncertain if this is even appropriate for userfication. Associated category already under discussion (deletion likely) at WP:UCFD. Serpent's Choice 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, but Keep. Not appropriate for Wikipedia template space, to be sure. It should stay, though. Templates like this help serious editors spot users who aren't interested in building a better encyclopedia. -/- Warren 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:GUS -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy A nice tounge-in-cheek userbox. Odd, but harmless I think. Let's migrate it and everybody should be satisfied. Charon X/talk 04:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Pronoun/Wikipedia too neutral per the userbox migration. Not an appropriate userbox to be on the template namespace as it promotes harm to the WP:NPOV language of Wikipedia. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, per the userbox migration. And of course per above. Arjun 18:25, 13 January 2007 (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.