Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 30

< January 29	January 31 >

January 30 edit

Template:Cleanup-project 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!) 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC) WP:POINT creation by User:Barberio as part of his ongoing campaign against Wikipedia:Per; he tried getting it deleted last week, and when that failed tried forum shopping on the village pump and some talk pages to get rid of it anyway. His latest attempt is this tag he made yesterday, which is basically an WP:IDONTLIKEIT tag. And related cat Category:Wikipedia Cleanup, which at any rate is redundant with Category:Wikipedia maintenance.>Radiant< 09:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Radiant's arguments are all based solely on his interpretation of my motives, not on the merit of the template, and he seems to have some kind of issue with me personally. If he feels the category is redundant, it can be changed. But I see no argument as to why there should not be a suitable cleanup tag for the project space, as there is for the main namespace. I believe the only reason he has nominated is because it was created by me, and he would not have done so had it been created by anyone else. --Barberio 12:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that [:Category:Wikipedia maintenance]] is a diffusion cat, and explicitly should not be used by any more category sorting templates. I don't see any other suitable category for project name space only cleanup, and all other cleanup tags are main namespace specific. --Barberio 12:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the four points from speedy keep apply here? -- Steel 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barberio whined on the talk page of Wikipedia:Per trying to get it tagged as an essay... and failed. He then tried to MfD the page... and failed. He then complained on the Village Pump trying to rally people to support him... and failed. The cleanup-project tag is just the next round in all this. [1]. -- Steel 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just his way of flaming, as far as I can tell; it only tags two articles, one that he created and one that he doesn't like. Ahudson 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 February 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:HistSource 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 speedily deleted as essentially a recreation. >Radiant< 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template does the same thing as Template:Catholic-link which was recently deleted per the vote here. All the same reasons for deleting Catholic-link are applicable to this template since it functionally does the same thing (the only difference being it has a new name and multiple variables). See the previous TfD vote for the many positions and rationals on why this template is a bad idea. --Stbalbach 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It seems to me that WP:CSD G4 applies here: the template is effectively identical in substance and usage to Template:Catholic-link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), previously deleted, as noted above, at TfD. The rationales given at the TfD referenced in the nomination include reasons applicable here. The issues of false authority, confusing new editors, encouraging text dumping, and the danger that obsolete opinions and POV may be introduced, are all on point. Wikipedia already contains too many unreferenced, outdated text dumps. To encourage, or even acquiesce in, the creation of more such articles is pretty much WP:BEANS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Encouraging users to use unreliable sources is BAD. This may have been appropriate in 2002, when having 100 year old information was better than none at all, but it isn't anymore. Argyriou (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete JASpencer's G4 attempt. — coelacan talk — 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:35, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Keep. but only use to tag stubbish articles. And stop calling it a G4, the issues in the previous TfD were partly with the particular encyclopedia. -Amark moo! 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, how can it be a repost, seeing as it was created eight days before the deletion? -Amark moo! 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it was created the day the second deletion discussion began, when the first AfD closure was overturned at DRV. So it can very well be a repost. — mark ✎ 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a real problem with encouraging editors to use public domain sources which are almost invariably out of date and fail WP:RS. They often have POV problems too. We should be replacing this kind of content on Wikipedia, not adding more of it. --Folantin 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete. Old encyclopedias may be nice to read for nostalgia's sake, in many areas their coverage is wildly outdated, and it is simply dangerous to encourage editors to use these sources. WP:CSB. N.B. a quick check of the pages this template is being used on reveals that it does indeed mainly serve to replace the previous template; all instances I checked contain at least a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia, some include a link to another old source also. — mark ✎ 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I don't know if anyone else has, but I've noticed that the main Project Catholicism template has been altered to include a recommendation that the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia might be "usefully used" to expand articles [2]. This alteration should also be removed per the previous template deletion vote. --Folantin 08:25, 31 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:Scc-case 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 speedily deleted by CanadianCaesar as author request after mistaken creation. --ais523 12:07, 31 January 2007 (U T C)

I created it before realizing it's redundant. --Padraic 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a page by accident, you can request its immediate deletion by placing the template {{db-author}} on it, no need for TFD (did it for you this time). ~ PseudoSudo 01:48, 31 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Flag athl iocc 2col 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!) 01:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a well-planned template. Intended for use on sports results pages, using Olympic country codes, but not used on any Olympic-related articles. Also assumes that it will be used inside a table, so the template includes table markup to put the two components into separate columns. This is not good design, in my opinion, as it limits the template's possible usage. Finally, it worked by putting a flag icon before an athlete's name in the first column, then a wikilinked country code in the second column. I think it is much clearer to put the flag icon immediately before the country code instead, so I replaced the (very limited) number of instances of this template with calls to the standard {{flag}} template instead to achieve that visual appearance. --Andrwsc 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- just a table-only version of {{flag}}. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:39, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete Not displaying properly and not really relevant.Telly addict 16:54, 31 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:Flagof 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!) 01:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{flagicon}}. No longer used; all instances have been replaced by {{flagicon|xxx|size=yyy}} to render exactly the same image. --Andrwsc 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:40, Wednesday, January 31 '07

Delete Per above. Jaenop 21:37, 1 February 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:Bigflagicon 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!) 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{flagicon}}. No longer used; all instances (of which there were very few) have been replaced by {{flagicon|xxx|size=44x40px}} to render exactly the same image. --Andrwsc 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:42, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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:Infobox Country Serbia 2006 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!) 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redundant to Infobox Country. --- RockMFR 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:42, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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:Country infobox data Christmas Island 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!) 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redundant to Infobox Country. --- RockMFR 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:43, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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:Country infobox data Puntland 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!) 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redundant to Infobox Country. --- RockMFR 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:43, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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:Victorian Road 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!) 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant against Template:Infobox Australian Road, no transclusions. --Orderinchaos78 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:43, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete per nom. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed, redundant. ~ Arjun 01:33, 1 February 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:Flickrsource 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!) 01:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant and unnecessary. Any image found and uploaded from Flickr under Wiki-appropriate licenses (i.e. CC-BY-SA 2.5 or the like) should simply have that one license template and the specific source the image was obtained from. Jeff 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That it came from Flickr should be evident from the source. Maybe consider replacing it with this slightly more informative template. ShadowHalo 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ShadowHalo. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:44, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete, serves no useful purpose. Source and licensing information would have to be given separately from this template anyway. —An gr 13:57, 5 February 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:Cv 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!) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been superseded by the better-designed {{Uw-copyright1}} through {{Uw-copyright4}}. I would hate to be a well-intentioned newbie and find Template:Cv on my talk page, calling my behavior "unacceptable" and threatening blocking. Of course, copyright violation on Wikipedia is unacceptable, but Cv's wording seems designed specifically to bite the newbies in violation of WP:AGF. Point is, there are better templates available now. Perhaps Template:Cv could redirect to {{Uw-copyright2}}. --Quuxplusone 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. There's a reason why the new warning templates did not just replace the old ones, and I want to know it before we start doing stuff like this. I also question why we would give 4 warnings to people who post copyrighted content. -Amark moo! 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov. Orderinchaos78 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Amarkov is right. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:45, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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:Brands of the World SVG 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!) 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:IUP, "Fair use icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such should be uploaded in PNG format instead of SVG." Any image with this template can be rescaled to large sizes, violating #3 of WP:FUC and should be tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}} and then deleted after being converted. --ShadowHalo 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously the template needs to be kept, since as you point out yourself, it identifies a class of images whose fair-use status is unclear. If we accept your premise that SVG images are incompatible with fair use, then the {{Brands of the World SVG}} template serves a purpose similar to {{BadGIF}}, and needs to be kept. (However, as a separate discussion that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Fair use, I strongly disagree with your premise; in my opinion, SVG is not incompatible with fair use. Please take that discussion to WP:FAIR, and please don't start deleting images willy-nilly until a consensus is built one way or the other.) --Quuxplusone 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IUP states it pretty clearly that they shouldn't be SVGs, and I asked at WP:MCQ to make sure I wasn't completely off-base. ShadowHalo 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use SVG images. ShadowHalo 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{ShouldBePNG}} is not an appropriate tag for those SVG images. The problem with them is not that they have compression artifacts, but that in your opinion they are too free of compression artifacts, and need some artifacts added! --Quuxplusone 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a userfied template that could be used for these images at User:ShadowHalo/FairUseSVG. ShadowHalo 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is incorrect, and another userspace template like this was used to have svgs deleted and became extremely controversial a few months ago. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, anti-SVG fair use arguments are flawed and pointless copyright paranoia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I created this template based on the original non-SVG version. I second the above that deleting is copyright paranoia, and it will remove a fairuse notice on hundreds of images. --Keeleysam 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this not an appropriate fair use notice. As in, shouldn't it be accompanied with {{logo}}, {{seal}}, or something of the like? ShadowHalo 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not fair use, but a copyright notice. Something would have to go in its place. --Keeleysam 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with most of the above statements. --Indolences 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until everything at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Brands of the World SVG has been either deleted or replaced with PNG versions; then delete. "Copyright paranoia" does not exist. —An gr 14:00, 5 February 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:The O.C. episodes 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!) 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just extraneously duplicating List of The O.C. episodes and Category:The O.C. episodes, it is way to long to be template viable and episode succession (previous - next) is accomplished via the infobox, so Delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I expressed my concerns with this template too, on its talk page, since it's all duplicate information and way too big to be included in any article. Jayden54 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too big to be on an article. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:49, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete. This isn't what navigation templates are for. -/- Warren 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be more appropriate if the episodes were hidden, but each season could be expanded? ShadowHalo 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nom. Dfrg.msc 04:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to size concerns and the fact that there already is a list available. Also, no other TV show has a template like this (and for good reason). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:50, 4 February 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.