Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3 edit

Template:2007 Chicago Cubs Starting Rotation 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 delete per WP:SNOW and per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30#Template:1989 Chicago Cubs. The issues here are exactly the same, only this template is 10 times sillier than the other one. IronGargoyle 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is superfluous as in baseball, starting rotations change all the time and the starting rotation is listed on the team roster template. Discussion at [[1]]. DandyDan2007 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Chicago Cubs have existed for over a century; are we going to have more than 100 different starting rotation templates? If the current year is to be singled out, then why create a dated template that will become useless later on? It would make more sense to have a generic template, something like {{MLB current starting rotation}}. *** Crotalus *** 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from transcluding pages then delete this template. I agree completely with Crotalus. I happen to know something about baseball too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary to create a starting roster template. Jmlk 1 7 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we need a template for a starting rotation?--James, La gloria è a dio 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete starting rotations are too dynamic and specialized to be of use. Templates for 25 or 40 man rosters have use. Rotations do not. Given the Cubs start the rotation will be shuffled soon. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each team has a roster template page which identifies the starting rotation, relief pitchers and other players by position on the 40-man roster. This template is redundant. --Sanfranman59 01:57, 5 June 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 section.

Template:Survtwice2 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 voted off the island. IronGargoyle 00:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unneeded because Template:Survtwice lists people who played twice and were only voted out once. That means all others that played twice were voted out twice (except for one, which is listed at Template:Survnovote). --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just looking at the different templates we have for Survivor makes me think maybe we should take a critical look at just about all of them. Sometimes I think we need a Survivor WikiProject. --Maxamegalon2000 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, there was an attempt to delete one of them, which you strongly opposed... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything inconsistent about calling for a critical look and voting to keep. My vote rarely reflects my stance on the discussion itself, which I tend to value regardless of my position. --Maxa megalon 2000 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem that essential to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the winners template and the general contestants template, I'm not sure that any such collection of contestants rises above fancruft. --Maxa megalon 2000 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of no use. Jmlk 1 7 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't we delete all of them except the main contestant template, and just tag that with notes for the appeared twice/never voted out etc. data? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never thought of that. That would be a great idea! The only problem would be that some of the people in the current templates don't have articles, and the main one is only for people with articles. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:13, 9 June 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 section.

Template:Infobox Cornish place with map 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 delete. IronGargoyle 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, obsoleted by Template:infobox UK place. — Pit-yacker 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —MJCdetroit 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused, redundant. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not in use, redundant, and is obsolte.--James, La gloria è a dio 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused template. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete old, outdated, not in use...etc. Jmlk 1 7 07:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as other comments. MRSC • Talk 08:41, 7 June 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 section.

Template:administrator 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 keep. Issues with a copyrighted image on a template are resolved by changing the image, not by deleting the template. >Radiant< 14:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is designed for use on userpages, but contains a fair-use image (a derivative of the Wikipedia logo) and so can't actually be used in such a context without violating WP:FUC (although the fair-use is arguably legally correct and the Foundation is unlikely to sue itself over this, it's against the fair-use and Wikimedia policies). {{Administrator2}} exists as an alternative without this problem (there's a problem with no link to the image description page for a GFDL image, but this can be sorted out by normal editing), so redirecting would make sense. There are likely other templates with the same problem. --ais523 16:41, 3 June 2007 (U T C)

Isn't the logo also copyrighted under GFDL? Natalie 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --ais523 16:48, 3 June 2007 (U T C)

You're kidding, right? Wikimedia foundation won't be suing itself any time soon. This nomination is preposterous. -- Y not? 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Y. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of Wikimedia copyrighted images was discussed at Commons recently. Can someone link us to that discussion? NoSeptember 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are you thinking of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyright by Wikimedia (I was unaware of that before this TfD)? --ais523 17:00, 3 June 2007 (U T C)
Delete - Template is used merely to transclude a non-free image, contrary to our WP:NFCC. The foundation won't sue itself isn't compelling reason to go against policy... Matthew 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This image was used with Board approval. Essjay asked the Board in September 2005. --MZMcBride 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we confirm it somehow? A link perhaps? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image description page on Commons says that the Board approved the request, though I don't know if that request was on-wiki or off. --MZMcBride 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask the board to release it under the GFDL (they do want to promote free content, right?) then. The reason "the foundation won't sue itself" isn't good enough me, it's unlikely ABC would sue us for using single captures of Lost episodes to improve content in LOEs... but that isn't a good reason, yes? Matthew 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deletion request on Commons (linked above) has a statement from a board member explaining the reasoning for not realising the image under GFDL. And I didn't think we allow with-permission-for-Wikipedia-only images on userpages either; the problem would be that Wikipedia mirrors wouldn't be able to legally use the images. (Of course, the mirrors probably shouldn't be mirroring userpages anyway, but the GFDL that the userpage is licensed under says that it's legal...) --ais523 17:38, 3 June 2007 (U T C)
This is the strangest yet most interesting nomination that I can remember. If this issue has not been discussed and cleared before (which I doubt that it hasn't), it would be proper to consult with the Board or Jimbo. But anyways, whatever comes out of this should be included in all policies and guidelines regarding Copyright; Fair-use; and Wikimedia. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically a content dispute for an otherwise legitimate template. If the image is a problem, replace the image. Deletion in this case would be akin to selling your car when it gets a flat tire rather than replacing the tire. Resolute 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that replacing the image would make this completely redundant with {{administrator2}}, and so it would have to be redirected, which is what I requested in the nom. If it's felt that this is an editorial change rather than effective deletion of a duplicate template, then this can be discussed on the template's talk page rather than at TfD. --ais523 08:07, 4 June 2007 (U T C)
Keep. Resolute is completely right. This is not the forum for such a discussion. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - replace it with the jigsaw piece. problem solved. Will ^(talk) 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I remember seeing somewhere that even something copyrighted by Wikimedia is free to use on Wikimedia wiki's. Sorry, I don't remember where, so I'm not 100% sure (though I'm pretty sure). And as Y said, the foundation won't sue itself :) --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Resolute. If you need to discuss the legal issues behind it, TfD is not the place. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep the template. If there's a problem with the image, replace the image. Don't delete the template altogether. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template, discuss changes on Template talk:Administrator. WODUP 07:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Resolute has it right here, as usual. --Haemo 08:24, 4 June 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 section.

Template:Philippine quasi-legislatures 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 delete. IronGargoyle 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 1 item in the template, there's no need to have a template for it.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this template last month, and it was kept despite the lack of knowledge of this subject. Afterwards, the creator User:Rizalninoynapoleon removed all of the links except one. If there really is only one "quasi"-legislature with an article, then delete. –Pomte 06:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any vote process here will be flawed unless somebody proved that editors interested in Philippine legislature are properly notified. This TFD doesn't just involve the technical aspect (e.g. one-use, redundancy, replaceability, etc), it also involves domain knowledge. Just before 2007-05-05, this template included several links. But for an unknown reason, all but one were removed. If we are not experts of Philippine legislature, how can we judge whether or not the removed links should or should not be there. I won't vote until somebody proved that editors interested in Philippine legislature are properly notified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think there were quasi-legislatures in Philippine Congress (except for this Batasang Bayan thing---which I first heard on WP), and this template's creator kept on insisting that the other items on the original template's list (i.e. the commissions that drafted various versions of the Philippine Constitution. However, by his definition, quasi-legislatures exists to help draft legislation (i.e. acts, decrees, republic acts)---it was clear, though, that there was some confusion as the concept of a quasi-legislature never existed at any point in Philippine history except for this period when only one man was writing the laws and was being ratified by a rubber-stamp Congress (or sometimes not at all). (In fact, all the sources mentioned at the Batasang Bayan article makes this purpose clear.) In contrast, the constitutional commissions were convened to draft a constitution that was ratified by voters (through a referendum), not by their elected legislators. A constitution and all other laws ratified under it differ in character, much as the original Fathers of the American Constitution didn't have to worry about helping their successor-legislators/lawmakers help draft laws (besides, they're already dead by now). I understand that the other Filipino editors on Wikipedia have been debating this with this template's creator, and I think that because he could not back up his own edits, he removed the links on the template himself. (This isn't the first time he recanted, especially if his own "sources" repudiated him, as with this one incident where he claims receiving an email from a Philippine senator). Regarding notifying this template's creator, that would be a courtesy, of course, but we who have encountered his edits know for sure that even if we notify him of this TfD, he will ignore it and will surely abandon his pet projects. Thanks, but no thanks; let the others inform him, but it won't be me. --- Tito Pao 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one item in the template...no need for a template in this case. Jmlk 1 7 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the sole reason that there is only one item. --Howard the Duck 16:12, 5 June 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 section.