Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29 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.--Wizardman 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usrd1 edit

This TFD also includes Usrd2.-Meant as warning templates, but not even used (check what links here). Warning is on too specific of a subject, and basically says that the Wikiprojects guidelines are the laws of the land. A standardized warning is available at WP:UTM. Also consider moving to the Wikiprojects subpage. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the page linked to doesn't even specify what would possibly be wrong with the edits. I'd be confused if this were left on my talk page. Nardman1 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{usrd2}}, no opinion on {{usrd1}}. {{usrd2}} claims that edits that don't conform to a WikiProject guideline is automatically vandalism, which it just plain isn't. {{usrd1}} has a useful purpose, but needs some work to clarify what that purpose is. -- NORTH ^talk 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Warnings for violating what a Wikiproject says to do are a terrible, terrible, idea. And the first one is worded so incredibly poorly that it could concievably be used against anyone who tries to nominate a road article for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I laughed when I saw {{Usrd1}}. I would suggest BJAODN, but doubt that others would feel the same way. (No idea if this makes me a bad person or not.) I'm sure they were made in good faith, but not complying with a WikiProject is not a reason to revert, as the former implies, and certainly not vandalism, as the latter does. Gracenotes^T § 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but we have too many users at the project making non-compliant edits. There are more than 5900 articles that are not at standards, and yet, people make incompliant edits when the project is in a stage where compliant edits are needed badly! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 01:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would probably have no qualms keeping the first if 1. it were moved or recreated in a subpage of the wikiproject; 2. if it were made into a notice that certain standards exist in order to achieve compliance, rather than having the focus on the user that has received the template. It currently sounds like a warning template. Gracenotes^T § 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please keep it out of CAT:UW also. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was created to politely tell users (many of whom are resistant to the WP standards) that they are violating them. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... politely ... ? Gracenotes ^T § 02:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As politely as other warning messages do their job. Better than "Please stop making those dumb edits. Read WP:USRD, you moron." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. However, this is not a Wikipedia Standard with a capital S; it's the standard of a wikiproject. Reverting edits because they do not comply with obscure standards, rather than improving them, I consider harmful. Furthermore, how is not following said standards vandalism? That's assuming good faith? Gracenotes^T § 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is about users removing infoboxes, making an absolute mess of the article that doesn't even follow WP:MOS, ignoring HTML comments explicitly stating ONLY 5-10 JUNCTIONS, etc. These are users who are flouting the standards. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, but those (with the possible exception of the junctions) all fall under common sense that don't need a specific USRD message. -- NORTH ^talk 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Edit-conflict seconding Northenglish, use {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-mos2}}, and {{uw-mos3}}. No need to get specific with USRD, and if there is, put it on a project page, not in the template namespace (assuming that the message is civil and encourages boldness). Gracenotes ^T § 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from template space per above. Instead, consider creating a template with a similar purpose as a subpage of the WikiProject for easy substitution into user talk pages that explains in more detail to the user why the convention at WP:USRD should be considered before making further edits that contradict them while assuming good faith - just don't do it in a run-on sentence like this one. –Pomte 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and would prefer that they not be recreated in project space. Contributions made in good faith that do not conform to the MoS are not vandalism, defined as contributions made in bad faith, because they are good faith contributions. These templates and any messages of the like kind of ignore that simple fact. --Iamunknown 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These have been used; they are substed like any other warning template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good faith edits are not vandalism (WP:VAND: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia") and users should not be warned for trying to improve an article. If these are being used to notify users "whom are resistant to the WP standards", then perhaps the standards should be reviewed and their views taken into account, rather than telling them to stop because you don't agree. Template 'warnings' should not be used in content disputes. The templates also indicate to me that edits may have been reverted without a descriptive edit summary as to why they have been reverted, providing the user with no information as to which 'standard' they have not conformed to. matt br 09:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usrd2, Weak Keep Usrd1. Usrd2 does not assume good faith, and if an edit is vandalism, then a template citing WP:Vandalism should be used, rather than one citing a WikiProject's guidelines. I can see a purpose in having Usrd1, however, I think a better and more helpful approach would be to explain why it was reverted to the user that made the reverted edit. --HowardSF-U-T-C- 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Project guidelines are not policy. If this is useful for people move it to userspace, but even then we shouldn't infer that they are vandalizing. These fail to assume good faith. - cohesion 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, however if someone wants to recreate the first with better wording I wouldn't object. The premise is ok on the first but the execution needs work. The second violates WP:AGF.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reluctant delete for the reasons above. As voiced above, there are numerous editors who make incompliant edits; however, I don't mean "trivial" (well, trivial to editors who don't specialize in roads) things like, say, too many junctions in an infobox or one city too many in a list of major cities. What I'm concerned about are primarily major issues such as WP:MOS violations or not following the structure outlined by the WikiProject. Before anyone jumps on me for uttering the last sentence, keep this in mind: the structure exists to improve the articles. If the structure hindered the articles, would anyone use it? No, it would be changed so that it was no longer a hindrance. That said, these can probably be covered by the generic warning templates, which I would probably use out of habit anyway over these templates. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:39, 4 April 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:CR-SLA-3 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 delete all g7, author request. NawlinWiki 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a free image license. Does not permit the creation or distribution of derivative works. --Carnildo 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I'm the creator of this work and seems no need of this since I'm not using it anymore. I Also suggest admins to speedy delete {{CR-SLA-1}} and {{CR-SLA-2}} also. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged all three with {{db-authora}}. --Iamunknown 00:48, 30 March 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:China-fairuse-with-attribution 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. Yannismarou 10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A license template for images that would be permitted under Chinese fair-use law but not US fair-use law. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is based in the US, we need to follow US law. --Carnildo 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but thanks to the author of this template, since the legal link gave the evidence to let me add the PRC to Commons:Freedom of panorama.--Pharos 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, thanks Pharos for updating COM:FOP, and thanks Nardman1 for finding that link. :-) --Iamunknown 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I researched this and apparently it's known as the national treatment doctrine. [1] Basically foreign works must be treated identically to domestic works in terms of copyright protections. Someone needs to update the copyright policy page with this information. Nardman1 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ie I don't want to vote delete on my own template but it looks like the actual law contradicts me in this case. The copyright info policy pages (which I can't edit as they are protected) would benefit from a mention of the national treatment doctrine. Nardman1 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Carnildo didn't bother to inform me of this discussion on my talk page. I would just like to remind him that's a standard courtesy. Nardman1 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The United States doesn't always have to obey another country's copyright laws. There are exceptions; e.g. the United States (and other countries) can choose to not obey the rule of the shorter term so that, even if an image is PD in Italy, it is not in the US. I'll go ask Lupo for an opinion. --Iamunknown 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "National treatment" means that in the U.S., works are subject to copyright exclusively by the rules of the U.S. law. It also means that in China, works are covered exclusively by the Chinese law. The U.S. does not apply Chinese law, and China doesn't apply U.S. law. Thus, "Chinese fair use" is irrelevant for us; we cannot rely on it. "Fair use" at the English Wikipedia is always and exclusively U.S. fair use. (In all fairness, there is one exception in U.S. case law to this: U.S. courts do apply the foreign copyright law to determine the original copyright holder of a foreign work. See Itar-Tass v. Russian Kurier. But this is of no importance for us and has nothing to do with "fair use".) This template should be deleted. Lupo 06:47, 30 March 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:User 12 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused and its corresponding category is an empty red-link. — After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - {{user age}} takes care of this. Gracenotes ^T § 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Gracenotes --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I predict that this will be speedied soon with a deletion summary of "bad idea". -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wish we could just speedy or prod templates under these circumstances. --Iamunknown 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Unused and per Gracenotes. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:59, 30 March 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:GBthumb2 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 huff —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused: Previously used by the now defunct Template:Infobox England place. Last instances were removed from use sometime before deletion. Obsoleted by more flexible, easier to use, and better contrasting Template:Location map— Pit-yacker 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to being part of the Infobox England package, this template could qualify for speedy deletion. The location map works perfectly fine for its function. Gracenotes ^T § 22:05, 29 March 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:GBmap-named 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 nuke —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Obsoleted by Template:GBthumb, which has in turn been obsoleted by Template:Location map. — Pit-yacker 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; deprecated by more unified system. Gracenotes ^T § 21:21, 29 March 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:MTL 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 nothing. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, unnecessary, can be replaced by using {{MPL}}, {{GPL}}, and {{LGPL}} simultaneously. Iamunknown 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, someone could actually fill it in so that it is not vague. I just don't know enough about legal-stuffs, so I didn't want to write the whole template. -KingpinE7 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Standard process for free screenshots, however, is to comibne {{free screenshot}} and the image copyright tag(s) that the software is licensed under. --Iamunknown 05:14, 29 March 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.

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.--Wizardman 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Gov edit

The template is conradictory. "This work is in the public domain ... because it is a public copyright ...." Works in the public domain do not have a copyright. Additionally, I know of no state in the United States that releases its works into the public domain with the non-exception of California. — Iamunknown 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too much potential for misuse, and then people blindly changing to the non-deprecated template without checking to see that it really is a federal work. -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely misleading; unfortunately, not of these entities produce works in the public domain.--Pharos 07:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the basis for the template is incorrect. Anything tagged with this template would be in violation of copyright laws.↔NMajdan•talk 14:21, 31 March 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:PD-USGov-CPB 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, mark the category via a db tag and we'll get right on it. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a private non-profit corporation created by Congress in 1967. Employees of the CPB are not government employees and thus there works are not automatically in the public domain. I can find no evidence to suggest that their works are automatically in the public domain by some other process. — Iamunknown 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely misleading and utterly legally incorrect.--Pharos 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for closing administrator: if this TfD results in a delete, would you also delete Category:Corporation for Public Broadcasting images? It will a candidate for speedy deletion per CSD C3. Thanks, Iamunknown 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, admins usually take care of that in WP:TFD/H. Gracenotes^T § 13:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except not; in all occasions where it would be warranted, I have tagged the category with {{db-c3}}. --Iamunknown 21:21, 31 March 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 weblog 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 -0 consensus —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defective infobox, I checked the only articles using it, like Daily Kos, only the logo and url displayed, and other information could not show up even though it was typed in the infobox. Suggest Delete and someone else who knows template code better to recreate it. — Wooyi 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that it doesn't work is no reason to delete it. (Also possible, possible GFDL concerns with recreation, etc.) I could fix it, in fact. However, the only reason why I am suggesting deletion is because it would be best merged into {{Infobox Website}}. Gracenotes ^T § 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I may as well share that perhaps the only reason why this infobox may worth keeping is because of the "political affiliation" parameter. It's possible that it can be rewritten and thrown into {{Infobox Website}}. In my mind, though, the question is how useful this parameter is, and whether it's appropriate (and won't be misused) in the website infobox. Gracenotes ^T § 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, there's no reason to delete the history. I'll go over it when I find the time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the nom has not provided the best of reasons, what do you think about merging this template into {{Infobox Website}}? Gracenotes ^T § 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What specific fields did the designer want this infobox to show? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. image name of image
2. imagesize size of image
3. caption caption of image
4. known what the blog is known for. No idea how this could be filled out objectively
5. occupation how can a blog have an occupation?
6. title title of blog, I assume
7. political_affiliation political affiliation of blog
8. religion the religion of the blog. Or rather, I'd assume, the blog writers
9. website the URL
10. footnotes footnotes for the blog
Gracenotes ^T § 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The only problem I could see was a typo in the political affiliation parameter, which I've now fixed, and which now displays properly on Daily Kos. -- NORTH ^talk 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{Infobox Website}} as the core fields overlap. The other intended fields: religion and political affiliation and footnotes, which are also possible with websites, can be added to {{Infobox Website}} if they are deemed necessary. –Pomte 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As the creator of the template, I'm aware it's defective. I'm happy with a merge if appropriate. Chris Cunningham 10:22, 30 March 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.

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. --ais523 11:23, 5 April 2007 (U T C)

Template:Clouds edit

Template is not used -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, superseded by Template:Cloud types. --Iamunknown 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant/unused. –Pomte 11:50, 29 March 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:Conflict and change in Iraq 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, author request Gracenotes ^T § 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused template. -- LeCour^T:C 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator I don't mind. Should I just delete this myself, and we can avoid the bureaucracy?--Pharos 06:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pharos, since you are the author and contributions by others have been pretty minor I'd say tagging it with {{db-author}} would be appropriate. -- LeCour^T:C 06:52, 29 March 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.