Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 2

< May 1	May 3 >

May 2 edit

Template:Video game list 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 per CSD criterion G7. Harryboyles 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this list initially as a video game version of the TV episode list template. Since creating it I've found that there's no need for the template and it also encourages using non-free images without critical analysis. I am in the process of removing it from the 2 minor articles it was used in. — ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Speedy delete, if possible, since requested by creator.) --myselfalso 03:43, 3 May 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:Smithsonian 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 // Pilotguy hold short 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images coming from the Smithsonian Institution are not inherently ok according to our Non-free content criteria. This could be a source-tag, but not a licensing tag.. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. As far as I know there is nothing special that we'd say in a source tag... and it's certantly not a valid license tag. --Gmaxwell 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Smithsonian is not the copyright owner of any of the objects it holds afaik. This is a source tag masquerading as a copyright tag. Delete it. --Iamunknown 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is possible that someone donated them not only his works but also his copyright. But the tag is ill-advised either way. My (old) arguments are at Template talk:Smithsonian. Delete. Lupo 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to source tag so there is one unified way to find all Smithsonian images, should Smithsonian policy change. Currently where the Smithsonian buys collections they are buying the copyright. Donated images can be donated with the copyright or without depending on which contract you sign, I donated the copyright on images sent to NASM. There largest collection at the Smithsonian was made by the WPA and as government employees, those images are public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not acceptable as a fair use tag, but I agree that it is useful, especially in the general clean-up as a source tag. As such, we should convert and not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physchim62 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It isn't a source tag and not a license tag; it is a fair use tag. It's a "this-is-certainly fair use" tag — read the talk page. Just clarifying that aspect since people seem confused as to what it is supposed to be saying, though it is fairly clearly written. --24.147.86.187 19:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thats what it's trying to be.. but it's completely and totally invalid as such.. there is absolutely nothing about taking an image from the Smithsonian which makes it much more likely to be a valid claim of fair use than 'because I said so'. --Gmaxwell 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious if anyone who thinks the template should be a source template has designed a proposal. I'd like to see one and would hope that the closing admin only consider conversion if an adequate one is developed. --Iamunknown 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as source tag it's not specific enough anyway. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or remake to source tag. Alex Spade 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to source tag.--PericlesofAthens 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to source tag. Nowimnthing 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Develop a source tag first, then the closing administrator can consider what to do. --Iamunknown 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source tag wouldn't be possible as, according to the Smithsonian Institute, they don't hold copyright on everything on their site. Terms and conditions reads: "Copyrights and other proprietary rights in the content on this website may also be owned by individuals and entities other than, and in addition to, the Smithsonian Institution.". This tag should be redirected to {{No_copyright_holder}} --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would there be a way to seperate the images taken by the staff of the smithsonian which seem to be fair use and the images taken by non staff which they may or may not hold the copyright on? Nowimnthing 01:51, 12 May 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:H2o 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned – should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_6#Template:H2O since {{H2O}} was an identical template — Crashintome4196 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --myselfalso 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. The dihydrogen monoxide appears to poison templatespace as well as our bodies. –Pomte 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 08:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not problem to write H<sub>2</sub>O Alex Spade 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Phoenix 22:32, 9 May 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:Montana State Highways 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to browse boxes and categories provided on the pages the template would be used for. Precedent set by deletion of other similar templates for other state highway systems. —Scott5114 ↗ 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant and precedented. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per V60. --myselfalso 14:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/V60, and <sarcasm>because it's ugly</sarcasm>. -- NORTH ^talk 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Phoenix 22:32, 9 May 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:NJ-AtlanticCountyFreeholders 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All related articles have been deleted for notability concerns. Template is (save for a relic page in user space) orphaned. — Caknuck 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that consensus has been overturned and the articles deleted, there's little point in keeping the associated template. Alansohn 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete red-linked articles are deleted, soon to be unused. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --myselfalso 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vishwin60. aido2002 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Phoenix 22:31, 9 May 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:Theocracy 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template needs to go for several reasons. 1) The template is obscure. Is is about "theocracy" or "religion in governement"? The latter is quite a broad topic that can be interpreted quite openly. 2) The template doesn't serve a meaningful purpose. It is a random collection of entries ranging from safely theocratic to some that are quite controversial. It doesn't help the reader in any way. 3) Finally not one entry in the template is based on a reliable source calling the idea "theocratic" or an example of "religion in government", except the obvious ones.— Bless sins 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quoting this post by Bless sins: "Theocracy can be defined as "government by or subject to religious institutions" (from Theocracy). In that case I don't see a contradiction between "Theocracy" or "Religion in government". Only after his attempts to list Israel as a theocracy failed, the same user decided that the template is not useful. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True those were my intial views. Later, however, I saw the confusion created. Your bad faith (that this proposal has something to do with Israel) is disgusting.Bless sins 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template was set up by User:Patchouli, who was banned for abusive editing and sockpuppetry. From its inception the template's primary purpose has been to push POV. Since Patchouli's banishment it's morphed into a capture the flag game between Team Islam and Team Zion. More importantly, the template is overcategorization on steroids. It's close to worthless for the average user and has no legitimate raison d'etre. A micro-subject like this needs no template. Majoreditor 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reading the debate on the template talk page, this seems to be the most logical route to take. --myselfalso 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a particularly useless template, and something of a trolling-magnet. Hornplease 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can specifically stated what this template is about and what not, and what kind of links should be included on it. Now it's just confusing! C mon 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like another one of User:Patchouli useless POV pushing templates.--Gerash 77 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like many templates, this one is hardly useful. The POV-pushing and other disputes that come with it make it quite undesirable, so as with User:Patchouli it is time to say "goodbye." The Behnam 04:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nearly entirely for Gerash77's reasoning. --Phoenix 22:33, 9 May 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:BarnstormersCoach 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 —METS501 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template lists the two managers of a three year old non-affiliated minor league baseball team. Only one of the managers has an article linked. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). Michael Greiner 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When creating a template, one should ask themself, "Is a template really needed to link to one other article?" Of course, the answer is "No." Caknuck 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change, see below. Keep. Even though it links to only one article, the Houston Texans of the National Football League have only had 2 coaches. --myselfalso 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't have a separate template, it is a part of the general Houston Texans template. There is no comparison between the two. Michael Greiner 03:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Also, none of the other teams in that league have a similar template. Delete. --myselfalso 03:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Phoenix 22:33, 9 May 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.