Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31 edit

Template:Wookieepedia box 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. IronGargoyle 00:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By longstanding consensus, only Wikimedia projects get sisterproject-style boxes. Wikia is not a Wikimedia project. Further, this is a re-creation of {{Wookieepedia article}}, deleted here. —Cryptic 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the parent template, Template:FreeContentMeta, was just nominated for deletion and this nomination was closed with a lack of consensus, defaulting to "keep." Obviously consensus can change and this discussion could come to a different result, but if it does it's going to take a bit of explaining and backbending to try to resolve the two consensuses, especially since they're only going to come five days apart. Phil Sandifer 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the parent template Template:FreeContentMeta and a similar template Template:HarryPotterWiki have all been nominated this week with no consensus to delete. This is getting tiresome. Phil Sandifer 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened as Cryptic was playing silly buggers with process. Um, no. Speedy keep, querulous nomination and even more querulous and pointy speedy - David Gerard 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, speedy keep? How is that? In fact, weak delete per nom - only should have sisterprojects with such templates. However, I can see how it might be useful. The Evil Spartan 19:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed my mind. No reason Wikipedia needs to be exclusionary; after all, we are the free/GFDL encyclopedia. If the Star Wars Wiki is useful, then add it. The Evil Spartan 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; regardless of what may have been the case in the past, consensus can change, and a large number of users (myself included) feel that it would be a good idea to use such boxes to link to free content on other wikis, whether or not those are actually part of Wikimedia per se. *** Crotalus *** 23:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or textify, just like all the others. This is not what Wikipedia is for. -- Visviva 07:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we should encourage links to other free-use sites, especially if means we can shift all the "extraneous fancruft" over to them and get the rampant deletionists to shut the fsck up about it. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this doesn't seem to interfere with our mission to produce and promote free content; if anything, it encourages it. GFDL-compliant copying also seems like a good idea. In accordance with WP:EL "links to be avoided" criterion 1, I suggest that this template is used on less-than-full articles, and then removed for B or Good class ones. Gracenotes^T § 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Wikipedia and specialized wikis have different intention, strengths and weaknesses. This template brings the editors and readers of both wiki together (actually unidirection in this case). It will facilitate the improvements of article on both wikis. As to "improving" this template, I believe there should be an optional second parameter to override the corresponding article name on Wookieepedia. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boxes should not be used for non-Foundation projects. --- RockMFR 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chochopk above. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally inappropriate, in direct conflict with WP:EL and any sort of common sense ("oh I'm special so I get to make an extra pretty way to external link to what i like.") 2005 11:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted, given the lack of consensus to delete Template:FreeContentMeta, it seems pretty clear that the relevant line in WP:EL (Which was formulated by about seven people on one talk page) doesn't have wider consensus, at least in this case. Phil Sandifer 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Were I looking up Star Wars topics I can't imagine that I would be unhappy to find a prominent link to a useful site like Wookiepedia. Barring a conflict with our major content policies, increasing the utility of our articles is a good thing. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, I would be unhappy in the extreme to discover that the "charity" I've been donating my time to is suddenly giving such prominent advertisements to its founder's for-profit ventures. —Cryptic 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undue weight to the box. {{sww}} is more than sufficient, and is used on every single Star Wars article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the logo image has been removed from the box as it is up for speedy deletion on Commons (for blatantly infringing Star Wars copyright). Regardless of the merits of that case, this strikes me as an excellent example of why giving these non-WMF projects preferred status is a bad idea in general. I can't imagine any Wikimedia project's logo suddenly being deleted as a copyright violation... -- Visviva 13:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I'm correspondingly hard pressed to believe that a project like Wookieepedia is going to have an easy time finding an unproblematic logo. Phil Sandifer 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a useful connection to a Wiki containing information too specialized or trivial for general inclusion here. It's also a bridge between the two user communities. Its net effect is to improve the encyclopedia. Weak keep because I don't think it improves it very much. --Ssbohio 14:17, 3 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:YuGiOhimage 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 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not single use, but still no reason for specialized template. Use regular boilerplate. The Evil Spartan 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Use {{Non-free film screenshot}} or {{Non-free television screenshot}} or whichever appropriate at Category:Non-free image copyright tags.
- Comment there are more redundant templates like this at Category:Non-free image copyright tags. Just search and highlight "screenshot". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant; easily replaced by copyright tags. Jmlk 1 7 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not like with a Mozilla Template, where the license is different, it is the same as any other {{Non-free film screenshot}} license > Rugby471 ^talk 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made redundant by {{Non-free film screenshot}} and {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:22, 3 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:The Simpsons-screenshot 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 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not single use, but still no reason for specialized template. Use regular boilerplate. The Evil Spartan 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete use {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination...yeah, it's a cliche, but hey, I agree with it. Jmlk 1 7 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed > Rugby471 ^talk 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rendered redundant by {{Non-free film screenshot}} and {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing templates are fine; the bit about it being from The Simpsons can (and should) be added manually to the image summary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:22, 3 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:The Simpsons-screenshot-Ullman 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 00:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, clearly inappropriate. The Evil Spartan 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete use {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really useful; transcluded by template said above. Jmlk 1 7 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed, how specific do you want to get ! Is the next one Simpsons screenshot with Tracy Ulmann taken at 17:56 ! > Rugby471 ^talk 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly specific template made redundant by {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing templates are fine; the bit about it being from the Ullman-era Simpsons can (and should) be added manually to the image summary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:22, 3 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:DisneyAttractionPoster 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 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for a specialized template. Should just use standard boiler templates. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete use {{Non-free poster}} --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said, as per nomination, per above...whatever you want to call it, it's not a useful template. Jmlk 1 7 00:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm tired of ranting about these specialized ones ... > Rugby471 ^talk 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly specific template made redundant by {{Non-free poster}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:22, 3 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.

Pokemon copyright templates 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 all ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including:

No reason to have a separate license only for Pokemon related material. Each of these can, and ought to, use another template. The Evil Spartan 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overspecialized template. Doczilla 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right I'm going home ... > Rugby471 ^talk 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as being overly specific templates that have been made redundant by our standard templates for non-free media. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with the above statements.--十八 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparently "gotta catch 'em all" also applies to license templates for Pokemon too. Overspecialized to the extreme. --Haemo 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:22, 3 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.