Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16 edit

Template:Infobox Politician-DE 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Politician-DE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. For all German politicians the Template:Politician should be used. Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (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:Political Affiliations: Argentina 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Link the first instance of an abbreviation where articles exist, or include the legend in the article prose. Certainly no need for a template. Happy‑melon 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political Affiliations: Argentina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Political Affiliations: Bahamas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Political Affiliations: Ecuador (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ideally, these templates could be replaced with inline links to actual articles. However, due to the number of redlinks, I'm not sure whether that's truly a good idea. Since these are all intended for use in just a single article, they should be subst'ed and deleted. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 27 for a similar discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. There are approximately 25 similar templates for African countries (see Category:African political affiliations templates), but many of these are transcluded in two articles. While they are not included in this nomination, I would hope that we could discuss them as well, to determine whether another TfD nomination is justified.)

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:Devonian Footer 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 20:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Devonian Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now redundant, since all links are redirects to Devonian. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the template coding seems b0rked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:08, 17 August 2008 (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:Uw-serious1 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 section.

The result of the debate was userfied to User:Clubjuggle/Uw-serious1 and redirect speedily deleted per author's request (CSD G7). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-serious1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's a joke template that's not very funny and could be misleadingly used. No need to keep it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to Keeper76 for predicting this event. Back to the point, I think it's funny... but I suppose it could be confused for {{uw-joke1}} and mistakenly applied to a vandal... EJF (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, it's a weak attempt at humor that takes up a small amount of server space and bandwidth. However, it could be confused for a user warning and mistakenly applied to a vandal. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential to be misleading. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{csd-g7}} As creator, I've userfied the page and placed a csd-g7 on the ensuing redirect. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:46, 17 August 2008 (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:CH cover rationale 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Although non-free content is not my speciality, I'm not convinced that the instances that this template is used to justify are valid fair-use. TfD is not the place to judge that, but deleting this template will serve to force discussion in more appropriate places. Regardless, while fair use rationales may be 'boilerplated', they must be static, so a template is completely inappropriate unless substituted. The {{imbox}} style also shouldn't be used for rationales. I strongly recommend that stronger fair-use rationales be added using {{non-free use rationale}} individually. Happy‑melon 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CH cover rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Each rationale must be specific to each use. ViperSnake151 13:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prohibition against using templates as non-free rationales. However, this one is a little too specialized to be of any general interest. Best to userfy, or move it to a Crowded House project page, and encourage the editor to subst. it. There are some issues here better reserved for discussion at WP:NONFREE or some similar nonfree use forum. Wikidemo (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't design it to be of general interest, but it does encompass a somewhat broad subject matter. We're talking about something that does have consistency between the images. To substitute this would be silly, because the description accurately describes each of them. There has been discussion that brought this about due to the nonfree suggestions. This does actually validate the provision of the images in their applicable articles, so it'd be erroneous to get rid of it. Strong keep. --rm 'w a vu 12:14, 19 August 2008 (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:New York City DOE Region1 et al. 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York City DOE Region1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New York City DOE Region10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{Template:New York City DOE Region9}} was TfD'ed and deleted about six months ago on the basis that "This organization was disbanded. The Regional structure of the NYC Department of Education was short-lived. The Regions (including Region 9) no longer exist, no schools belong to them. Further, they existed so briefly (2004 - 2007) that their names almost immediately dropped out of usage. This template was designed to link NYC schools to the Region they belonged to. No regions --> no need for these templates.". The remaining templates in the set should be deleted for the same reason. RossPatterson (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2008 (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:Historic fur 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 section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. This is incredibly borderline: on the one hand, it is clearly a valuable timesaver and we risk losing valid fair-use images if it is deleted, but on the other, it seems to be very badly misused. Someone with Twinkle should really go through these transclusions and {{dfu}} the ones (I suspect the majority) for which the rationale is clearly hot air. FPS's historic photo boilerplate has a lot of potential. If it turns out that this template really is just collecting dross, then it should be renominated. Happy‑melon 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historic fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Having a boilerplate Fair Use Rationale template for historic images perverts the whole idea of having Fair Use Rationales. The reason for having rationales is that that they should be individual. We don't need uploaders to bureaucratically check off a list of formal requirements (that can be integrated into the copyright tag, if necessary). We need them to tell us, in simple words, what this particular image is going to be used for in this particular article, and why it is so crucial for it. Of all categories of non-free images, "historic photographs" are among the most individual, where reasons and conditions for inclusion differ most widely. The existence of this templates misleads uploaders into treating the whole thing as meaningless boilerplate. In fact, checking on a handful of image pages where it has been used, I cannot find a single one where it has been used correctly. None of these images even remotely matches what the template claims. The text that typically ends up on the description page is in many cases meaningless gibberish (his image is a faithful digitalization of Paul Joseph James Martin, a historically significant photograph), and in almost all cases patently untrue ("critical commentary" ... "The image is placed next to the associated material discussing the work , to show the primary visual image associated with the work" [what "work"??]... "the image depicts a ... historic event", et cetera.)

Having boilerplate fair use rationales may work with book covers or logos. It doesn't work here.

By the way, I was very much tempted to speedy it under T2: "blatant misrepresentations of established policy". But I want to first hear opinions on how to clean up the damage with those images for which it has already been misused. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've sketched a new version that would work on a small subset of images, those truly "iconic" ones which the whole "historic photograph" issue was originally intended for. But that won't cover 95% of the images currently claimed here, and before we substitute it, we need to clean out the images the current template is used on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is aggressively deleting images that used this FUR template in good faith, without even bothering to notify the original uploader. See Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg for an example.

Update: he's restored the image, but no apology for gross (imo) discourtesy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template appears to me to serve a useful purpose, though I'm sure it could be improved. However, Future Perfect appears to be confusing his personal opinions with Wikipedia policy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve if necessary. The template is in use by 250-500 images so deleting it without respect to the individual image use would be disruptive. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a template that covers a large class of images. We already have a fair number of those and use of these templates is widely accepted. If the template is used inappropriately for an image to which it does not apply that is a case-by-case issue that can be addressed whenever those are found. If it looks like the template is unsalvageable or subject to persistent misuse that cannot be fixed, the answer is to deprecate it and delete it only if and when each image is vetted and non-template rationales added. Future Perfect may be forum shopping here and mixing administrative tools and personal positions on policy questions, using one to bolster the other. If so that ought to be reported and dealt with on an appropriate administrative forum, not here. Wikidemo (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought this here to have a constructive discussion on how to deal with these 250+ images, so please spare me lame "maybe" and "if so" accusation games. – The issue is, we have 200+ images with FURs that uploaders evidently have never even read, let alone understood. Otherwise they would have noticed they were tagging their images with patent nonsense. Now, of course the template could in theory be improved to a point where it's at least no longer inherently nonsensical. But aren't we then falsifying the declarations of the previous uploaders, assuming there are at least some among them who actually meant to say what the template said at the time? But perhaps you're right that deprecating may be a better intermediate choice than outright deletion. Seriously, I really don't know how best to proceed, technically. The deprecation can't be done by simply editing the template; somebody needs to go and notify all those uploaders and invite them to write some better rationale in each case, and then review all 250+ images again. It's massive damage that has been done here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boilerplate rationales might be OK for CD covers and the like, but not here. It's far too generic to provide any meaningful rationale for these kinds of images. In each case, the uploader should provide a specific rationale for that image in a particular article. Templates such as this only invite the uploader to shirk that responsibility. PC78 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a clear warning in the template's documentation: "Please use copyrighted content responsibly and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. A template alone does not make a historic image fair to use. It merely helps you state why you think it is appropriate." The template would therefore be used incorrectly in any instances where it does not provide a specific rationale. However, it is useful for situations in which a generic wording would suffice. RedCoat10 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But people always, always ignore that warning. Yes, it's got two problems. It's inherently nonsensical first, and then also used in cases it's not intended for. Not sometimes, but always. There isn't a single instance I can find where it was used correctly. And "useful for situations in which a generic wording would suffice"? There is no such situation. At least not any situation remotely similar to what it says now and what it's used for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, if people can use templates, they will often overuse/misuse them, but people tend to just cut-and-paste handwritten rationales anyway. Handwritten rationales are also in no way more trustworthy simply because they have been handwritten, and virtually impossible to monitor without a template such as this one. RedCoat10 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sigh. Yeah. Sometimes I can't help thinking this whole idea of asking people to provide FURs has been one huge big failure. It may have actually done more harm than good. 99% of all FURs are either trivial or false, and I can't remember any case where the contents of a FUR have been any substantial help in filtering out the bad images from the good ones. Just as an aside... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but strictly cut down on the amount of "historical" photographs using this to around two dozen images that were discussed and are a mainstay to this day, e.g. Iwo Jima, Black Power, Tank Man. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, none of those legitimate cases seem to be using this template. – What's your suggestion about process? How do we best do the cutting down? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew Iwo Jima didn't use this template; I was just naming historic photographs. The best way to do this is to inspect the articles that use images with this template. If the article doesn't focus on the image, remove the fair use rationale and instruct the uploader to create a new one. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see drama ahead. If you remove the rationale tag and then tag the image as {{nrd}}, people will get terribly angry. ("What? You removed the rationale I gave and then claimed there was none??") – Although it is formally the right thing to do. Slapping a rationale tag on an image without paying attention to the fact that it's obvious nonsense should be treated as equivalent to WP:CSD 6 (no rationale at all = deletion after seven days) or even WP:CSD 7a (obviously wrong tag = deletion with no warning). Which of these is more applicable, do you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - CSD6... it's not so much wrong tag as wrong rationale. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Should we propose that as an explicit addition to CSD6? "without a use rationale, or with a use rationale that consists only of obviously inapplicable or nonsensical boilerplate text"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If it's in the spirit of the existing rule, I have no objections. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete This template is a call for misuse and misunderstandings. Historic images are each one used for a particular reason. --Damiens.rf 14:49, 23 August 2008 (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:CARROT 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CARROT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A rather odd and obscure article template, recently created by User:Micov. Sole transclusion is in The Pacific (miniseries), and I'm struggling to fathom its purpose there – the {{Future television}} notice seems to be perfectly adequate. "Checking sources" and "only adding verifiable information" are things we should be doing anyway. PC78 (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear, other templates already have the same mean (e.g. the Future .... templates) Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already better alternatives. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaD1991. Note that there is a potential niche for identifying vaporware and similar doubtful things, but this isn't a helpful form for such notices. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps the person who added the template to The Pacific (miniseries) could check their sources themselves? --wj32 ^t/c 02:00, 23 August 2008 (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.