Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12 edit

Template:NoCommons 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 Maxim_(talk) 02:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also proposing for deletion at the same time - {{KeepLocal}}

This template just creates more work for everyone, for no apparent good reason I can see. Images and their descriptions evolve and improve over time just like articles. The images are cleaned up, cropped, renamed, replaced with better versions, etc. The descriptions are improved, sources are updated, licenses refined. The images are occasionally challenged and have to be deleted. Centralizing all of this in one place prevents having to repeat these actions in more than one place. I understand there were previously some watchlist concerns from uploaders who did not have Commons accounts. With the advent of SUL, a Commons account can be automatically created with a single mouse click, in most cases. And Commons still has the option to update preferences so that a user can receive an e-mail if an image on their watchlist is edited. I would argue that the benefits of centralization, and the work saved by preventing duplicate actions on multiple wikis, outweighs any claimed benefits of local copies. (I understand exceptions in the temporary cases of Commons images on the en Wikipedia Main Page, and similar situations.) Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. But shouldn't we follow up on the discussion at CSD talk rather than here?

Anyway, my basic concern is that if someone asks nicely that an image not be deleted, then we at least owe them a conversation rather than speedying their image into oblivion. There are people, myself included, who feel the benefit of a local watchlist to track vandalism and talk page comments for high profile images outweights the potential benefits of centralization. I have a Commons account and use the email feature and it is really not the same thing. Also, you are assumming that Commons and Wikipedia have the same goals in how they manage image descriptions, which isn't always the case. I've seen Commons editors delete encyclopedic information from image descriptions on the grounds it is inconsistent with their mission. If Wikipedians and Commons editors disagree on what an image description should say there is little alternative but to keep a local copy. Dragons flight (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not go "into oblivion" - it still exists in its original form on the Commons. Why make duplicate work for everyone? I understand your point about descriptions, can you provide any examples? I do a lot of work on the Commons, and I don't believe that deleting descriptions would be tolerated in any form. Can you provide any evidence of this behavior happening? I would be happy to help resolve that. Kelly ^hi! 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen description trimmed down in cases of whole articles lifted from websites or whole Wikipedia articles being pasted as description. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which, to comply with copyright laws and licenses, would normally need to be done regardless of whether the image is on Commons or the English Wikipedia edition. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. An image may be fairly legitimate on en-wiki (PD in the U.S.), yet be deleted on Commons due to, for example, vio of COM:FOP (not P.D. somewhere else). Removing the no-commons warning triggers the wheel of movetocommons-delete-uploadlocal-move... NVO (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it backwards. The U.S. has no freedom of panorama, while other countries do. There are a few situations in which images are free in the U.S. and not in other places (for example, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}) but those licenses already contain statements that they are not Commons-compatible. For any other unique situations, we have the template {{Do not move to Commons}}. {{NoCommons}}, if you look closer, is not being used for legal purposes, but strictly for uploader convenience. Kelly ^hi! 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to {{Do not move to Commons}}, which allows a move to commons after the non-U.S. copyright has expired. I don't want to watchlist an image in 2 different places. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NVO. There are just too many inconsistencies between the projects' image policies to make this feasible. We host images that are considered unoriginal in the U.S. but adequately original in other countries, images with important local file histories, typeface designs that are not protected under U.S. law but are afforded protection in other countries, WW2 photos with varying legal statuses, et cetera. Commons is very clear about enforcing foreign policies in ways that we do not. From what I've seen, they also tend to have more stringent standards for source integrity. True, we do have templates like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} which essentially include copies of {{NoCommons}}, but many scenarios aren't covered by such templates, and keeping {{NoCommons}} would be a lot simpler than creating (and making uploaders dig through) a comprehensive list of such templates. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - wouldn't {{Do not move to Commons}} be more appropriate for those situations? Kelly ^hi! 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, I think the main issue is the big gray area -- often users suspect that an image would be deleted from Commons but don't really know for sure. Particularly for images with vague/unclear source attributions, moderately manipulated photographs, cases where the uploader just doesn't have the expertise to make the judgment, etc. And there are always a few miscellaneous instances, like cases where the file history is needed for license compliance. Of course I agree that it's a good idea in general to get rid of redundant images, but when the uploader requests that a local copy be preserved, I think we should honor that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably one of the biggest Commons boosters around. But I think there are good and valid reasons to tag an image as something that should NOT go to Commons. Several have been named off already, so I won't repeat all of them, but simple politeness to the uploader if they request it is one, prevention of "almost duplicate" deletions is another, and differing standards on what is free here on en:wp vs Commons is yet another... all are valid reasons to not move, in my view. I am not picky about which template is used to denote this image status, so if we have redundant templates that could be merged together without loss of meaning or nuance, great! I'm all for that... then let the bots go fix things up. But we need SOME template to use to denote this. So consider this an argument for "keep/merge/whatever", but not for "delete" ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As far as I can see, it's simply redundant to Template:Do not move to Commons . bahamut0013 ♠♣ 22:53, 19 July 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:Taiwanese Major Go titleholders start 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 - Nabla (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taiwanese Major Go titleholders start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taiwanese Minor Go titleholders start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, possible a table header. --Thetrick (talk) 18:19, 12 July 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:Tagged Talk 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tagged Talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Some kind of user header template. 1 use. --Thetrick (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only transcluded onto one talk, and doesn't appear to have much use on the said page. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems almost like a template for vandalism? The image can simply be added to pages if needed. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 22:55, 19 July 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:Table of the Americas 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table of the Americas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused semi-navigational box. --Thetrick (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No usage. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, difficult to see usage. Punkmorten (talk) 10:08, 23 July 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:Table Grammatical moods 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 as there are no objections Maxim_(talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table Grammatical moods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that would only duplicate Category:Grammatical moods if it was complete. --Thetrick (talk) 17:26, 12 July 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:TV 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 keep Maxim_(talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard licensing template. Probably duplicates {{Non-free logo}} --Thetrick (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination isn't correct, this is a rationale, not a license. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If this is kept, it ought to be edited to have an appearance and functionality consistant with the other non-free use rationale templates (well, most of the others). bahamut0013 ♠♣ 23:03, 19 July 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:H2O: Just Add Water 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 as there are no objections Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H2O: Just Add Water (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Series simply isn't substantial enough to warrant a template. There are only two articles directly relating to the show (the main article and a "List of...episodes" article) and I cannot see a future point where additional articles will need to be created (other than, perhaps, a "List of...characters" article). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:36, 12 July 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:Unicode chart Linear B 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. Thanks to the work of Octahedron80, the template has now been split into two parts, leaving this redundant (WP:CSD#G6). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode chart Linear B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am modifying all Category:Unicode chart templates for better and unite looking. This template is already seperated into two templates: Template:Unicode chart Linear B Syllabary and Template:Unicode chart Linear B Ideograms due to Unicode sections. And no article uses this template anymore. --Octra Bond (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good work. probably a speedy in this case. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 12 July 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:Every Man For Himself (Band) 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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Every Man For Himself (Band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; not actually a template. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could this be speedied under WP:CSD#A7? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually I try CSD#G6 for unused text fragments in the template namespace. --Thetrick (talk) 17:00, 12 July 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:Attack-summary 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 per no objections. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack-summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overspecific fork of {{Attack}}, not used in current warning systems. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 12 July 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:Afd-warn 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 redirect to {{AFDNote}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afd-warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused notification template, {{AFDNote}} provides more information. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep. This template is used to notify editors the page they submitted has been nominated for deletion by AFD. –BuickCentury Driver 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates AFDNote, which seems to be the semi-official 3rd party note. --Thetrick (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, we can redirect {{Afd-warn}} to {{AFDNote}}. –BuickCentury Driver 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak redirect meh -- Ned Scott 08:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Buick (at 16:22). No need to delete, exactly. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:15, 14 July 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.