Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30 edit

Template:Navigasi ID 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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navigasi ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a different version of the {{Navbox}} template. Was used by {{Mosques in Indonesia}} but I've changed that to use Navbox. WOSlinker (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been copied over from id:Templat:Navigasi ID. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (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:Stella4D 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 discussion was No consensus to delete at this time. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stella4D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Great Stella (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Procedural relisting. Following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 16#Various user specific image templates The two templates were schedualed for deletion. After closure User:Tomruen questioned the deletion on quite valid grounds. So relisting the discussion on these two templates to gain consensus as to what to do with them. Salix (talk): 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old TfD Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 23#Template:Great Stella
  • Keep Templates seem to serve a useful function. --Salix (talk): 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for relisting this Salix, it's been needing to get dealt with. It's kind of a tricky one. It's not the templates that are the problem, it's the fact that the copyright of the images is unclear. Does the creator of the software have the copyright to all images created with it? Does he agree to license them all freely if so? I suspect they're not his to copyright (no other image making program I know of works this way) but I don't know what the law says. I think we need to delete all those images if that can't be straightened out. Then, of course, the templates will be orphaned and can be deleted too. I don't see a point to deleting the templates while the images exist--that will just make them harder to round up (unless something else, like a category replaces the template. But what's the point of that?). delldot ∇. 15:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, here is the relevant part of the licence:
There is no royalty fee required for your use of images exported from the Software. However, if any of these are to be used in any form of publication or product, including (but not limited to) web pages, books, public displays, etc, then you must give proper credit to the Software. Proper credit includes the name of the Software used ("Great Stella") along with the web site for the product. In the case of web pages, proper credit should appear on each web page where any such image is used, with links to the Software's home web page. You should endeavour to keep these links up to date, as the Software's home web page may change from time to time. A complimentary copy of any book or poster using images from the Software would also be appreciated where feasible. In the case of physical models or sculptures created with the aid of the Software in any way, obviously credit need not appear on the models themselves, but if they are put on public display, then proper credit should appear in any accompanying documentation and somewhere easily visible near the display.
For the most part this looks like an attribution clause. The other bits look more like a request than a specific licence condition and does not use binding language. No claim is made for the copyright of the images. Attribution clauses are common to most free-licences and I can't really see anything which would make this non-free.
I disagree with the argument that the The copyright claim is invalid. argument from the first TfD. While a geometric shape is free from copyright a particular image of such is an artistic creation, involving decisions such as how a vertex is rendered. --Salix (talk): 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Rob in July about the licensing issue, and here's part of the email reply. He's got a wiki account, but not active, so if there's specific questions, I'm sure he'd answer.
My issue stands that its dumb to delete a template with a macro expansion, unless the contents are correct/consistent with licensing rules. Besides that, if/when the template is removed, something like Category:Stella_software ought to be added. Perhaps special attribution request information could go there? Tom Ruen (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From: "Robert Webb"
To: "Tom Ruen"
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: Stella images on wikipedia
...
ME:
> On licensing itself, there's apparent contradictions, and probably your
> licensing is inconsistent with the current wikipedia licensing option added
> with it "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0":
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> Specifically this would seem an absolute statement against any usage at all
> of Stella images: http://www.software3d.com/License.php
> 2. RESTRICTIONS: You may NOT: e. Modify, translate, adapt, arrange or create
> derivative works based on the Software for any purpose.

Rob:
I copied and edited that license from some other software many years ago
now. My reading of the above is that you can't create works based on the software
itself.  That is, don't copy the software or create derivative works based
on the software.

I think I also have something in there asking not to create public databases
based on output from the software, especially collections of nets, since
Stella is the only software able to make many of these.  I figure if the author of
the software allows images to be used, such as on wikipedia, then that would
take precedent anyway, but I'm no expert.

Me:
> My personal position is that attribution is more about courtesy than control,
> and ultimately I'd approve complete replacement of Stella images on Wikipedia
> to other sources with lower restrictive controls. AND I think Stella benefits
> from Wikipedia and derived works much more than any cost to you for
> unauthorized derived works anyway.

Rob:
All I want is an attribution for the images on wikipedia.  Preferably asking
that anyone who uses the images also includes the attribution in their
derived works, if that's within wiki's guidelines.  An attribution would mean my
name and a link to the Stella site.

If there's a standard template that provides this, then that's fine.
I had thought that a "standard template" would necessarily not include an
attribution, since each attribution is different, ie not standard, but this
is where I don't know enough about how wikipedia works.  A standard template is
fine if it allows specific attribution.  Maybe you can suggest such a thing?
...
  • Keep. I agree with Salix's rationale. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 31 August 2010 (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:Th 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 discussion was Delete as encouraging a typographical style discouraged by the MOS. RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superscripting of ordinal suffixes has been discouraged in the MoS for over three years now, and at one time (June 2008) {{th}} was apparently orphaned according to talk. It looks as if its use has gradually crept back up, and it looks like the same set of articles is (mis)using each of {{st}}, {{nd}}, {{rd}} and {{th}}. Given the small number of uses and the longstanding admonition against them in the MoS, it's time these were finally gotten rid of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should also look for transclusions of {{e}} without any arguments, as this is the analogous template over on the Fr wiki (along with {{er}}). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Superscripting powers of 10 isn't discouraged, is it? Am I missing something? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the use of {{e}} without any arguments is pointless as there is nothing in the superscript. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could the issue of the "th" template be resolved quickly? The fact that it's labelled as a "template for discussion" is breaking internal links on pages in which it's included. Aridd (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tags inside the "noinclude". By the way, it appears these templates are also redundant to {{ordinal}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:46, 6 September 2010 (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:Personal info 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 discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Personal info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with no transclusions (and, as far as I can tell by searching for the text of the page in each of its six versions, no substitutions, either). Also, template has no apparent purpose as infoboxes would be infinitely more useful. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 04:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Substitute any transclusions and delete, or userfy on request - Doesn't seem to have demonstrated its utility during its existence. --Bsherr (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (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:Economy of Pakistan 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 discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is already covered by the more comprehensive Template:Pakistan topics. Airplaneman ✈ 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Although, I fixed it up a little but the Template:Pakistan topics is much better and useful. Farjad0322 (talk|contribs) 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Redundant to {{Pakistan topics}}, which is much better and useful. Joaquin008 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other countries have 'economy of' type templates too. This template exists perfectly as seperate by highlighting all relevant topics within one condensed outline. The Pakistan topics template is really a bit over-concentrated to be honest and it would be practically irrelevant to store every single thing there Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a perfect idea about this...In order to remove the over-concentrated problem we need to follow the pattern as of Template:University of Michigan...it follows the 'Template:Navbox with collapsible groups'...in which there are collapsible lists...If we will write {{University of Michigan}}, then all lists would be hidden...But if we will use {{University of Michigan|academics}}, only 'academics' list is shown in an uncollapsed state while all others are hidden. I think this would be the best way to put the Template:Pakistan topics...because this way we could be able to put lists in the lists...for example we would not need Template:Education in Pakistan anymore because it would appear in the 'Economy of Pakistan' list as a sub-list. If you don't believe me, see Template:Korea topics or Template:People's Republic of China topics. Other countries have begun to use this new pattern and I think we should too because our template is getting way to concentrated. What do you think? Farjad0322 (talk|contribs) 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farjad0322 gave us two perfect examples. It would also be a good idea to follow the new pattern, {{Pakistan topics}} is really getting concentrated. Joaquin008 (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is pretty good but is it really practical to store every single article on Template:Pakistan topics? In my opinion, most country templates are supposed to be general outlines. Have a look at Template:Korea topics for example; it mentions that the "template is intended as an index of major Korea-related articles only" and that for a complete list of Korea-related topics, see List of Korea-related topics. I think in best practice, the {{Pakistan topics}} shouldn't go more than the extent of giving an outline. Mar4d (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you need an example of what I really mean by a good outline, also take a look at Template:Australia topics and Template:India topics; in any state, both these templates are like proper indexes giving basically the relevant and most important topics. Conventionally, other topics are mentioned in Australian/Indian sidebars or independant templates. Mar4d (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think India has the best template, except for the government section. But the question remains about this Template:Economy of Pakistan. Lets wait for another vote. And you can make a rough work template with me on User:Farjad0322/Sandbox and discuss it on the discussion page with it. Farjad0322 (talk|contribs) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I changed my mind. Economy of Pakistan is bigger than I thought. Its best we keep it so in future we have comfort in navigating/editing/reading economy-related articles of Pakistan. Farjad0322 (talk|contribs) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (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:Pp-main-page 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 discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp-main-page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With Commons now, {{C-uploaded}} and commons:Template:En main page are used for images. {{mprotected2}} suffices for all other purposes. After deleted, recommend move {{mprotected2}} to Template:Pp-main-page to match naming convention. --Bsherr (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (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:TDWT Elimination Table 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 discussion was Subst and delete Overhead of transclusion not needed for a single page. Further a problematic solution to a vandalism problem, while it may reduce vandalism in the short term it creates a problem in that fewer preople are watching the template than the page its included in, so if a vandal does find the template it is likely to stay longer. Salix (talk): 19:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TDWT Elimination Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TDA Elimination Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just another elimination table for a animated television series. These get reverted all the time due to fans constantly adding unverified results. Nilocia (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst onto the relevant pages, then delete. Since Total Drama World Tour is run in the same style as a reality show, and the show does feature eliminations, the show's article should have an elimination table. However, the way said elimination table is coded is all wrong--many actual reality shows have their elimination tables hardcoded right into the articles themselves, the same goes for the first season of this franchise. This is one case where a template isn't the right way to go. Keep the information, but ditch this middleman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiningpikablu252 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a long discussion on a redo of the Total Drama elimination tables. I was part of it, and once we reached an agreement, I made the table and key into a template, in an effort to block vandalism from the article-which is something this table brought with it when it was part of the article. While I understand that other elimination tables for other reality shows are an integrated part of the article itself, it is mainly this terrible vandalism issue which is the reason that it can not be in the article. On the above point of Total Drama Island's table not being a template, this is simply due to no one getting around to creating one yet, something that was planned for the future. TDI19 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with hardcoding the elimination table directly into the article is that it opens it up for a lot of vandalism that's actually been curbed by moving the table to a template. The page has not remained semi-protected for long, and within hours of un-protection, the vandalism begins anew. Setting the table aside in a template has already avoided well over 75% of the vandalism that had previously been occurring, even without the template being semi-protected. In addition, creating a similar template for the first season has already been agreed to and is currently in progress. Twentydragon 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify, my position is keep. Twentydragon 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Substitute then delete - If there's vandalism, it should be responded to as would vandalism in any article, not by unnecessarily creating portions of the article as a template. I understand the concern, but it's not worth the server load of a transclusion when there are more regular options available. --Bsherr (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire reason this was done in the first place was that the regular options weren't working, or the page wasn't considered important enough to even bother with applying those regular options. If the template does simply get merged onto the pages, I'd hope that afterward the page would be semi-protected until several months after the end of the season. Twentydragon 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, and that's the regular option. In my experience, protection is 100% effective at stopping vandalism. I'd find it very curious if there were persistent vandalism and protection were refused. --Bsherr (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • True. Every protection on that page has worn off quickly for some reason. If we brought the table back into the article the page would have to be locked for at least a year, honestly. TDI19 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidated to a single discussion. Better than repeating in both discussions. --Bsherr (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute, then delete. For a single transclusion, the overhead isn't warranted. If the IP/new editor edits are that problematic, let's just go to longer-term semi-protection on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To bring another point to the vandalism matter, today and yesterday, the table was changed many times on the article itself, but not the template. Once to a hideous, unreadable color scheme, and once to Spanish, I believe. Now, to fix this problem, instead of having to deal with undoing (which is inevitable, because someone will harmlessly edit something afterwards, making rollback useless in the situation), all you do is delete the new table, and type the template name out, and voila! Easy, and reduces headaches for all of us who work hard to keep the Total Drama articles as clear as possible. TDI19 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If vandalism is serious enough, this is a viable solution to this problem. Ruslik_Zero 16:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete There are other, better tools to fight vandalism. One is semi-protection. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 9 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_30&oldid=1146662102"