Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16 edit

Template:Scottish building societies 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish building societies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains a grand total of one article, and is redundant to Template:UK Building Societies. QueenCake (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2014 (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:NGruev 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the linked website, the images cannot be used for commercial means. The "requirements" that the author lists at [1] include limits to how the images can be used. Due to the limits and the restriction of non-commerical, these files copyright status is in dispute. The author gives permission for use on Wikipedia, but the conditions do not make a free license. This is a bad template, that promotes the use of images that do not actually have a full free license. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: if this template is deleted (which it should be) all images that use this template that do not have other means of evidence of permission should also be deleted. TLSuda (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This same template was deleted from Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev for the same reason as listed above. TLSuda (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be handled using OTRS. Once approval is noted there we shouldn't need a special template, just {{OTRS}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Google Translate, someone asked Gruev for permission to use these images under GFDL, and in the second email (the one beginning with "Здравейте г-н Йотов"), he specifically says that he agrees with the request. All the other stuff is generally irrelevant, since he agreed to a GFDL permission. Neither the OTRS page nor meta:PR department existed in late 2004; copy/pasting emails like this was the standard way of demonstrating permission at the time, and we have always permitted the grandfathering of permissions of this sort from pre-OTRS days. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the GFDL agreement, the emails do not seem, to me, to be clear that the author understands how he is releasing the files. This is an issue we often see in OTRS, where the author agrees to any license that they are asked about just to keep the image on Wikipedia. We almost always ask for specific clarification, usually including a statement along the lines of "I agree to release this image under a free license so that it can be used for any means, including commercial purposes." The additional problem, past the GFDL agreement, (which I have doubts that the author has agreed to) is that there aren't specific images released under this. If you read through the translation, he clearly says don't take everything, in the articles, one ot two pictures maximum when stating that we can only use a few photos from his website. Only the copyright holder can chose what images he releases, and obviously he has chosen to not release them all. I have no problem keeping the images, if we have specific permission from the author for the specific photos. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2014 (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 Real Richie Rich 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Real Richie Rich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, does not provide much navigation. STATic message me! 02:04, 16 May 2014 (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:Other uses-section 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other uses-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This good ol' template had now been replaced in functionality by a recent edit that I performed on Template:About. Before I had merged the functionality of {{Other uses-section}} into {{About}}, {{Other uses-section}} had only 10–15 transclusions that did not include "/doc" pages. I had originally nominated this template for speedy deletion criterion T3, but this nomination was denied by an administrator with the comment "It's been around for six years; either keep it or redirect it". Unfortunately, with {{About}}'s new functionality, neither one of these options is really feasible for {{Other uses-section}}; keeping it causes unnecessary redundancy to {{About}}, and redirecting it misleads the editor into thinking that the template will automatically insert the "section" wording into the hatnote, which it does not. In my opinion, the "CSD T3" nomination was valid, and was even not contested by the creator of the template. In addition, the 10-15 transclusions of {{Other uses-section}} that were mentioned above have already been replaced with {{About}} seamlessly. And lastly, yes, this template has been around for six years, but if it's redundant and clearly eligible for "T3" deletion, age really doesn't play a factor; if it's redundant, it's redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would have been far simpler to send this template on its way, but nope we're here. –Fredddie ™ 02:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect, per Nyttend, below, after replacing its transclusions with the equivalent {{about}} markup. And let's cut the histrionics. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Updated: 07:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Agreed, once Wikipedia becomes a place where one doesn't feel like they need to write a novel after a speedy gets denied. Once it becomes a place like that, I'll be the first one to throw a party. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit: or Redirect) after converting to {{about}}. But I agree that rejecting the T3 was probably judicious - an old template like this could have some strange off-books usage that it's probably best to hear out before summarily deleting. Van Isaac_WS^cont 03:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would estimate that about 7 times out of 10 when I'm summoned to a TfD about some template I wrote or worked on a lot that is pretty old, I find that the deletion rationale is not just wrong-headed but severely so, and is failing to account for something significant in the intent or actual usage of the template in question. This is one of the cases that doesn't have that fault, fortunately. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with Vanisaac] Comment The point is that this can be redirected harmlessly. Deleting it will hurt the appearance of old revisions, while nobody will suffer if it's redirected; if it's pretty much orphaned, with no current links except the TFD archive, people won't think of using it. I wasn't sure about the effects of a quick redirect, or I would have redirected it myself. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I understand your point, but I have a question that you, as an administrator, may be able to answer for me: is it possible to customize the notes for why a page/template/etc. is deleted to reflect exactly what you have stated, so that if someone goes to the link of a deleted page, they receive a reference that would be helpful? (For example, if this is deleted, state something like "redundant to Template:About"?) Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, it is. We're given a dropdown with common reasons, but there's also a box for a custom deletion rationale. It's comparable to the screen we're given for blocking people, but unfortunately I can't find any screenshots to show you. As an example, I just deleted User:Steel1943/RMNote/doc with a custom summary and restored it immediately. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better wording for what I mean is this: it's the "edit notice" left behind when a page is deleted, such as the laundry list of them at New article. Yeah, the way I worded that was rather confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; changing my comment to Redirect; there's no reason to delete, per se. "Redirects are free." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made mine a delete and convert, or just redirect, on the same basis. Van Isaac_WS^cont 22:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator opinion update: Given the support for redirecting this template rather than deleting it, even though I don't agree with it, I'm no longer opposed to it. If the closer feels the need to close this discussion to "redirect", the closer will not get any grief from me. "Redirect" is better than "No consensus." Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2014 (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:Georgia Interstate 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgia Interstate Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Georgia U.S. highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Massachusetts Interstate Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedent, these sorts of templates have been deprecated where the states have the dedicated lists linked from the infobox. In this case, List of Interstate Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) and List of U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) have both been created and linked through {{infobox road/browselinks/USA}} at the bottom of every Georgia highway article's infobox. Additionally, the navboxes are redundant to Category:Interstate Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) or Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state), respectively. Imzadi 1979 → 01:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination amended because List of Interstate Highways in Massachusetts now exists, so another template is also redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the navboxen are redundant to the list articles that are easily accessible or the categories that serve a similar function. V C 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You know how I feel about this type of stuff. I don't think that these boxes should be deleted. However, I'm not going to argue your decision. Unfortunately, I know ahead of time that it will do no good. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navboxes are often useful, but they're less so when they pile up; six state navboxes for Interstate 75 and five for U.S. Route 25 would get in the way, simply because there would be so many of them in the same article. Since many of these roads traverse several states, they'll not be useful for many articles. Why keep a navbox that shouldn't be used in most of its articles? Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Why delete these, and not California and Massachusetts? Or are they next? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DanTD: as the nomination states, these were nominated because the lists exist to make the navboxes redundant. Since I just created the List of Interstate Highways in Massachusetts, that navbox is also redundant for the same reasons, and it has been added to this nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2014 (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:SpiderTech-C10 riders 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpiderTech-C10 riders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct cycling team. NickSt (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's the actual deletion rationale? The fact that the team is defunct is irrelevant. Is the template simply not used any longer? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here, here, and here. There are no riders now on this team. Consensus has been to only keep current teams templates with actual squad. NickSt (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2014 (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:Acqua & Sapone riders 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acqua & Sapone riders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct cycling team. NickSt (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to keep, because we wouldn't delete a navbox for a professional sports team that ceased to exist because it ceased to exist. I'm thinking everyone who rode for the team could be added or re-added and show the years they rode for the team. That is, unless the navbox would be too large to be useful. Rather than saying the same thing at both cycling discussions, my comments also apply to the SpiderTech discussion above. –Fredddie ™ 02:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What's the actual deletion rationale? The fact that the team is defunct is irrelevant. Is the template simply not used any longer? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here, here, and here. There are no riders now on this team. Consensus has been to only keep current teams templates with actual squad. NickSt (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2014 (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.