Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 3

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. plicit 11:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed. Dl.thinker (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I realize that this template has been nominated for deletion previously, but I believe I have a new argument and it has been five years since the last nomination.)

This license template is currently unused, and that is a good thing. It only permits reuse under the terms of this exact license, which was deprecated after 1.5 years of existence in May 2004. Not only has it been deprecated for close to 20 years now, but it was deprecated for lack of use. The small (and I mean very small) number of files that are truly licensed under CC SA can be uploaded at Commons and tagged with Commons:Template:Cc-sa-1.0. But hosting a local version does much more harm than good: we should not be encouraging people to use this license, and eliminated a potential source of confusion is also a good thing (I would consider myself fairly well-versed in CC/copyright stuff, and I was certainly confused when I saw this in Category:Creative Commons copyright templates).

Finally, I would note that there are plenty of other more recent examples of CC licenses we do not host a local template for; we have 27 CC license templates against Commons' 213. Examples: c:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-fr (23,904 uses at Commons), c:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-es (42,266 uses at Commons), c:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-de (566,804 uses at Commons). For comparison, {{cc-sa}} is used zero (0) times locally and 4,449 times at Commons. HouseBlastertalk 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so that no one uses this outdated license. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.