Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 9

< July 8	July 10 >

July 9

Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete similar reasoning to my nomination for Template:CrownCopyright below - only this one provides a different case as the only image that uses this template is up for speedy deletion. — Konstable 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike CrownCopyright below, this is of very narrow application. I am unconvinced that it is even accurate at its sole current transclusion (Image:Okagrove badge.JPG). Delete as unused and unhelpful. — mholland (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2007 (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:CrownCopyright

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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Non-free Crown copyright. IronGargoyle 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal to deprecate and/or redirect this template to {{fairuse}} rather than delete it outright (bringing it here as there are not enough interested editors on the template talk page). My reasons for this are:

British crown copyright offers no exceptions to Wikipedia than any other copyrighted image.
This template does not provide any benefit over a more specific fair use license tag.
This template causes confusion through the long intro - goes on for a whole paragraph on the conditions of use which do not apply (I have already explained to two upset editors that this tag does not allow them to use these images freely on Wikipedia)
Quite a large number of images using this tag are not using it correctly - and you cannot expect everyone to understand copyright and GFDL especially when this template tries to tell them that they can use these images freely.

--Konstable 23:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - cohesion 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and reword template if people still believe it's unclear. For people wanting to reuse images from the Wikipedia in the UK, this is an important distinction. Surely we can find a way of making the text clearer without losing the (important) distinction between Crown copyright and fair use. — OwenBlacker 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OwenBlacker. The distinction is important. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course there is a way to reword this template. And yes, there obviously is a difference between fair use and crown copyright. (→vish win60 - soon will be User:O (possibly)) 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Template:Non-free Crown copyright (or whatever the name should be under the new conventions). This seems like it would be very useful for re-users in the United Kingdom. There is no good reason why we should not maintain different non-free templates for different copyright situations. --- RockMFR 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as per RockMFR. So long as it's made very clear that we, Wikipedia, have to treat this as fair use, and that downstream users may have no explicit permissions for use, it's fine to also have this additional information. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per RockMRF. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per RockMRF — it is useful to point out that Crown Copyright may look different from routine copyright, but is in fact just as unfree ➥the Epopt 15:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per RockMFR. — mholland (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per RockMFR above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2007 (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:Infobox City Armenia

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was basically a shell of Infobox City with a few color tweaks. It was only used on four pages. It has been switched to Infobox City. The talk page was empty. — MJCdetroit 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's only used on four pages, I don't see the need for this infobox. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously redundant. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously redundant. Andy Mabbett 23:12, 11 July 2007 (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:PD-NigerianGov

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete both. Sr 13 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See debate here where it was determined that this is not actualy a public domain "license". There are no images using it anymore so I suggest we delete this template along with it's now empty Category:Nigerian government images to avoid any future confution. — Sherool (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a public domain release; it restricts commercial use, does not mention modification rights, and places a nebulous "public interest" restriction on use as well. It is not an acceptable content license. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is not public domain at all. --- RockMFR 17:29, 9 July 2007 (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.

European emission standards tables

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Sr 13 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates unused, no scope for use outside of the article European emission standards, where the information exists in a more editable form. 81.104.175.145 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused "one shot" templates. --Sherool (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and redundant as info boxes. If info sufficient should be articles -linked by nav box-, not templates.--Cerejota 12:35, 13 July 2007 (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.

Euro birth and death date templates

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 page.

The result of the debate was replace and delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The background on these templates is as follows, {{Euro birth date and age}} was created by RadioKirk on 2 November 2006 as a breakaway from the main {{Birth date and age}} which was created on 24 August 2006 by Ed Poor. This template was created for the express purpose of displaying the output in the date format of dd/mm/yyyy. The reason for this template was so that non-logged in users and users with no date preferences set, would see the date of birth of biography subjects who were either born in or who are primarily associated with a geographical region who uses that particular date format, that is most countries outside of the United States. So as an example, a non-logged user who accessed the article on Tony Blair would see in the infobox that he was born on "6 May 1953" as opposed to "May 6 1953". However, it should be noted that a logged in used whose date preference was mm/dd/yyyy, or any other preference, would override the template.

The template was then nominated for deletion some 23 days later. Discussion lasted 8 days and was closed by Martinp23 with the result being no consensus.

This was then followed by the creation of {{Euro death date and age}} by DBD on 23 March 2007 and {{Euro birth date}} and {{Euro death date}} on 7 May 2007 by Patleahy.

Patleahy then proposed that the four templates be renamed. It was proposed that templates drop the "Euro" and that "(date first)" be added to the end. Discussion ensued with the result being that a parameter be created to the existing templates, hence making these templates obsolete. Patleahy then requested that the additional parameter be added on the talk pages of the protected templates. After brief discussion, MZMcBride then made the changes to {{Birth date and age}} [1] and {{Death date and age}} [2] with Patleahy making the changes to {{Birth date}} [3] and {{Death date}} [4]. All four changes were made on 17 May 2007.

So, now that all of the four original templates have the necessary parameter to perform the sole purpose of the breakaway templates, I now suggest that the following occur:

that the articles where these templates are transclused been edited to include the equivalent original template. As of this post, there is a total of 1027 articles that will need to be changed (with the breakdown being birth date 27, birth date and age 763, death date 2 and death date and age 235); and
once this is complete, delete these templates.

Ianblair23 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and document the df option in the original templates. The second set of templates is redundant. This is what I intended when I added the df parameter however there was so little support and some opposition I didn't pursue it. The opposition was because editors objected to using a template where day first was not the default. I think this issue is trivial and since does not affect readers it should not stop merging the templates. If this issue is more important than I think it is, solutions can be found which don't require two sets of templates. -- Patleahy 06:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two different templates that achieve almost the same purpose just makes things confusing. -- Sdornan 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needlessly redundant. These templates were already needlessly redundant before the parameter was added, and should have been deleted the first time around, but now that the parameter has been added, they're even more needlessly redundant. —Angr 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- still seems to be a useful addition to important articles Modernist 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Angr above. As all these templates wikify the date, I see no reason to create variants for people who don't set their user prefs; if the date format bothers them, they can configure it. — OwenBlacker 10:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as long as the replacement templates have the order parameter (date first), then these templates can be removed. It's important for Europeans (and others using dd/mm/yyyy) that for their articles the date defaults to their format. It's even overridden by user prefs, so it will only affect anonymous mm/dd peeps, who are less likely to encounter these pages. -- johndrinkwater 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do we really need every damned article using this template to be marked with "this template is being considered for deletion"? It's incredibly obnoxious - obviously, the plan is not to change anything substantive, but simply to replace this template with another one that does exactly the same thing. As such, this whole discussion is entirely administrative, and there's no reason to disrupt numerous articles by having an obnoxious little message appear. john k 23:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The messages have been moved to the talk pages. -- Patleahy 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase out as suggested by Ianblair23 --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2007 (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:Australian Music Portal

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete and swap over. Daniel 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal already exists for this purpose. — cj | talk 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the other hand, many other WikiProjects use such a template. Examples: {{WikiPortal Music}}, {{Hinduism portal}}, {{Labour portal}}, and virtually everything else that you can find with a quick search in the template namespace. Are we suggesting all of them are deleted too? Giggy _U^CP 04:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've alerted us to their existence, yes. {{Portal}} has been designed so that it can be customised in the manner of these superfluous templates.--cj | talk 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why maximize server load by using {{Portal}} every time? It's a lot quicker and easier for the server, and for low bandwidth users, to have individual templates like {{Australian Music Portal}} (and all the other ones I listed). Giggy _U^CP 05:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is unconvincing – performance is not at all affected, and, in any event, you needn't worry about it. In fact, if anything, performance is actually worsened by hosting superfluous and un-necessary templates. The reason the master template exists is to ensure a consistent format across articles.--cj | talk 09:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it exists for that purpose, then I'll say it again. Nominate every other portal link template for deletion, and see what consensus is reached in every other case. Giggy _U^CP 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's as good a place as any. Have you an actual reason to keep this template?--cj | talk 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{Portal}}. Neil916 (Talk) 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. preferably all the others should be deleted as well :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well I see where consensus is. Could someone who currently has AWB (at school=no) do the replacement please? Thanks, Giggy _U^CP 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm for keeping it if the others keep theirs, but nom it for deletion as per G1ggy and see what response you get there, as per what G1ggy said. But in your argument, to use it in this way {{portalpar|Australian music|WikiProject Australian Music.svg}} (see right) seems to work fine, but I don't see the purpose of removing the other one as it doesn't add or take anything by removing it, except for removing ease for those included in WP:AUSMUS, which I gather isn't those for the template's deletion. --linca ^linca 04:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. I think there is something to be said for keeping things in a standard way (for display, accessibility, etc). Template:Portal works in a standard way. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:10, 17 July 2007 (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.