Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6

Template:Digital library

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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Digital library (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused/incomplete template which was previously transcluded onto two articles only; no template documentation, or discussion on talk page, to indicate what the purpose or intent of the template is. Coldmachine^Talk 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template lacks parameters, so any transclusion would display the incomplete template as it appears on the template page... As it stands, delete per nom. Perhaps the template's creator could shed some light on the issue. Has he or she been notified of the discussion? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (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:Catdesc

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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

To quote Piotrus (talk · contribs), the first comment on the talk page of this recent creation:

This monstrosity turns simple categories into a template that's terrifying to new editors and annoys even old hands like me. It should be deleted before it spreads (WP:CREEP).

I gave up counting at 40+ named parameters, with many subparameters.

Unfortunately, in 3 weeks since that comment, the Polish named creator has spread it to 700+ categories, almost all of them Polish.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- (Not since that comment; it was spread earlier, and all instances can easily be replaced using a bot when we decide how this information should be presented.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to posting a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until someone comes up with something better. We already have templates that have lots of parameters (infoboxes spring to mind); they don't have to be frightening if they are properly documented (which this one admittedly isn't yet). But we need to provide the sort of information that this template produces, both for editors and readers. --Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Piotrus (talk · contribs) quote. Not useful to have and use. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't say what you would replace it with. I don't care whether we have this template or some other, but until we have the other, deleting this template will have the effect of destroying useful information.--Kotniski (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is because I don't find it useful information to have on categories. Garion96 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which part of it? And why not? --Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (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:Extra musicsample and Template:Audiosample

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 Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra musicsample (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

These templates are part of the Template:Infobox Single. Per WP:FU#Audio clips, "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." As it stands, the infobox does not provide a way to add sourced commentary; one can only add the audio sample alone. Also, per WP:MS#Inclusion in article, "It is better to insert the samples next to a paragraph mentioning them to justify their fair use, instead of grouping them at the end of the article." This is also another restraint; because the audio sample can only be placed in one spot (the infobox), users are unable to justify their fair use. It is better to use the {{listen}} template in an article when using an audio sample, so the sample can be aligned to the relating paragraph. A discussion took place here and there was no opposition — Σ xplicit 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. — Σ xplicit 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There's no requirement that the justification be next to the link to the audio sample; the sample can be part of the infobox but supported by commentary in the article. In addition, the sample is akin to the use of a digital version of the album cover and as long as the justification for the sample is part of the sample page then that covers the fair use objection. In the end, using the infobox-based sample templates are simply a cosmetic variation of {{listen}} and many editors prefer the way they look. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair use is one thing, but there are many iconic pieces of music that are out of copyright and for which using this template would seem appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a risk of being too pedantic here. As long as the article contains a reasonable commentary on the single, it does not matter where the audio sample is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This template is an integral part of Template:Infobox Anthem, which is a included on all national anthem articles. Because they are typically in the public domain, the national anthems' music files will often be included in their entirety on their respective articles (specifically in the infobox). I believe that this adds a great deal of value to these articles, and keeping this template is very important to retaining that quality, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2009 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.