Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16

Template:Dr Brain series

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 merge with Template:Sierra Adventure Games, after adding some sort of collapsible lists. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dr Brain series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was prod2-ed [1] with the text "Content has been merged in the Sierra Adventure Games Template. This template serves no further purpose". The prod2 was causing all sorts of funny problems, like showing up on several articles, which were then included in Category:Endorsed proposed deletions. This is a procedural nomination on my behalf; I'm neutral. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Template:Sierra Adventure Games seems awfully large and isn't actually used in many articles yet. Perhaps this removal (and related nominations) should wait until the larger template is adopted? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of articles involved in these three related templates, it seemed more prudent to bring the matter here for your guys to hammer out a consensus before any large scale change are made. See Wikipedia:BOLD#Template namespace. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently placing the new template and removing the See Also sections, which won't be needed. Some templates like the King's Quest template have other material including fan games and novels which I do not include in the Template:Sierra Adventure Games, but the Quest for Glory, Space Quest, Dr. Brain, Gabriel Knight, Police Quest, SWAT and Sierra Discovery templates are stubs in comparison. True the new template is big due to the number of adventure games Sierra developed over the years, but it unites the series together making it possible to switch between them easily. I hoped I would result in something equivalent to Template:LucasArts adventure games. If necessary, the Stand Alone Titles section can removed and a Related subject with a link to a complete list of Sierra adventures games can be added. You can also help on improving the template and superseding the stub templates around the articles. Deltasim (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is mainly this: If I'm browsing The Island of Dr. Brain do I really need a quick link to Police Quest: SWAT 2? Perhaps if it were set up more like Template:Final Fantasy series where you only get the series'/main games links on all transcluded pages while also getting the related games link based on what page you're looking at (i.e. Final Fantasy XIII has links to related games and characters only when viewed from that article). ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Well in that case I shall delete the small infoboxes from the main articles of Sierra game series and replace them with the new template, and leave the small infoboxes on the individual games articles. Those small infoboxes may have to be updated with a few useful links, no more than say the most notable series and a link to the complete list of Sierra games. When you put it that way, the deletion proposals may have to be cancelled. I still think the Quest for Glory, Police Quest and Sierra Discovery video games should be deleted as they are only one row of links. Deltasim (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the small large template issue could be handled by using some simple parser functions so that {{Sierra Adventure Games|Dr Brain}} would only show a subset of the links. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's seems very good and user friendly. Let it be done. Deltasim (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The parser function doesn't seem to have been implemented. Better still perhaps the Sierra Adventure Games template could be turned into a navbox with collapsible groups. Deltasim (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2012 (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) 21:59, 16 September 2012 (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:Has-NFUR

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 after adding |image has rationale=yes or |file has rationale=yes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Has-NFUR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to codify nonexistent policy by having to explain actions taken that do not fall afoul of policies or guidelines. Basically what it is saying is that despite no requirement to format a fair use rationale to any standardized format, this one nonetheless doesn't follow the standardized format. This feels like a solution looking for a problem, as well as unnecessary template creep. Like Template:Short-Rationale, which was deleted in 2010, this seems to enable inadequate fair use rationales because it seems to indicate that potentially inadequate fair use rationales are not broken, so don't fix 'em. Basically, if a fair use rationale meets all of the requirements, it can just exist, and we don't need a template to advertise that just because it looks a little different, it's still potentially okay. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to suggest a better method for ensuring images that have perfectly good rationales don't show up in automated reports trying to find media without them? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite the template so that its not confusing. Perhaps it should explicitly state its purpose. Hyacinth (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template is designed to prevent the copyright enthusiasts from tagging files for deletion simply because the way that the FUR was written did not please them. There is no requirement to write a FUR in a particular way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could make the template a hidden text message. Hyacinth (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, if this is just to stop pages appearing on the automated reports, this should be a hidden message. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be minded simply to say Delete, as there's no policy behind this, and when an image page already has "non-free" written all over it in the licensing section and in the rationale section, one might have imagined that a script could detect that. However the idea of making it a hidden message is not unreasonable, so while I'm opposed to the template as it now is, making it hidden could be a way out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2012 (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) 21:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. Many licensing tags already accepts an |image_has_rationale=yes or |image has rationale=yes parameter, so I believe the nominator is right that this bulky template is a solution looking for a problem. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it - there is a way to take care of everything without this unnecessary template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hi. It looks like I had been under some false assumptions. I had seriously underestimated the number of copyright templates that Wikipedia has. Sorry. If anyone wishes to delete this image template, he or she must know that his or her work of adding |image has rationale=yes to numerous templates is a heavy burden. Perhaps there is no need to actually add such a parameter to the template itself but I am not MediaWiki expert. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty simple conversion, and so this would not be something outside of the realm of what a bot could accomplish in a few hours' time. No need for a person to sit down and manually change all of these. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:50, 22 September 2012 (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:Casey James

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) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Casey James (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TOOSOON. Links only 3 articles counting the parent. Should not be used on American Idols LIVE! Tour 2010 because putting every artists' navbox on that page creates unsightly template creep. He has only 1 album and 2 singles, which is far too soon. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:09, 16 September 2012 (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:CatCountry

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) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused; just about clear what this does from the documentation but unclear why anyone would prefer this over simply writing out the category. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 16 September 2012 (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:CatNationality

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) 02:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused; just about clear what this does from the documentation but unclear why anyone would prefer this over simply writing out the category. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 16 September 2012 (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:UK Shadow Cabinets

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) 02:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Shadow Cabinets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template, and it was later replaced with a superior one. It is not transcluded anywhere, so it seems to me it should just be deleted. Rrius (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only quibble I have is to make sure that talk page discussion gets archived with the new template. It may prove a useful record in the future. Road Wizard (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but save the talk page. RGloucester (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2012 (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.