Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

May 7 edit

Template:TVChannelsinRomanian 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

too big and still increasing, too many dead wikilinks. 128.112.70.32 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the deadlinks, and grouped together the public and private stations to reduce its height a bit. This template is bound to be useful, and can be organized better like {{American broadcast television}}. –Pomte 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep potentially usable and useful. Jmlk17 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but please re-design, it looks awfull as it is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qyd (talk • contribs) 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It may be usefull in the future. --Mocu 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find List of Romanian language television channels more informative and useful, and it is not necessary to repeat that in a template. Dispite the fact that I know very little about American TV, I find {{American broadcast television}} very clear - in total contrast with this template. Of course, before deleting, someone should ensure that all potential info is coppied into List of Romanian language television channels. The template is supposed to help navigate, not to list all items of a kind. A list is much better for the latter purpose. :Dc76 18:48, 14 May 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:SVG-Trademark 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG logos are, by definition, incompatible with our "fair use" provisions. Fair use requires that images be "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity" (see the official policy on non-free images, 3b). SVG images are, by definition, high-fidelity and can be reproduced in high resolution. They automatically fail as "fair use" for the logo concerned. Asking people to keep the images small when using them is ludicrous - whatever size they appear at, they remain clickable to their infinite resolution, thus breaking the copyright-fair-use template on the image page which begins "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images..." (emphasis in the original). This template is enabling the use of high-fidelity, high-resolution copyright and trademarked artwork that Wikipedia cannot use and specifically forbids the use of. It must go. — ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To which I add {{Brands of the World SVG}} - same applies. ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought that same point up when nominating several SVG logos for deletion, putting this template warning on them, and I ended up being WP:POINT-ed and that template was nominated for deletion. Smell a contradiction of policy here? In the meantime, I say keep this template. -- Denelson 83 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been over this before, and the proper place to discuss the issue is Wikipedia:Logos, not TFD. SVG images are not "infinite-resolution"; that's impossible, since an infinite-resolution image would require infinite storage space. They simply scale better. Although there has been much debate over the issue, there is not and never has been a consensus to get rid of SVG images. Furthermore, as to legality, the primary issue with logos is trademark law rather than copyright. And under trademark law, the issue is how the trademark is being used, not what resolution it's being rendered at. If an actual representative of the Foundation says that these logos violate fair use policy, or Foundation counsel says they could present copyright problems, then I am willing to accept that. But I feel that the attempts by ordinary users with no legal training to delete these images constitute disruptive copyright paranoia. *** Crotalus *** 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether it's a trademark or copyrighted, it's still non-free. All non-free images must comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, particularly 3(b): "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace." I fail to see how an SVG version of a non-free image complies with our policies. Pagra shtak 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that WP:TFD is the appropriate venue to determine image use policy. This template should be removed if and when there is a consensus on WP:LOGO and/or WP:IUP that SVG-format logos are inappropriate, or if and when the Foundation says to stop using them. Anyway, if the template is deleted through this process, that does not give justification to delete every image that it is attached to. They mostly (if not all) have the standard {{Non-free logo}} template as well. *** Crotalus *** 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Logos has stated that PNG is the preferred format since 2005. Pagra shtak 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, attempts to add specific prohibitions of SVG logos to WP:LOGO have been repeatedly rejected. *** Crotalus *** 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Logos are copyrighted by their owners as works for hire and thus our fair use policy applies. Trademark is just not an issue. We have been encouraged to use transparent .PNGs or .GIFs for logos where possible and this is working out well in my experience. Daniel Case 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close. This is not an appropriate discussion for Tfd. Tfd is not the place to discuss what sorts of images we can use as fair use. --- RockMFR 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, go argue somewhere else. This is not within TFD's purview. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, image use policy is not hammered out on TfD, so if you want this deleted you need to have SVG logos banned first. Until such a time, this is a perfectly valid template. --tjstrf talk 08:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SVG logos scale better, even when you're scaling down. To avoid copyright problems, you can simply avoid scaling up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wrong place for this discussion Kumiankka 10:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp this ought to be taken to a policy desk.--Andersmusician $ 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having low-resolution is not a legal criteria for fair use, and there is no policy that says so. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a serious problem with this template. Only copyrighted images are supposed to be rendered in low-resolution. The reason is that there should be no devaluation of the copyright when used as fair use. There is no such problem with trademark fair use, which is mainly concerned with using the trademark in correct context and preventing the false appearance of endorsement by the trademark owner. If you read the Wikipedia disclaimer, you will understand that content can be free, but still subject to trademark restrictions. Therefore, if kept, this template must be changed to emphasize that it is copyright, not trademark issues, that demand that the image be in low resolution. (Unless we also start applying it to article text. Perhaps every occurence of the word "Hoover" should be in low resolution!) nadav 05:35, 16 May 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:Big five motorways 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research with the original article having been prodded to deletion. — Regan123 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research; redundant to {{UK motorways}}. –Pomte 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redundant template. Jmlk17 00:49, 8 May 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:Indy Philippine cities 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already orphaned and had been superseded by {{Philippine cities}}. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and already superseded as said above. Jmlk17 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this redirect and the deprecated target Template:Highly urbanized Philippine cities. You could have just edited the existing template instead of creating a new one, then moved it to a new name. –Pomte 02:59, 14 May 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.