Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 April 15)
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15 edit

Template:Star Wars droid 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Wars droid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SW Droid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (redirect)
Template:Star Wars Droid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (redirect)

Unused template replaced by {{Star Wars character}} --EEMIV (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (maybe subst) per nom: unused, deprecated template. The only non-userspace transclusion is on the talk page of a redirect. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I've subst:ed the template on the two or three talk and user pages where it was transcluded. Those pages, BTW, are for inactive editors and a talk page for a redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 19 April 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:Singapore-English 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore-English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No article uses this template, Singaporean English is obscure (note that the template itself links to a redirect which links to a disambiguation page made of two links, one of them red), the differences between British and Singaporean Standard English are marginal, and there are very few articles that would really demand the particularities of it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above and also my rationale on the previous TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator offers a good rationale for deleting this particular template, but part of me wonders whether any of these "variants of English" templates serve a purpose. What percentage of users check a talk page for this type of information before editing an article? –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think you are on the right track about most users never even noticing that these are on the talk pages (even the AmE and BrE templates are only used on several score articles, anyway.) That having been said, I can envision a time when these templates or something like them are useful for finally sorting out the AmE/BrE style problems on Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 15 April 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:Member: sockpuppets for creative vandalism 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Member: sockpuppets for creative vandalism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I really do not understand the purpose of this template. MBisanz talk 04:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My guess is that it is an editing test of some sort. Delete as unnecessary (there's no need to transclude section headings) and unusable in the encyclopedia. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon closer inspection, I think that the content at User talk:Kaltenborn and these diffs ([1][2][3][4]) shed some light on the question. As I've already participated in the discussion, I won't take any administrative action myself, but I think an indef-block for disruption would be in order. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:29, 15 April 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:The Tudors character 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as G7. Author requests deletion, no substantial edits by others. Regards SoWhy 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Tudors character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; nominated by creator — TAnthonyTalk 04:12, 15 April 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:The Priests 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Priests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox has only two links, and no other links can possibly be added to the template at the moment. Template seems unnecessary and should be deleted until additional links can be provided. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While I suspect that the band's notability will grow and a template will be needed in the future as more articles are written about their work, as of now there is not enough material to justify a navbox. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:10, 15 April 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:External media 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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Note that this template does not facilitate "stealing bandwidth", since it does not (and, given Wikipedia's technical restrictions, cannot) display externally hosted images inline on Wikipedia -- it simply provides a link to an image hosted on an external site, which must actually be visited to view the image. There is also a consensus that the template isn't "an end run around our copyright policy" because WP:NFCC is inapplicable to externally hosted content. Since external links are inherently inoperable when included in "print or other offline media", insofar as external links are permissible on Wikipedia at all, unusability of this template in offline contexts does not favor deletion. Erik9 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to add direct links to externally hosted non-free images. This is problematic on a number of levels. Where do I begin? (1) This is stealing bandwidth - the company hosting the image does not have the opportunity to run their advertisements, market their service, etc - we are just using them for free web hosting. (2) This is an end run around our copyright policy - if we're just going to be content to use non-free images here, then there's no reason for someone to try to create free content. In many instances of this template, it is used for an image that we would consider to be replaceable under our fair use policy. In fact, on the template description page, every single image linked to in the examples would be considered replaceable. (3) It obviously would not work properly in print or other offline media.

Of these, the biggest problem far and away is #1 - linking directly to an image is stealing bandwidth and is in no way appropriate. B (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: How is this different from the external links section? It is a relevant link to a pdf, image, video, or the like that, for whatever reason, should not be hosted at Wikipedia. Additionally, having an image or video link is not an end run around the copyright policy. Our copyright policy does not extend to the entire Internet, only to what actually appears in the article, and directing readers to useful content on other sites isn't even remotely against policy. The normal external links policy can be applied here. Finally, none of wikipedia's videos and even some of the gifs and small animations would not work in print media. For that matter, you cannot go to any external links in print media. But yet, Wikipedia abounds with videos, animated gifs and external links. Wikipedia is primarily an online resource and a printed source second. It's needs as an Internet source come first.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason we stopped uploading every copyrighted image we could find and slapping a "fair use" tag on it is because we wanted to promote the creation of free/GFDL content. If you can take 30 seconds and upload a copyrighted image or several hours of back and forth correspondence with a content author to ask for something to be released under the GFDL, human nature is to do the former. That's why we don't use any random thing and call it "fair use". This template says "forget about creating free content and just link to anything you want". I clicked around on about ten articles at random that used it and all of them were either images that free versions could be created (like maps or photographs of existing objects). A placeholder image or a note somewhere requesting a free version does far more than having an inline link. --B (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it's quite easy to solve. You do create acceptable GFDL content for every usage of the template. And please, don't tell me we have a lack of illustrators and mapmakers. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as one of the creators. It says that there shouldn't be links to material that violates copyright. Free material isn't always of sufficient quality or accuracy like in War against Nabis, a featured article using this template. The direct linking, you mention as a problem, is the result of images being somewhere on webpages and the editor would have to view lots of stuff in order to find an image. If you have a better solution for pointing editors directly to media on the web, we're all ears. I might add that we demand a reference that does point the reader to the page this material is from. So, for providing access to single images you get advertising via references. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the article you linked as an example contains three images and in all three cases, I find the template inappropriate. For [5], there should darned well be a free image somewhere of a Greek phalanx. Also, there's no context here. Is this a painting? Is it a cartoon? Linking to the page containing the image with a regular external link might actually provide useful information. The second image, [6], is a dead link. The third image, [7], again, should be replaceable. Surely somewhere, there is a painting of a Roman soldier from the period. Commons has Commons:Category:Military of Ancient Rome and I would think that somewhere in there this could be replaced by someone who knows what they are looking for. --B (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could try some real arguments and show appropriate replacements from commons. For a start the phalanx on commons is not accurate because the shields are too big. The page the phalanx image is from talks about the battle of Marathon, putting it totally out of context. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasons for deleting this useful template are spurious. 1) Only a link is provided, with the image NOT appearing in the article so I don't see how any bandwidth is 'stolen'; 2) as the template is fairly unattractive and doesn't directly add to the visual impact of articles it's clearly inferior to free content which can be displayed in the article and I very much doubt that it's discouraged anyone from finding/creating such content 3) Wikipedia is not a paper Encyclopedia and doesn't need to be ruthlessly optimised so that it can be printed or used offline. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasons User:B fabricated for the delete recommendation appear false: Mugs2109 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The box is not "stealing bandwidth", it is simply providing hyperlink(s) - which conversely provides the company an "opportunity to run their advertisements" when the user activates the link.
(2) This is not "an end run around our copyright policy" since it isn't presenting the media/image content of the hyperlinked pages.
(3) The box appears to work fine when a wikipage is printed.
Fabricated? Direct linking to an image (as opposed to a page that contains the image) is bandwidth theft period. It is indistinguishable in the server logs from inline linking. If you directly link to an image, only that image is displayed when a user clicks on it - not the rest of the page that contains it, nor any of the advertisements or mention of whatever services the host site provides. Most websites host content do so to make money in some way, either by selling a product, offering a service, or by running ads, and that purpose is Wikipedia's direct link to the image circumvents that purpose. --B (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have all the creators been notified? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching it, but I'm not prepared to commit to an opinion right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a useful template for highlighting links to external media; as an article editor (not the template author), I have found it useful.
    Re: (2) It categorically does not violate copyright policy in any way that any other external link to copyrighted media or text does not.
    Re: (1) It is simply deep linking, and is in no way “stealing bandwidth”.
    “Stealing bandwidth”, narrowly speaking, involves including external media inline – if someone used Wikipedia’s logo on their home page by linking to the file hosted on Wikipedia’s servers, that would steal bandwidth.
    The practice of deep linking has occasioned controversy; however, the alternative of linking to a page containing the media (or even a top-level page for a site!) adds navigation load on users.
    Further, the template explicitly requests that links be referenced by reference to the containing page.
    B, as your primary concern is the deep linking/direct linking, perhaps your concern can better be addressed by more assiduous referencing?
    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up - what does referencing have to do with anything I said? --B (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely useful for articles with no free media available. RF23 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Typ932 T·C 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for indicating that linked content is not another web page and allows linking of content that can not be included in the article due to copyright. It has the added bonus of forewarning readers that the linked content may be very large. RP9 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RF23 above. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a social networking site, and should not have a template to link to external image files. 199.125.109.54 (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than your personal perception of what wikipedia should be like, do you have any arguments? Wandalstouring (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, he/she has a good point. Does ANY legitimate website not named myspace, facebook, or a message board link directly to externally hosted images? No. These links are indistinguishable in server logs from inline linking, are every bit as much theft of bandwidth as inline linking, and if I, as an IT professional, found Wikipedia linking directly to one of our images, we would move the image. If it continued, we would send a c&d to Wikimedia. I am absolutely stunned by the utter lack of professionalism here - linking directly to images is wrong, period. --B (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am somewhat concerned about the deep linking issue. As a matter of courtesy and good practice at the very least we should be linking to an image in the context in which it appears. (Most websites attempt to recoup bandwidth costs using ad revenue, and this practice makes it difficult to do this.) But the solution to this concern is to write better documentation explaining the deep linking problem and forbidding users to link directly to JPGs, not to eliminate the template (which can be used to link to whole pages which contain valuable images, as well.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the technical side. How can we link to specific images from sites without giving the reader a lot of navigation tasks? For youtube the linking works just fine because they can run their advertisement. This use should be undisputed. With other sites we have the problem that there are website that demand a lot of naviagtion to find the appropriate image. If we could pick images with some advertising, I wouldn't mind. I did quite a lot of negotiations for releasing material under an appropriate license to commons. While not always successful, the ones that objected offered that we could link to the material. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Youtube videos, inline, linked straight to the video, whatever, are no problem from a technical or legal standpoint - Youtube specifically encourages you to embed them in your site. (Inline, there may be other Wikipedia content policy problems and of course we don't make external links that violate others' copyrights, but that's a separate issue.) But Youtube is a special case anyway. As for images, I'm not opposing all deep linking - I'm just saying that you need to link directly to the page that contains the image rather than linking directly to the image. Requiring that we only link to http://news.yahoo.com instead of to the particular article would be silly and that's not what I am saying by any stretch of the imagination. All I'm saying is that if you want to link to this image, you should instead link to the full page for all the reasons I have stated. Linking directly to the image is wrong on a number of levels - it denies the site owner their ability to run ads, it denies the photographer of attribution, it steals bandwidth. Linking to the article containing the image is no problem whatsoever, assuming that the link otherwise meets our external link guidelines. --B (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • B, if you try to answer questions directed at other people you should at least put more effort into it. The question was "How can we link to specific images from sites without giving the reader a lot of navigation tasks?" and not what you prefer. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, sometimes the reader will have navigation tasks. That is a price we pay for ethically using others' web pages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your personal ethics aren't the ethics of wikipedia or pray tell a wikipedia guideline against deep linking. Anybody who doesn't want his content to be deep linked can easily prevent it. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:57, 21 April 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:Campaignbox Hamas-Fatah Conflict 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Black Falcon's arguemnt is convincing when added to the material on the talk page. Happy‑melon 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Hamas-Fatah Conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two incidents, separated by a period of two years, does not a "campaign" make. The material is adequately and prominently interlinked via categories, in-text links, and links in infoboxes. Template creator notified using {{tfdnotice}}. Also see related discussion at the template's talk page. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Disagree. The Hamas-Fatah conflict is generally considered a "campaign" in most respects. The dozens of battles, and overall animosity between the competing parties, as well as the borderline civil-war quality, makes the use of a campaign box necessary. If desired, use a different box that doesn't have campaign on it. This truly is a fickle TFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I should have been clearer: two incidents about which we have articles, separated by a period of two years, does not a "campaign" make. While there have been dozens of skirmishes (virtually all of which are not independently notable) and a few battles between Hamas and Fatah, we currently have a grand total of three articles to include in this template, including the main article about the conflict.
      Navigation templates exist to facilitate navigation, and what makes the use of a campaignbox—or any other navigation template, for that matter—useful (it is never strictly "necessary") is the presence of several articles about a related topic. Unless we have more than three articles, this is no different from all of the other one-, two-, three-, or four-article navigation templates that are regularly deleted at TfD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:00, 16 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_15&oldid=1079968041"