Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11 edit

Template:Tvimage edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Television}} has |needs-image=yes which does the same thing. There should never be a situation where there Tvimage is on a talk page but the project banner isn't. Current uses should be replaced with the mentioned parameter. Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The project parameter supersedes the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons as already stated - "needs-image" should be used in the project banner. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2021 (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).

Template:Infobox AUDL team season edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox sports team season}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - It really is not. {{Infobox sports team season}} is a redirect to {{Infobox sports team}}, which isn't really a substitute for a sports team season. In the season template's history, the move was made as a "redirect until I (or someone) finds the time to make a generic template." — Pbrks (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Support; not on the grounds of redundancy, but because it is unused and not likely to be used any time soon. — Pbrks (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2021 (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).

Template:AFI project notice/bot edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of the AFI project notice on the main page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2021 (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).

Template:AEW Superstar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links to a 404 error code on the AEW website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (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).

Template:ADY lines edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused and serving no purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (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).

Template:AE sanction/testcases/test ae edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably created as a test page. Remains unused and serves no purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (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).

Template:ACS Poli Timișoara seasons edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after adding any blue links to the main navbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filled with nothing but red links which most likely won't be created anytime in the near future. Only linked to one page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:58, 12 June 2021 (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).

Template:A26 road edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 June 19. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 19 June 2021 (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).

Template:RostersLink edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are now redundant to {{DetailsLink}} per the documentation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 11 June 2021 (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).

Template:Audio sample edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was Oppose. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template encourages users to ignore WP:NFCCP #8 which demands contextual significance. The requirement for contextual significance is satisfied by having the sound file provide an audio example of a written description of the music. This template embeds into the infobox without a description, failing #8. This template even comes with instructions saying that a "description is usually not necessary": a clear violation of #8. Having this template gives a green light to the idea that every song article on Wikipedia can contain one non-free audio sample without contextual significance... a significant expansion of our non-free policies. The appropriate template for non-free music listening samples is Template:Listen which allows for a description of the music such that the file fulfills #8: that it may "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". Template:Listen can also be embedded in an infobox if desired.

A previous discussion from 2013 may be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_61#Use of sound files for identification, in which the participants decided that a non-free audio file cannot be used simply to identify the topic, in the absence of critical commentary to help the listener understand the topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An example of an acceptable way to use a non-free listening sample in a song article may be seen at "I Love L.A.", the 1983 song by Randy Newman. The Listen template appears in the article body, and includes a contextual description of what is heard on the sample. Further description of the song composition is present in the nearby article text.
Other good examples include the 1972 song "Take It Easy" by the Eagles, 1993's "Play Dead" by Björk, and 2003's "Crazy in Love" by Beyoncé. All of these sounds are accompanied by text descriptions giving contextual significance. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am seeing it used for free music samples as well, and it parallels image templates like {{multiple image}} which can be used for both free and non-free images That it can be used by editors to add files that are non-free and fail to follow the NFC process is not within the remit of this or similar templates, nor is this template meant to be used for meeting the NFCC requirements. A sound file used by this template must still meet the NFCC rationale on the File: page. A description is not required to be in this template (though it should be highly encourage) as long as the sound file is near where the discussion is taking place about the sound sample is inserted. The misuse of sound files, whether aided by this template or not, should be fixed, but this template is not cause. --Masem (t) 06:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - What Masem said. The documentation for the template can be improved to include a note that use of non-free audio samples need to be WP:NFCC#8 compliant. See {{Infobox television episode}} and the documentation for the image parameter as an example. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as mentioned above. The template is not only used for non-free audio samples, but also for free ones. If a fair-use file is misused, that is not the fault of the template, though it would be good to add a note to the documentation. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The main issue is what goes inside the template, not the template itself, like what Ahmetlii said. It works just fine for free music samples. I think Whpq's improved documentation is the wiser choice here. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{Listen}} and move to an appropriate section where the points are discussed. The vast majority are used for non-free samples and adding contextual/descriptive text to infoboxes would overburden them (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen has the same "base" problems in that it doesn't prevent misuse of NFCC; I've seen people just drop audio samples in the body without comment (failing NFCC#8) and just say "but its about the song!" And again, for free audio samples, there's nothing wrong with this template being used in infoboxes about songs. --Masem (t) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The descriptions for the non-free examples that Binkster linked contain 20–40 words, which are definitely too long for infoboxes. Descriptions for free samples would probably be similar, but I don't see the practicality in eliminating the descriptions for one versus mandating them for the other. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I oppose deletionism by default, although I am actively systematically adding YouTube audio links to songs with licensed releases. And if every song had an authorized YT posting (whether audio, video or both) then we would not need the sample feature, and it is rather redundant in any articles containing such links. Nevertheless, since the functionality still has many other uses, it should be retained. As for the abuse of the feature, the answer for misuse is not disuse but proper use. - JGabbard (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I don't see how this is inextricably linked with non-free samples. As one on my main focuses is national anthems, I often see this template being used for public domain and free-licensed works; and files on anthem pages are universally placed in infoboxes – though not always with this template. Masem's ultimate point, I also believe to be a sound argument, I don't believe this issue surrounding it "encouraging" the violation WP:NFCCP to be enough of a justification for deletion – though a renaming may, perhaps, be in order. – Kirkworld (talk)
  • Oppose – The sample is placed in the lead, and the lead functions as the descriptive text needed to fulfill NFCC #8. ili (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is actually not true. NFCC#8 requires sourced commentary, which must be in the body. Whether that would be replicated in the lede depends on the nature of the song, but it is untrue that the virtue of the lede section serves to be the backing commentary for the use of the sample if it is placed in the infobox. (This does not affect the need to delete this template, that's again an example of just enforcing NFCC properly). --Masem (t) 16:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that logic, we would have to start requiring critical commentary about cover artwork to justify 99.9% of album and single covers uploaded on Wikipedia. I believe that the mere existence of an article about a notable song merits the inclusion of a non-free sample, same as any notable album would automatically merit a non-free image for the cover art.ili (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cover art is allowed for infoboxes on standalone articles about notable works because it is used for branding and marketing of the work at hand even when the art is not discussed at all. Since this is already decided for us by the copyright publisher, we don't have any issues with inclusion. This is not true at all for audio samples since this is something being picked by Wikipedia editors to represent the song - which needs to reflect what sources have said about the song. --Masem (t) 04:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose - To agree with several others here, a template can easily be added requiring audio samples to be compliant with NFCC#8. If the song in question, regardless if it's a song by an artist or a television theme, has written/spoken critical commentary on either itself, or it's mood, or it's style, then it should be eligible. It doesn't mean every single song that's ever been described by a critic has to HAVE an audio sample on their article, but I think that requiring compliancy with NFCC#8 is a better option than deletion. ToQ100gou (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A lot of articles have this template and removing it for not having a description is childish. FizzoXD (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2021 (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).

Template:Gabriel Schubert edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template page was likely created as a test edit and serves no other purpose, per WP:TG. — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:19, 11 June 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_11&oldid=1029513961"