Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13, 2006

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 WTF, not again, nuke it. — Feb. 20, '06 [00:52] <

freakofnurxture|talk
>

Template:ParentalAdvisory

Template:ParentalAdvisory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used on any pages. I checked this through backlinks to the template and to the image called within the template. The only page to ever use this template[1] has Subst'd the template. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 22:24, 13 February 2006 (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 page.
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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country alias Viet Nam

Template:Country alias Viet Nam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
duplicate of Template:Country alias Vietnam EdwinHJ | Talk 16:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There are different name templates for "Czech Republic"/"Czechia", "East Timor"/"Timore-Leste", "Taiwan/"Taiwan (ROC)"/"Republic of Cina (Taiwan)". This is for "Viet Nam," it's consistent and (more) appropriate. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Unless someone can come up with a really good reason to keep this, it and all other country-name templates should be deleted. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgive my naïveté, but exactly what are these supposed to be used for? Ardric47 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently for use as a meta-template inside the {{
talk 07:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay then, changed to Strong Delete as a meta-template. Die, meta-template, die. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get what the difference is between that and simply typing "Viet Nam". Can users somehow customize Wikipedia to their own spelling preferences or something? Ardric47 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is standardized as "Vietnam," but, as with East Timor and the more accurate Timor-Leste, some users (me) would prefer to be able to display the alternate spelling. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. -Justin (koavf), talk 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
allion (?) 08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, keep. —
allion (?) 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you then explain why this template is more efficient than typing "Viet Nam"? It doesn't have any text other than the country name, and inserting it into an article takes more text than typing the country name. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's used in {{
allion (?) 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I don't fully understand how that template works, but I'll give this template the benefit of the doubt. My apologies. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe nobody understands how it works...=/ Ardric47 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll try to explain. When you use something like {{
allion (?) 09:31, 16 February 2006 (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 page.
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. Note that the final two comments here are considerably off-base. No image was ever going to be deleted, and it's not a matter of deletionism to seek correct tags and wording in tags, and removal in case of complete error. Namecalling does not help, Irpen. -Splashtalk 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian copyrights

This applies to the identical {{PD-USSR}} and {{Sovietpd}}. These tags state that any work published in the USSR before 1973 were in the public domain outside the USSR because the USSR was not party to any international copyright treaties before. This reasoning is wrong; please see this extended discussion. Both tags should be deleted, and all the about 600 images using it (Category:Pre-1973 Soviet Union images) need to be re-evaluated. Lupo 08:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: See also this
old discussion from March/April 2005. Lupo 09:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
So, more than 600 images are about to be deleted because a couple of copyright nazis decided so? Did they discuss the Soviet copyright on
Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board? Did they discuss it on Wikiproject:Soviet Union? No? Then go and discuss the matter with more knowledgable people. If you want to keep Wikipedia afloat, please find something more useful than deleting other peoples' hard work. So, Strong Keep. --Ghirla | talk 16:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Ghirlandajo, you just lost the argument as per Godwin's law. Seriously, there is no need to resort to unfounded and childish personal attacks. Read carefully what I wrote: the templates should be deleted, the images should be re-evaluated to see whether we can use them under some other, correct scheme. Pre-1973 is just wrong. Lupo 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong in your personal opinion, but have you heard what others have to say? I don't see what's the point of adding hundreds of images according to established rules, when one day there appears someone who unilaterally declares all the rules wrong? I've already seen some pre-1917 Russian photographs being deleted by copyrights paranoiacs. Now we'll lose half the images pertaining to the 20th-century history of Russia and Ukraine. There is only one solution: move them to Commons, where paranoia is not so rampant. Or just tag {PD-self} every image you download, no matter how old it is. Sorry for my tone, I'm so frustrated with your frivolous nomination. --Ghirla | talk 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many images linking to these templates to just delete them outright, especially when WLH is broken and there's no telling where they may be lurking. I say, rewrite the templates to reflect current knowledge regarding the copyright status of works created in the Soviet Union, even if it's just to say "The copyright status of works created in the Soviet Union before 1973 (or before 1954, or before 1948, or whatever) is uncertain."
    talk 16:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I concur. --Ghirla | talk 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The images should be all in the category. Lupo 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Ghirlandajo could indeed better be more civil, he does have a point. The linked in discussions are written in near-legalese, and have no conclusive statement that can explain the point to common mortals like myself. Furthermore, they're adorned with numerous IANAL remarks wherever somebody does try to make a point. I believe that I can follow what's in there, but I can easily imagine an equaly conclusive near-legalese persuading me to take a different point of view. And, of course, it's really strange that you haven't run it through the projects/portals mentioned by Ghirlandajo, this could probably fetch you some expertise in the local specifics. If and when the said projects support your reasoning, you should re-try TfDing this. Until then, KEEP. --BACbKA 16:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it equally strange that none of the editors who frequented aforementioned notice boards apparently ever read the talk pages of the templates in question (I posted a notice on both long ago), nor do they seem to read other pages on Wikipedia relating to copyright issues. With hindsight, it would have been an idea to post notices at these notice boards, but, stupid as it may seem, it just didn't occur to me. Anyway, I have yet to see anyone make a clear case for that 1973 date. Lupo 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The templates seemed correct and stable, so no reason to add them to my watch list occurred to me. Seems it would have been a good idea. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 17:30 Z
  • I am not a lawyer, (and Lupo states that he is not) but I do not find the previous discussions referred to by Lupo as in any way conclusive. In fact they are in many ways impenetrable. I find nothing there to convince me that a wholesale change is needed. Therefore Keep.--Smerus 17:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This mess should by all means be sorted, but until then keep the tags.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit the text of the template to reflect the currently-presumed copyright status. The justification for deleting the copyright tag from hundreds of images at once seems unclear to me. Let's not knee-jerk delete them all at once, and it would take some time to evaluate them all. Since the status of any particular image is not clear, make the templates reflect that (and maybe merge them?), and lets get to work on sorting this out. Once we know what kind of image is definitely covered, create a new template to label them as safe. Once we know what kind of image definitely isn't covered, we can start dropping those and perhaps finding replacements from other sources. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 17:30 Z
Agree with Keep and edit for the reasons stated above. Wikiolap 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the deletion didn't fly. Lupo is free to propose modification, but I think we can safely close the vote. I am removing the TfD note from the template's page. Please xontinue discussions on the proposed changed at the template's talk or wherever. --Irpen 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote, but a comment: We should never delete a copyright tag simply because it is incorrect, while there still exist images that reference it. We should also not reword a copyright tag; whether the statement it makes is correct or not, it is the statement that users uploading under this copyright tag agreed to when uploading. We can add a statement that says that we are unsure if the claims made in the tag are legally valid. We should create another copyright tag with a statement that we believe is legally valid - whatever the discussion about Russian copyright terms and PD decides is the actual legal case - and migrate images to that as we validate that they actually qualify. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the tag needs to be modified do so. But it is ridiculous to delete all those valuable pictures. John Smith's 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists may continue a separate debate on how to modify the tag, but the delete vote has been up for over 5 days and its result is clear. --Irpen 08:48, 20 February 2006 (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 page.
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. -

Mailer Diablo 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fast food advertising

Template:User BurgerKing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User McDonald's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User TacoBell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. I can see how listing one's favorite food or dietary habits can be somewhat informative. But these templates don't really say much about anyone as a person, let alone as a Wikipedian. This is little more than advertising. Feel free to mentally fill in the obvious slippery slope argument that one can make here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Userbox deletion is disruptive--God of War 17:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three It helps people know what people like to eat. Simple. Hohohob 08:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three whats the difference between liking a whopper burger and liking fruit juice? Honestly??? Mostlyharmless 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, "advertising" like this - from a non-affiliated party acting on their own with a little box - is different from really "advertising" - turning your user page into a page all about your commercial site advertising your product. Agree with CKA3KA. --AySz88^-^ 06:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not really advertising. You're not selling a product, you're just simply claiming that you like to dine at [insert dining name]. I could see a difference if the userboxes had some different wording. Also, was the "Feel free to mentally fill in the obvious slippery slope argument that one can make here." comment really necessary? Come on.
    Douglasr007 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - If you're going to delete these, you might as well delete every other userbox with a brand name attached to it. The Kids Aren't Alright 21:12, 19 February 2006 (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 page.
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. -Splashtalk 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jimi Hendrix

Template:Jimi Hendrix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Exact copy of Template:ExperienceHendrix, which is ugly enough anyway. - MightyMoose22 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cuiviénen, change vote to keep but delete Template:ExperienceHendrix. Mikker ... 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cuiviénen. 203.51.172.162 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per per Cuiviénen. Chairman S. 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr, move? - why is this even here? No discussion on either talk page, so impossible to form an informed opinion; was there some third template that preceeded the creation of both on 12 Feb? -- nae'blis (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not as far as I know. Unless you count the
      this page. It's mostly there anyway. - MightyMoose22 00:15, 17 February 2006 (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 page.
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 NO CONSENSUS. Not much point relisting. Colours are horrific though. -Splashtalk 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SimonGarfunkel

Template:SimonGarfunkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Little more than a discography and some seemingly unrelated "related bands". - MightyMoose22 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems useful. It can always be altered... Mikker ... 03:46, 13 February 2006 (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 page.
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 NO CONSENSUS. Another one with outrageous colouring. -Splashtalk 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SRV2Trouble

Template:SRV2Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Little more than a discography and some seemingly unrelated "related bands". - MightyMoose22 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems useful. It can always be altered... Mikker ... 03:47, 13 February 2006 (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 page.
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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TPHeartbreakers

talk | history | links | watch | logs
)
Little more than a discography and some seemingly unrelated "related bands". - MightyMoose22 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems useful. It can always be altered...Mikker ... 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like random advertising and unecessary clutter. (Unsigned comment by User:24.33.233.128 21:57, 2006 February 16)
  • Keep per Mikkerpikker. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:36, 22 February 2006 (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 page.
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. -

Mailer Diablo 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Infobox Indian Army Regiments

Template:Infobox Indian Army Regiments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by {{

Infobox Military Unit}}. —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 13 February 2006 (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 page.
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. -

Mailer Diablo 03:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Infobox British Army regiment

Template:Infobox British Army regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by {{

Infobox Military Unit}}. —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 13 February 2006 (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 page.
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. -

Mailer Diablo 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Questions-DE

Template:Questions-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is big, ugly, and unnecessary. It creates its own section, and has some sort of CSS error. Should be deleted. JW1805 (Talk) 00:30, 13 February 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_13&oldid=1146586676"