Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 30

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. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Pseudo-hatnote. Hatnote-style text should be reserved for proper disambiguation templates: it should be implicit in chess articles that the relevant jargon is employed anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some readers don't know the notation, and I don't see a better way to do it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard way of including a self-referential comment of this type is by using {{side box}}. Nevertheless, if we always use the same notation on Wikipedia then we do not need to flag this on every single chess article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't in every chess article - only the ones that use algebraic notation. Yes, it is the one Wikipedia uses, but you can't assume that the reader knows it. I have multiple chess books that feel the need to desribe it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there any other way to represent chess moves? Why do we need a warning above the article?Curb Chain (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, there's what is known as descriptive notation (e.g. P-K4). Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 06:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See chess notation 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete after reading

Algebraic notation and Descriptive notation - but the right way to do it is when algebraic notation is used in the article, not as a distracting hatnote. Adpete (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Change to Keep but I will comment it's annoying in chess biographical articles, where chess notation is a minor part. I agree it's appropriate in articles which have chess notation as a major part, e.g. articles about openings or famous chess games. Adpete (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all chess boigraphies that use chess notation use it in sections about notable games or openings. Perhaps the tag could be moved to the top of those sections for biographies. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This template came into being because many people had a great deal of trouble understanding chess articles at all because of the algebraic notation (which is essential for comprehensive coverage). As such, I think the note serves a useful purpose of guiding readers to an explanatory article, and I will therefore vote keep (Thumperward suggested a side box, if this is a better option, then the template should be converted or merged rather than deleted and removed outright). The assertion that "Hatnote-style text should be reserved for proper disambiguation templates" is too restrictive. The
  WP:HAT guideline says that hatnotes are "normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed" (emphasis on "normally" is mine) so it doesn't preclude other useful applications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I went to the dide box page, looked at what links there, and looked at a couple of the articles. I didn't find the side bar in the text and I didn't see what the side bar did. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep It is used in hundreds of articles. (1) There are different methods of writing chess moves (chess notation), but Wikipedia uses only algebraic notation. (2) Many people who may be reading chess articles do not know algebraic notation - this is an easy way for them to find out how to read the moves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Without this note, people unfamiliar with chess notation who encounter chess-related articles will have no idea what is being talked about. Krakatoa (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as for the moment I do not understand how this template would be replaced if deleted. How would we explain the reader that he will get chess notation in the article, if we do not use this tempalte ? SyG (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no strong reason to delete this template. --MrsHudson (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. The first place I see this used (taking a random stab) is
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That was the point of my complaint above. (In fact I was alerted to it at
    The Game of the Century (chess). Adpete (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • So it helps in hundreds of articles, doesn't hurt in any way, so the only reason for deleting it seems to be
    wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • My reasons for nomination are quite plainly spelled out at the top of the section, and they do not contain "I don't like it". I'll thank you to retain your assumption of good faith when referring to my nominations in future. There are cogent arguments for keeping the template but making it a {{
      sidebox}}, which is probably what I'll do once this TfD closes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I apologize for what I said, but it was in reaction to saying that my reason for keeping it was "it is in hundreds of articles". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have a better way of doing it, let's do it, but sidebox is being considered for deletion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies. I meant {{
          sidebox}} should hopefully point to once its own TfD is concluded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Keep - Without it, readers would be confused, and I can't think of a way to replace it. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:32, 6 July 2011 (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.

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) 13:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to Template:Amanita Design. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:NENAN. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 23:32, 30 June 2011 (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.

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) 13:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PermissionOTRSid2010021110004952 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was created as a bad joke to circumvent the obligatory use of a image copyright tag (as required by item #1 of policy

• Delete per
  WP:POINT. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep No one is "circumventing" anything and I resent the implication that I'm doing something wrong by not following "the rules" (I'm pretty sure
  If the page can be improved, [it] should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Since this template certainly could be modified and improved for other OTRS-verified PD images as well, it should not be deleted. Instead of wasting more time quibbling over extreme minutia, Damiens could simply make the change himself to whatever template he thinks is more appropriate. Buffs (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Note, this OTRS ticket is invalid (as explained below), however, the basic template can be reworked and made to be quite useful. I would still argue against its deletion and I will be working to improve it in the near future. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per User: Buff. I believe that the term "Bad Joke" is an inappropriate choice of words. The Lt. Gov. of Puerto Rico has clearly stated that all portraits in the Capital building of Puerto Rico are Public Domain per the reasons which he provided. The e-mail which he sent was forwarded to OTRS. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, OTRS tickets are supposed to be placed by OTRS agents for a reason. (This one was not.) The OTRS correspondent who handled this ticket did not verify permission, but wrote, "For more information on whether the image you are trying to tag is public domain and to find the public domain image tags please see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain>. This should contain all the information you need to update the image page appropriately. Please ensure that the image does qualify under Public Domain before adding any tags." The OTRS tag is for that reason completely misleading; the OTRS agent did not verify permission, but deferred to on-Wikipedia processes. I've reviewed the correspondence forwarded to us to verify permission, and it is inadequate. It refers to reproduction, but does not discuss modification.
  
  Beyond that, the rationale given for why this is public domain has already been run past the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney, who rejected it, as explained here. (This in function recreates Template:PD-PRGov-IPC(although that did have the right OTRS ticket number), which was deleted after this discussion because it was unusable.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but since not everyone has OTRS permissions, it is impossible to for those of us outside the system to know whether something has been verified in OTRS (we really need to fix that...). In any case, again, the tag itself can be remade to be more useful and I would be happy to do so in the near future as I think it is pretty obvious that it would be quite useful. It will likely necessitate a name change and more coding, but I'll tackle that sometime next week. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I realize that you would not be able to see the ticket and can understand the confusion, but I'm afraid that the real issue here is not that an unusable ticket was placed on the image (though that's concerning), but that the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney has said that we cannot use the e-mail quoted in the template from Kenneth D. McClintock because "the reasons given in the email are not by themselves sufficient to establish that the photographs are in the public domain". According to him, we have to look at the origin of each photograph to determine what is public domain and what is not; the template has no use for that reason, even if it is reworded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we know the origin of the photograph (the uploader took it). Where's the problem? Buffs (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The origin of the photo is only one copyright consideration; the big issue is the origin--and copyright status--of the painting. This template does nothing to address that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I agree with that. I just didn't understand your reasoning since you said "photograph" and not "painting". That said, I've made some changes and think you might change your mind on your delete !vote. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading tag. The ticket referred to does not give permission for anything. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, if the template can be improved (which it can), it should be kept. Buffs (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain how this template can be improved? It refers to a rejected OTRS permission. There is nothing usable about it--neither the OTRS ticket nor the text by McClintock. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Buff. You're arguing for keeping the template although you agree it should be substantially rewritten and renamed. You're pushing a little too much here. It seems at this point you're not as concerned with improving the encyclopedia and your are with not loosing a discussion. --damiens.rf 16:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but I think I'd rather let the improvement speak for itself:

  Template:PermissionOTRSid2010021110004952

  Template:PermissionOTRSid2010021110004952/sample

  Damiens, your goading and taunting isn't necessary. I suppose I could argue that all you are interested in is winning a discussion no matter what policy says. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin template was changed recently and above discussion may or may not reflect the user's opinion of the current template. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think deletion is appropriate. :) We have a general OTRS confirmation template at {{
  Permission OTRS}}: this is good no matter the license being confirmed and is used when confirmation is being supplied that images are PD. And the good thing about that template is that it isn't attached to a ticket number that doesn't verify that an image is public domain. :) If we keep this, the template would have to be moved to a new name regardless. This template is only being used on one image--and it's used incorrectly there. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Actually, it is used correctly and I see no problem with moving the image elsewhere. I also think it would be appropriate to have a PD-OTRS, CC-OTRS, and other templates as it would unclutter the mess of templates on an image page. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And now it incorporates the variances in the permission OTRS template. Yes, I agree it isn't in use anywhere yet, but you have to start somewhere! :-). You also stated "this is good no matter the license being confirmed and is used when confirmation is being supplied that images are PD." No where on that template does it state the image is PD. It could be Creative Commons Attribution licensed or a number of other perfectly valid licenses. Buffs (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It is used correctly on an image in which the rejected note from a different OTRS correspondence is cited along with an OTRS tag that does not approve the image? How would that possible? There is nothing to confirm that said image is PD. In terms of your note that "No where on that template does it state the image is PD.", this conversation may be growing confusing, as the template has been changed so much. At the time I wrote the above, you had altered the template to read "This file has been released into the public domain and verified through OTRS ticket number {{{1}}}".[1] At that point, the template stated the image was PD. At this point, it's only implied in the title. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (Incidentally, I've removed it from that picture. As configured now it is wholly misleading, since OTRS has not confirmed permission that the image is PD.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Not so incidental, but I concur with its removal. Buffs (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Retaining this anomoly is confusing. As mentioned just above, we have a more general template that an deal with any valid OTRS permission. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we do have an OTRS template, but it only states that a ticket is on file. It doesn't actually say what licensing the file actually has (see above). Buffs (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another note I have moved the template to a better name (again, not a reason for deletion). Buffs (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You've yet to give any good reason for retention, although it does seem that you are willing to change it in whatever manner necessary. It now has a new name and entirely new text. The template as you propose it now is simply creating unnecessary work for OTRS agents and will be useless unless they begin to apply it. Non-OTRS agents are not supposed to place tickets for reasons that should be pretty clear by now. The "license" is indicated in the file description. The current and long-standing OTRS permission template (used across projects) is simply placed to verify that the license has been confirmed through e-mail. Asking OTRS agents to start specializing tickets depending on license creates needless labor when it is already the uploaders responsibility to include that information in the file description. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, instead of deleting, we could just rename it {{Justin Bieber Songs}}, change the text accordingly, and use it as a footer for articles fitting the description. Fixing is always better than deleting. --damiens.rf 13:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, since we have to verify the licensing of images on WP (not just whether they can be used), it seems appropriate to include the infromation on the same template. I fail to see how this will cause additional work for OTRS folk. The inputs are essentially the same. Buffs (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Except for the part where we would now have to keep up with multiple templates, choosing which one to use in which case, whereas under the current system it is one tag for images, long used, common to multiple projects. Can you explain why the responsibility for correctly noting license (which has always been assigned to the uploader) should be transferred from the uploader to somebody else? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said they should have the responsibility, only that this is a viable option. Would you as an OTRS person use a more accurate template? If you are saying an image is PD, then you can use this template. If you are saying it qualifies under other criteria, I can create a few more templates. If it was as simple as checking with OTRS, then I would, but I cannot check ticket numbers. So basically, it is up to the uploader to post the image type and the OTRS ticket holder to verify, but no one knows what is in the OTRS ticket, so the uploader can claim anything he wants (such as in the case of the original image in which this (original) template was used). By letting the OTRS person tag the image (no it isn't their "responsibility"), it would reduce the ambiguity under which the OTRS ticket was deemed valid. Buffs (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I can barely remember where to find {{

  Permission OTRS}} cannot be modified (as Confirmation OTRS was) to toggle between the licenses. I don't think that the OTRS team would go for that, though, because there are so many acceptable image licenses. With text, there are really only a couple of options. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• An OTRS-verified image should be tagged with the license tag and a separate permissionOTRS tag with the ticket number. I fail to see how having specific OTRS tags by licence accomplishes anything. However, as the template has been completely changed during the discussion, this should be closed and a new one listed. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the bureaucratic maneuver. --damiens.rf 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "An OTRS-verified image should be tagged with the license tag and a separate permissionOTRS tag with the ticket number." Why? Where is it written that we have to have multiple templates displayed? Why can't we put them in a single template? Buffs (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Moonriddengirl. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, point taken; few people want it and OTRS people don't think it's necessary. I stand by the original intent of the template as the text made the exact same claim as the original (it's stupid that we require a template when text alone will suffice; it's even more disappointing that an image was nominated for deletion based solely on the fact that the justification was in text format and not a template...really?) . I've moved the template to my user space to work on it. Perhaps I can come up with a better solution. In any case, it's time to end the dramaz. Buffs (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not fully correct that "we require a template when text alone will suffice". Please consider making yourself more acquainted with the rules regarding image use before intervening with the normal process. --damiens.rf 17:32, 8 July 2011 (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.