Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7

Template:TBS-MBS6pm

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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a TV guide and we do not need a template for a single Japanese television channel's one hour time slot.. Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian. Note that the related article, TBS-MBS 6pm, has just been deleted. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2008 (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:Book cover fur

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 debate was keep. John254 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template creates an automatically generated fair use rationale for book covers. However, fair use rationales have to be written specifically for the images to which they apply. This is especially the case for the "Purpose" parameter, as different uses of book covers will have different purposes in different articles. The automatically generated statement about replaceability is not appropriate either, as some non-free book cover images are used in articles about public domain books, meaning the image is in fact replaceable with a free image. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template provides for variables that can override the boilerplate text when necessary, such as "Purpose=" If you dispute the text generated, a more appropriate rationale can be replaced into the template . Template should never be applied to any free licence images by definition, so public domain issue is moot. (Simply remove any FUR templates for PD books). I would dispute the necessity to generate a unique rationale every single time, when in the vast majority of instances, the boilerplate text is adequately applicable. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is not that it's being used on free images, but that it's claiming non-free images are not replaceable by free ones when some of them are in fact replaceable. And the boilerplate "purpose" text gets inserted everywhere, even when the image is serving no purpose at all. This template is making non-free image abuse way too easy. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you feel that the listed purpose is incorrect, boilerplate or not, then dispute it. Don't shoot the tool if you feel it's been used incorrectly. Look, I will admit that I have spent most of last night working on the backlogs at CAT:DFUI and CAT:NR, (look at my Special:Contributions/Roninbk if you don't believe me.) I've probably gone through over 500 images, adding FURs to clearly fair use images. Now, I'm not a bot, so I'm bound to have made a few mistakes. But deleting the template is not the way to deal with someone that you feel is inappropriately using the template. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think this template can be used correctly, which is why I nominated it for deletion. And the way to take care of the backlogs at CAT:DFUI and CAT:NR should have been to delete the images, not slap boilerplate rationales on them. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that the thousands of images BetaCommandBot tagged for deletion over the past several weeks have been "saved" in this way, instead of being deleted, as they should have been. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a personal opinion which is beyond the scope of this TfD. Betacommandbot states on its talk page "I do not want to see images deleted" and "All images must comply with policy". I am not trying to save images indiscriminately, I am making a good faith attempt to bring them into compliance. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I don't think this template is capable of bringing images into compliance. It simply changes an image with no rationale into an image with an invalid rationale. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful in many, many cases, for example, Image:SpaceBrat.jpg. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine example. The template does not tell us who the copyright holder is (which is required by WP:NFCC#10), and it says the image is being used in the "main infobox" even though the article doesn't even have an infobox. The rationale template was added by someone who's never edited the article; I'm left wondering whether he ever even looked at the article to see how the image was being used. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice that in two edits, both of the factual errors you pointed out are easily corrected, without having to rewrite the entire FUR. -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but thanks to this template and others like it there are now thousands of images with problems like this. Thousands of images with rationales that look pretty and complete but in fact bear no relation to how the image is actually being used. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a logical way to deal with the routine fair use rationale. Anyone who thinks a rationale generated by his template isinvalid can challenge it in the usual way. DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a direction we're heading in for simple situations for non-free content. When this first started I was also opposed to the idea, but since then have warmed to the idea, so long as it is limited to these kinds of simple situations. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if this is the direction non-free content is headed in, we may as well drop the requirement that nonfree images have rationales, because those generated with this template are worse than useless. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are other templates developed for logos that use rationales that are just as good. In addition, the templates are right: It can always be obtained from the copyright or trademark owner. I can understand why this would have been nominated for deletion, but there are many others such as {{Album cover fur}} and {{Logo fur}} (among others). --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. And "It is believed that the cover art can or could be obtained from the publisher" is not a statement of who the copyright holder is. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with Angr in small part. There is some use, but I think template should be forced to be subst'd on the page. My fear is a change to the template itself which isn't an accurate representation of the usage on all its pages. If an individual article needs to be changed, it can be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea, but the downside is that you could no longer correct a misapplied Use category, (as in the Space Brat example above,) without having to rewrite the section from scratch, or reapply the entire template. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine with me. Again, the concern is if there is a change in the requirements, one should not allow a single edit to the template to apply uniformly across the board. If it is a spelling or something minor, consider a bot. If a little more, consider a user with an semi-automated program. If it's pretty serious, have it reviewed. In the end, you do not want something serious like "is this a proper use of copyrighted image?" being manipulated by a massive template. It just leads to trouble to pile everything into one neat little thing like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's a tool to let ordinary editors upload fair use pictures. Such things need to be improved and expanded, not deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a tool to let ordinary editors think they've complied with policy when they haven't. I don't see why such things need to be improved and expanded. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some feel that each non-free book cover requires a unique and original essay. This template with the inline comments can guide uploaders into complying with our non-free content criteria needs. It will be easier to judge rationales in a standard format that in free form essays. -- SWTPC6800(talk) 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When working with magazines, do we need to explicitly state that the April 9, 1965 issue of Time magazine was previously published or can a template automatically fill in that fact? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not make complying with fair use any more complicated, deleting this template will do exactly that. Polly (Parrot) 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no it won't. It will make the appearance of complying with fair use policy easier, but will make actual compliance more difficult. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say the template complies with fair use but probably falls short of the tighter Wikipedia non-free content policy, but is that a reason for deletion? Surely adaptation of the template would be better. Polly (Parrot) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't really see how it could be adapted to comply with Wikipedia's NFC policy, except by redirecting it to {{db-i7}}. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now that is harsh, but strictly speaking within policy. Mind you that would mean deleting about 75% of the images currently using this template. Polly (Parrot) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's inevitable that FUR templates will be abused to some degree, but if fair use were to be disallowed from Wikipedia how would you stop people from uploading copyrighted images under false CC or GNU licenses? A bot couldn't differentiate between a copyrighted image and a non-copyrighted one so the whole system would have to be policed manually. Polly (Parrot) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (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:Protectbecause

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 debate was template deleted by User:Remember the dot. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous TfD

This template is entirely redundant to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and indeed only serves as a funnel to that process. The duplicate rationale on the talk page is unnecessary, and the notice for the articlepage is also redundant. RFP is currently efficient enough that this template is unlikely to be there for more than a few hours, and it doesn't really add any value to the reader. It's also unused. Happy‑melon 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, less redundancy, yes please. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (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:Video disc cover

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 debate was redirected, TfD is now moot point. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request also includes {{Non-free DVD cover}} and {{Non-free Blu-ray Disc cover}}

I would like to unify all of these templates together into a single {{Non-free video cover}}. We shouldn't have separate templates for every imaginable video format, otherwise in 50 years we would have 50 more templates to keep track of. Besides, the format of the disc or tape really doesn't have much impact on its cover art. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Support this merge. I brought it to RTD's attention and then forgot about it. Thanks for doing the paperwork on this one. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been 5 days, I've boldly redirected {{Video disc cover}}, {{Non-free DVD cover}}, and {{Non-free Blu-ray Disc cover}} to {{Non-free video cover}}. Is there a bot that can go through and change all the images that use these tags to use {{Non-free video cover}} directly? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (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:Non-free web software screenshot

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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we delete this template in favor of {{Non-free software screenshot|Screenshots of web-based software}} just like what was done with {{Windows-software-screenshot}}, {{Mac-software-screenshot}}, and {{Linux-software-screenshot}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:31, 7 March 2008 (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:ORF (broadcaster)

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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to MFD by mistake. This template consists of mainly red links and the author of the template himself admitted to it being incomplete. The original author also said delete for now, but he might re-create it in the future when he has more time to create the pages for it. — Undeath (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (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.