Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< December 12	December 14 >

1 December 13

[edit] December 13

[edit] Template:airport

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 M a rtinp23 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

seems to be an obsolete template with nothing linking there Inwind 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, obsoleted (before it was created) by {{Airport infobox}} Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but someone needs to work on that infobox. Ugliest syntax ever. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Template:Welcome-anon-vandal

The result of the debate was keep and rename, although I think we'd better have suggestions for what it is to be renamed to - any ideas (on my, or the template talk page please). M a rtinp23 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly strange imo, some people tells me it's not AGF. _→AzaToth 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename but keep. The template has a good use - a potential welcome message for an IP where the vandalism was some time ago and only noticed long after the fact or where the individual who reverted the vandalism did not leave a warning message. That said, the name is obviously not a good one since the template itself recognizes that the vandal may not be using this IP any more. BigDT 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename and re-write. Re-write the first bit so it's not so blatantly calling the IP a vandal- make it a bit more like the {{subst:test}} warning. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the salutation of "Welcome-anon-vandal", that's because it uses the name of the page it's currently on to determine the salutation. If it was on my talk page, it would be "68.39.174.238". Since most people wont understand that anyway, I'm going to remove it. 68.39.174.238 07:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename and Keep with minor changes. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep possibly with Rename if someone will propose a better name. I created this template but just now noticed that it had been TFD'ed. Woulda been nice if the nominator had left me a message notifying me of the nomination but I understand that it's easy to forget those kinds of details.

Anyway, this template is a copy of one that I started using to warn IP vandals who have blank talk pages (User:Richardshusr/welcome-anon-vandal). In creating this template, I was trying to kill two birds with one stone. First, I am leaving a warning for the IP vandal to stop vandalizing. However, I noticed that other users of that IP occasionally complain that they are not the person who did the vandalism. Makes sense... it's a shared IP after all. So, I wanted to word the warning in a way that says "Look, somebody using this IP committed vandalism. If it's not you, you might consider getting an account." I would be grateful for any suggestions on how to improve this template. Any suggestions from renaming the template to changing the wording would be much appreciated. --Richard 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Copypaste

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A weasel template (a la "weasel words"). Basically it is saying "This feels like it's a copyvio, but I can't be bothered to find out whether it is or not." It attempts to assert something (cut-and-pasting) without proof; a guilty-until-proven-innocent sentiment. The correct template for an article that has uncharacteristic style is {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} or etc. The correct template for an article that is (definitely) a copyvio is {{copyvio}}. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not at all a big fan of the "someone else ought to take care of this" templates, but honestly, I don't mind this one too much because it allows someone who may not be very skilled with locating the source of a copyvio to alert other users that something doesn't look right. I looked at this template's links and found that Charles W. Steger was tagged. Upon looking at it, it was obviously a copyvio from Dr. Steger's official bio and I was able to revert the change. I then looked at the next linked article, Hanging Gardens of Babylon and found a section that was copied from [1]. Considering that the two and only two articles I examined tagged with this template were both blatant copyvios, I'm thinking the template is useful. ;) BigDT 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. When it would take 10 seconds to do it yourself, you have a good argument, but this takes longer. What happens without things like these is that nobody checks for copyvio. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per BigDT. It'd be nice if we didn't need the template, but it'd be nice if we were all millionaires, too. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that there is never a reason to remove this tag, because it is not possible to prove that a work is not a copyvio. See Absence of evidence. The best one can typically do is Google on various snippets of the work and see if they get a match (that is not a WP clone). But just because that search fails, doesn't mean the work is not a copyvio. So the assertion gets to stick, even though it is made with absolutely no proof. I guess I'll have to take this discussion to WP:CV talk, because no one here seems to mind a template based on speculation that never gets removed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This tag is highly usefull. Example: Seattle Police Department was BLATANTLY copied from the official copyrighted site. I removed the text (Most of the articel), at which point I removed the tag as it was no longer a copyandpaste job. The tag fulfilled its purpose completely. The argument presented above seems to be on a more legalo-technical plane, which at this point I'm not to interested in, mainly because it just works! ;D!! 68.39.174.238 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You did the incorrect thing. The correct thing is to blank the page and put {{copyvio}}. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. More evidence that this tpl is redundant. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Those instructions seem to describe what to do if you want the page to be deleted, which I didn't. Also note that the official policy WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement, does not say that procedure is required, rather that "you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page." This template is a slight step above. 68.39.174.238 09:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it takes a minimum of 7 days to be deleted. If the page had been tagged with {{copyvio}}, it would have gone into Category:Possible copyright violations where it would have been easily available for review by the existing conventions. By using the wrong tag, the page was excluded from the proper place, and the proper attention, and the conventional, consensual process. By doing so, copyrighted material ended up staying on Wikipedia much longer than it should have. It is better to have no article than an illegal one. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Googling snippets to check copyvio status is not difficult. Users should make the effort to investigate and correct copyvios rather than slap a suspicion tag on the article for someone else to follow up on. As has been said, {{copypaste}} could burden an article with a "stuck" template because of absence of evidence. Caveat: there are some cases where a search returns a match visible on the search screen, but the underlying link cannot be reached. Example. In those cases it would be nice to have somewhere we could ask others to investigate (e.g. if I don't subscribe to a certain news service, someone else might). As it stands now, this template will create more issues than it solves. Either delete it or modify it so that it can only be used in the case of visible matches that can't be immediately verified, as in the example above. SWAdair 09:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I might also add there's a similar, if stronger {{cv-unsure}}. Also, while most people (myself included) will immediately read "copyed as pasted" as "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!!!", sometimes the copys are from PD sources like Gutenburg, USGov, etc. These aren't copyright problems, but are definate stylistic ones as they are frequently written in a completely inappropriate tone. 68.39.174.238 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another important point. The fact that content is copied and pasted does not mean it is copyvio. So this template makes a double presumption: 1. presumption that it is a C&P and 2. presumption that it is a copyvio. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also. Please edit this article to be an original source... -- I am not aware of a policy that requires this of articles. ...following the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. This implies that the MoS has something to do with article origin, or method of contribution, which it doesn't. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the template does NOT "presume" it's a copyright violation: "This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of a copyright." (Emphasis mine). Again, everyone is seeing this as another {{cv-unsure}} when it's just as much for PD copy and pastes that are detrimental to the articel. Also, the MoS links aren't there to say "This is why this is wrong", rather "This is how it should be developed from here on out". 68.39.174.238 09:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I completely agree with the nomination, if something seems like it was cut and pasted but is not copyvio, the answer is "clean up" or "wikify", and you can specify on the talk page (if necessary) that you feel it looks like a ctrl-V job. Otherwise, this just duplicates "copyvio" but without the thrust.--Dmz5 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, three articles have already been pointed out where this template has allowed a more experienced user to take a look and find a copyright violation. Res ipsa loquitur. As for when to remove the tag, I would think that any experienced user can examine the tagged articles and either (1) confirm that it is a CV and tag it for deletion appropriately or (2) google older versions of the page and find no evidence of a CV, then either switch the tag to cleanup or remove it completely. BigDT 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that this is exactly what "cv-unsure" is for, to encourage people to take a look.--Dmz5 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Useful where the copyright status of the source is unclear. I used it on Carlsbad Caverns National Park instead of {{copyvio}} because I wasn't sure whether the source it was copied from was in the public domain or not. Thus, I couldn't use {{copyvio}}. It might be more useful if the template featured the URL from which it was copied though. Gzkn 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And {{cv-unsure}} would not have worked?--Dmz5 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the phrase "but without a source this can not be definitively determined" is in {{cv-unsure}}, but in this case, I know the source. I just don't know whether the source is in the public domain. Gzkn 00:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Sometimes, copy-pasting can result in incoherent sections, multiple grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, inappropriate and unencyclopedic tone, advertisement or spam and POV statements that require significant and specialized cleanup, especially on large scale articles. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 07:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I may note that that was how this was used in the tagging of Sodom and Gomorrah: Someone pasted a several hundred year old (PD) text. While this was not a copyright violation, it was written in an extremely archaic style and was badly partizan. 68.39.174.238 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that this is what "wikify" and "cleanup" are for. If it's really germane to the discussion, you can note on the talk page that it seems to have been copied from somewhere else, but really that fact is secondary - the first priority is that the article not be spammy, unencyclopedic, etc. This remains a duplicate tag.--Dmz5 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The circumstances of how the content got on WP is irrelevant. This tpl would be valid for an article that was both PD/FL and in good form, yet cut-and-pasted. The assessment of "this looks cut-and-pasted" is subjective and unfounded. "This is in poor form" is also somewhat subjective, but it can be backed up by MoS and other guidelines. The problem here is that there is no policy, guideline, or style guide against cut-and-pasting, so it shouldn't be a taggable characteristic. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep per above. JROBBO 09:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I also agree with the above arguments for keeping this template. Ultimately, this template is useful to contributors of various degrees of involvement. I find templates such as this one essential to maintaining the integrity of WP as it furthers the ability for users to catch copyvio. greek lamb 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is a wiki. Sometimes we can't be bothered to do things, and that's perfectly ok. — Omegatron 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, rephrase - This is a very useful template for NP patrol especially. Sometimes I will see a page that isn't an obvious copyvio per snippet Googling, but is pretty obviously cut and pasted. I'm not slapping a copyvio or db-copyvio on something that I don't have a source it was taken from - and cv-unsure sounds like it will be useful for SOME of these cases. I could be okay with changing this template to, say, cleanup-copypaste and removing the might be a copyvio phrase. Also, like the other cleanup templates, it makes sense to have this as a placeholder. "Fix it yourself" isn't always the best thing to do with many new articles by new editors; commonly they're working on an article in multiple small edits, and I've found it's very disconcerting to them for someone else to come in and clean up their article 15 minutes after it was created. Better to tag for cleanup (including a cleanup-copypaste or some such), explain on their talk page what can be done to improve, and check back in a day or two to see if the article can productively be cleaned up then. Perel 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - these sort of templates are useful. If a user sees that something is wrong with an article, but isn't able to do anything about it (whether it's due to lack of time or will), he will simply leave if it weren't for these templates. They at least save someone the trouble of finding out that something is wrong with a particular section, since that's already been asserted by the user who didn't want to fix it up. Afterall, most people just scroll right past the articles instead of reading them, so lots of people simply don't realize it if a section needs fixing. As per this reasoning and some of the reasons given above, I believe we should keep this. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-bookauthor

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A CSD template for deleting "an article about a biographer or an author that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." I may be pretty dense, but if the article asserts that the subject has authored a book, that in and of itself is an assertion of importance or significance and the article should not be speedied. Obviously, we're not talking about, "John is a naughty student and he wrote the book on being a bad boy." At any rate, even if there is a case where someone is a bonafide author and their article should be speedied, we don't really need another template - {{db-a7}} is fine. We don't need to have {{db-computerprogrammer}}, {{db-schoolkid}}, {{db-teacher}}, {{db-walmartemployee}}, and every other imaginable class of non-notable biography. --BigDT 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, redundant and inconsistent with actual CSD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete- {{db-a7}} is fine. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per inconsistency with the CSD. And why is there both book and author? That seems redundant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various disambiguation page templates

The result of the debate was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the above are unnecessary disambiguation templates, consistent with previous discussions. ({{Roadis}} is a redirect to {{Roaddis}}.) I propose that all instances of them be replaced by {{Disambig}} and then deleted. --Russ (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I can kind of see the usefulness of a more specific template, but couldn't that functionality just be built into the standard disambig template with a parameter? — Omegatron 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- An intriguing idea. I'm not really a template parameter guru by any means, but I'd be willing to try and see if it can be done. --Russ (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Update- for testing purposes, I have created User:R'n'B/Template:Disambig in my user namespace; see User:R'n'B/Sandbox for examples. The last example is to show what happens if an unsupported parameter is used. (All the templates currently are in my user-space but this would have to be changed if they were adopted for general use.) I would welcome any comments or improvements, and will post on WP:D for further input. I am not withdrawing this nomination, but will request that it be deferred until the possible change to the base template is resolved. --Russ (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the ship template at least has its own special uses, for listing all the USS Enterprises and such. That's not exactly a standard disambig page. Each of these is associated with a particular wikiproject with its own standards, and the templates help keep the pages to the standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the School template. There are tons of high schools and colleges with the same name that I am always running into. (Cardsplayer4life 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
- Deleting the template wouldn't stop you from disambiguating school articles; you could still do it with the regular {{disambig}} template. --Russ (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I feel the ship template is nessicary and apropriate for ships that share the same name. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep They all have their own special purposes I;m sure, but the road one especially does. This clarifies between the different types of routes with the same number. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep (as per Rschen7754) and create more. In fact I'm responsible for creating two of these. Category:Disambiguation currently has thousands of entries, is unlikely to be useful to anyone, and should probably be broken up somehow. —freak(talk) 06:49, Dec. 14, 2006 (UTC)
Keep find them very useful, especially when there are many different classes of things with similar names. DuncanHill 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep As others have said. What's the cost of having multiple templates after all? —wwoods 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason that a broad class of disambiguation pages should be stuck with a generic template when they could use a more readable explanation of the purpose of the page. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is helpful to indicate that a particular page is a list of links to a particular class of things with the same name. It also helps in the identification of such pages for maintenance and quality checking by individual wikiprojects. e.g. Ship disambig pages can be listed like this. Whether it is by {{shipindex}} or by {{Template:Disambig|Ship}} seems immaterial, although there is no point in changing the current scheme unless there is a benefit. Jll 12:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - although a blanket {{disambig}} is okay, there are certain cases where specific subject areas will need disambiguation. — Superbfc 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - looks fine. --Ineffable3000 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:titled-click

The result of the debate was delete, once MartinBotIII's gone and fixed all the uses. M a rtinp23 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to being a CSS hack that breaks accessibility and web standards, the talk page also says it's now redundant with {{click}}. Delete and replace all instances with {{click}}. (And then we'll try to delete that...) — Omegatron 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Far too many instances of the template to replace, the collateral is too great. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- They would be replaced by {{click}}, which is supposed to be perfectly compatible. Please actually read what you are opposing. — Omegatron 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - You understand the word "collateral" right? Go and check just how many instances this template occurs. They're too many to be reliably changed by hand. If you have a bot that can do that, then fine, but it's still a case of "what good can it do to delete this?" Now, if you suggested a redirect to {{click}} then I would fully support that. No collateral, and a good replacement. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    - How is a redirect different from deletion and replacement? — Omegatron 20:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. I'll replace them personally. Redundant. ~ Flame vip e r 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Support yeah there would be a lot of replacing to do but it won't be impossible. There is no need to have redundancy here. — Seadog 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Support as per the nom. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Support if someone replaces them; it's on my userpage, and it was chiefly designed by another user. — Deckill e r 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Support deletion. Bad hack. -Quiddity 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. "Titled-click" looks terrible. "Click" works. We can have a bot change "tilted-click" to "click," can't we? Jecowa 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep {{click}} notes that it doesn't work in Safari. Perhaps a COI, but as a Safari user, that sucks pretty badly for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the samples I picked for {{click}} were coded improperly, since I'm still in Safari and was able to get it to work. I suppose I'm now in the Delete camp. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. As EVula mentioned, {{click}} doesn't work in Safari.--TBCΦtalk? 02:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Question for EVula and TBC, have you tested them both? I use Safari too. Titled click doesn't work for me, but click does. Jecowa 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Hmm, I did check out a couple of examples, and didn't have it work. However, when I changed Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat/head img to use {{click}}, it worked just fine. Perhaps the examples I checked were coded improperly... or maybe its just a Festivus miracle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - It has long been known that both templates do not work under some circumstances in some browsers, so there's little point in keeping this one on the grounds that the other doesn't work. Chick Bowen 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Vote changed; if {{click}} works just fine for me, that pretty much addresses my only concern. Self-centered? You bet. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete both. And, for that matter, other templates that only work in some cases. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree. If these things are this inconsistent, then we probably should get something else or do away with the image link idea completely. New users of Wikipedia will soon learn how image links work here. These templates will continue to look crappy for some time. Jecowa 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, too. After we get rid of this one, we can put click up for deletion, but I have a feeling that one will be a major battle with some defenders who don't care about accessibility or the fact that it doesn't work for some people. This one is easy because it's redundant. — Omegatron 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, preferably both (although I understand {{click}} isn't in the nom, and I wouldn't suggest adding it). Hides licencing information for pictures, and breaks badly in some circumstances (normally it's just a 'doesn't work', but sometimes it causes strange layout problems; I've had a situation before where the entire page scrolled except for the click/titled-click regions, which stayed in place (and that happened on the Main Page)!). Besides, kludgy JavaScript generally works better for such situations than kludgy CSS. --ais523 13:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed about javascript > CSS hack. I hadn't thought of that. — Omegatron 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- True. Javascript will just fail if it doesn't work, while with CSS, you have the problem that it can fail piecewise, killing off any accesibility. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Last TfD is here. There were some interesting comments made (especially the rendering of the Main Page in Lynx given at the end). --ais523 18:16, 14 December 2006 (U T C)
Redirect. I was unaware of this. This template do overlap with {{click}}, so I recommend a redirect. AQu01rius (User Talk) 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Berkshire Hathaway

The result of the debate was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundant to Category:Berkshire Hathaway, bordering on promotional material. --Argyriou (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I'm not sure what makes it promotional... if you look at Category:Business navigational boxes, you'll see that the navboxes for other major companies have exactly the same information. That's because part of WikiProject:Business and Economics is to add these boxes for companies with revenues in excess of US$100m. --Crocodile Punter 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding these boxes is linkcruft. They take up too much space for what are often short articles. There's no value provided by these boxes which can not be obtained by using categories. If, after reading that See's Candies is a Berkshire Hathaway company, a reader wants to find out what else is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, they can click the Category:Berkshire Hathaway link at the bottom of the article. All the navboxes in Category:Business navigational boxes ought to be deleted, as they are redundant with categories. Argyriou (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that your issue is not with this template, but with all 137 of the Business navigational boxes, that you just happened to pick this one to make an example? Or is there something particularly bad about this one? --Crocodile Punter 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This is not promotional, but rather informational...and actually incomplete at that. This helps for better navigation than the Category section...and based on guidelines for this category, it should be kept without question. AEMoreira042281 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: A template does a much better job helping people navigate than categories. When I first when on Wikipedia, I didn't know the categories existed. Wikada - ^{TALK CONT ISU} 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep--Jones2 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - the company is that good and that notable --T-rex 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm not sure what the particular problem with this template is, compared to all the other business nav tables... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RPG-artwork

The result of the debate was no consensus, though hopefully the merge proposals will go through and the problem might be sorted. You can use TFD for the megre proposal - see the template: {{tfm}}. M a rtinp23 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This fair use justification message is deceptive. The listed uses do not appear to be restricted to proper fair use (and, indeed, have changed dramatically over the life of the template. All images currently licensed using this template are, at best, questionable (the www.wizards.com source of these images licenses for non-commercial use only). The images themselves are currently in the WP:CP backlog, but the template should probably go to avoid any further use. --Serpent's Choice 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say that the listed uses have changed dramatically over the life of the template; it seems that it has only changed once, and that was an attempt to remove a use that would be questionable at best, and replace the uses with less-questionable ones. I haven't looked at where and how the template's being used; but the template itself looks sound and useful. Keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:CP has rejected this justification as fair use previously. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 July 6/Images removed a large number of game-content images derived from the wizards.com art galleries on the grounds that they failed 3 of 4 fair use test components. The current population of this template are from the same location; the arguments in the 6 July discussion may not apply to art gallery images of figurines from the D&D Miniatures game (WP:CP is backlogged atm and has not addressed it), but the rest of the template's membership are substantively identical to the deleted images. Serpent's Choice 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at some of the images tagged with this, those images would not fall under fair use. However, the images are not up for deletion here (though you might want to take them to IFD), the template is. Reading the template I was picturing someone sitting down at their scanner and scanning a card from Magic the Gathering to demonstrate the distinctive look of the game components. That, theoretically would be fair use, and this would be a good tag for such an image. Just because the tag is currently being mis-used does not mean that it is an inappropriate tag and should be deleted. Delete the inappropriate images, keep the tag. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the tag used for the cardback on Magic the Gathering is {{Boardgamecover}}, but that's not quite accurate as Magic is not a board game; it's a card game, it's a role playing game; but not exactly a board game. Is there a more generic {{gamecover}} template? Perhaps Boardgamecover should be modified and moved to be more generic and then this template could be deleted as any appropriate use it covers would be covered by the new template. Sound good? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Game-cover is apparently limited to video games. Do we really need seperate fair use tags for different types of game? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put merge tags on all the game-related fair use templates; and I'd like to centralize discussion on merging them at Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. There is nothing about the nature of "illustrations from published roleplaying games" (a term that is, in itself, so broad and vague as to guarantee confusion and overapplication) that would justify a blanket fair use template claim like this; indeed, many such illustrations are published in works with which Wikipedia directly competes (encyclopedia-like game manuals, etc.), and are thus certainly outside the bounds of fair use. This template is highly misleading, and must be deleted. --Robth^Talk 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify: if we are talking about things like images from playing cards or boxcovers, a reasonable fair use rationale would be possible. It is far from clear, however, whether or not this template limits itself to this class of image and excludes images from game guides and the like (it has certainly been applied to game guide images). I think that this template is at best certain to sow confusion and be misused, and at worst based on serious misassumptions regarding the fair use status of certain images. --Robth^Talk 05:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Further notes: This template never went through the Image copyright tags discussion, except retroactively. That brief commentary, here clearly shows that it was thought that this tag would be used for covers, not for interior art. Also, WP:CP has gutted the template's contents. About half the images are deleted as copyvio, the rest (mostly images of miniatures) are on the 7 day timer before deletion as unjustified fair use. This template may be empty very shortly. Serpent's Choice 11:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archives

The result of the debate was Deleted by User:Nickshanks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - The template was used as a small information box within the WikiProject Astronomical objects page. I am beginning to clean up the page at this time, and I have removed this box. The template can now be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unused. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review}
Delete per above -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, let's try to avoid this tedious process if this is a page that is used only by the wikiproject and has consensus by those members to be deleted. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)