Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 9 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 17 August 2011 (→Template:Non-free Trainweb: close with no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:50, 17 August 2011 by RyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs) (→Template:Non-free Trainweb: close with no consensus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9

Template:Hidden begin

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Hidden begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hidden end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{Hidden}}. —Fitoschido track] \\ 9 August, 2011 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not redundant, as longer content doesn't usually fit nice inside a parameter to {{hidden}}. →AzaToth 23:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not redundant. You cannot pass a wikitable to {{hidden}} without some serious changes, since the pipes will be incorrectly parsed. The same is true for "=" signs. Plastikspork ―Œ 05:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, for that one can use {{!}} and {{=}}. —Fitoschido track] \\ 10 August, 2011
And why would one want to do that when one can just use {{hidden begin}}/{{hidden end}}? Try doing that for a 50 line table with 6 columns. The entire point of these templates is to hide large sections of content. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:Edit*

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 Speedy deleted by Jimp (talk · contribs) per WP:G2 & WP:T3 (a unused & useless apparent test creation). JIMp talk·cont 01:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Edit* (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, no apparent value. Kinu /c 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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:Infobox Bosnian War

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 Substitute and delete, with edit history preservation. Black Falcon's application of precedent is correct in this case, and accurately describes the proper remedial actions. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bosnian War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This single-use infobox is a hardcoded instance of Template:Infobox military conflict for the article Bosnian War. Per Misplaced Pages:Template namespace#Usage, templates "should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace;" instead, "the text directly into the article". There is ample precedent for deleting these types of single-use infoboxes; examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. The infobox should be subst'ed into the article and, in order to preserve attribution, the page history copied to a section of the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 20:10, 9 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:NC-CanDND

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:NC-CanDND (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image warning template. damiens.rf 18:14, 9 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:Non-free Trainweb

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 No consensus. There are several factors at play here. First, templates with such a restrictive domain are generally discouraged. That is to say, this template can only be used with images from a certain web page. Such a level of specificity may make it difficult for users to find the appropriate tag when applying copyright to images, especially if there is a vast proliferation of website-specific copyright tags. However, by a reading of the image policy on trainweb.com, such a template may be necessitated in this case. The purpose of templates is explicitly to enable the inclusion of standard text, which is what is required by the trainweb.com image policy. The fact that the tag is used incorrectly in some cases is not strong evidence for its deletion, but rather strong evidence for its removal from pages on which it is not appropriate. The nominator is correct in that the tag by itself does not satisfy the requirements set out in WP:NFCC. However, this template, when used properly in conjunction with a non-free use rationale, does appear to satisfy the requirements laid out both on Misplaced Pages and at trainweb.com. Although I must confess my distaste for website-specific image copyright templates, I do not find either a consensus to delete, or a compelling reason to override such a lack of consensus. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Non-free Trainweb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a misleading invalid copyright tag. It states that since trainweb.com allows its images to be used "for any non-derivative and non-commercial purpose", any low-resolution images from trainweb.com qualifies as fair use. But it completely fails to address our non-free content criteria. damiens.rf 17:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's use is also apparently out of regard. The trainweb page mentioned in the template explicitly states that that licensing does not applies to all images of the site ("Most of the works at TrainWeb.com are licensed under..."), and warns "Before using a photograph from TrainWeb, examine the page where you found the photograph. Make sure there is a TrainWeb copyright at the bottom of the page where you found the photo and make sure that there is no other indication on the page that the photo belongs to someone else". A quick look on the images using the template shows problematic uses like
  1. File:ATSF 358 GE U28CG San Diego CA 1968.jpg - used in 3 articles, with a cryptic source that lead us to this traiweb page that says "These photos were provided courtesy of Chuck Isaac. Please send e-mail to xxxxxx if you wish to use any of these photos in a publication or on another website."
  2. File:Amtrak_San_Diegan_.jpg - the source is a directly to the jpg, so that the copyright can't be verified. But some research shows the image is from this gallery that says "All Photos © 1997 Steven Reynolds. You are welcome to use any of these photos so long as you ask me first and give me credit!" (good start but still non-free).
  3. File:Empire_Builder_1967_Havre.jpg - the source page says "All photos by Ron Goodenow. Reproduction without Ron's permission is prohibited."
A huge clean up work will be neeeded here. --damiens.rf 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: License tags for non-free content are based around the reasoning why a particular set of non-free images meet WP:NFCC, such as "image of historic significance" or "image is of a famous painting". "Image is from TrainWeb" is not a reason why an image meets the non-free content criteria, so this template should be replaced by other non-free content tags. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:Hktop10privatehousingestates

Template:Hktop10privatehousingestates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is a part duplicate of Template:Private housing estates in Hong Kong as all that's listed are or can be included in the latter template. Also there is no clear induction of the inclusion criteria ... what are the "Top 10 blue-chip private housing estates in Hong Kong" according to whom? Michaela den (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Vitruvian Man measurements

Template:Vitruvian Man measurements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With great regret I am nominating this handsome template for deletion, as the image it uses, while appearing to be a historic document, seems in fact to be the work of a contributor and to contain unsourced and possibly incorrect information, such as the implication that a Handsbreadth is equal to four inches. The Vitruvian Man of Leonardo discusses and represents proportions, not absolute measurements, as does also the discussion of Vitruvius himself. Neither mentions units such as the Flemish ell. I apologise if this nomination is inappropriate; I am assuming that sources are as necessary for information in image form as they are for text.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologies. I’m sure your nomination is well intended, and I share your desire for a Misplaced Pages which is clear and accurate. I also agree that this image has taken on a life of its own and has been subjected to some unusual interpretations. However, if it is being considered for deletion, then I think it should be evaluated in terms of its actual meaning and intent.
This image was created as part of a three image set designed to illustrate a number of historical measurement units. All three of these images (shown to the right for comparison) were my own work and were developed in roughly the same time period. These three images collectively illustrate over 20 historical measurement units.
Of the three images, only the center image has become the subject of debate. Presumably, since the top image (of the hand) is entirely my own work, people view it without any preconceived prejudice or notion of meaning. Therefore, they accept it at face value as simple an illustration of historical measurement units. The bottom image is also generally taken at face value. This image is a derivative work of a much older piece of art, but since the original piece is unfamiliar to most people, the illustration is accepted without preconceived notions.
The middle image, by contrast, is a derivative of an almost universally recognized piece of art. Therefore, I suspect, some people may view this illustration in terms of preconceived notions and prejudices. And in some instances, may see things that simply are not there. In response, I would encourage people to consider the following points:
1. This image is a derivative work, not the original. Leonardo da Vinci’s original image was presumably drawn to illustrate the beauty and form of the human body, and to relate that beauty to a system of natural proportions as described by Vitruvius centuries earlier. This image, on the other hand, was simply created to depict “nine historical units of measurement” as stated in the caption, and to illustrate the relationship of those units to the dimensions of the human body. In particular, that a fathom is the length of ones outstretched arms, that a yard is half of a fathom, that a cubit is the length of the forearm and hence one fourth of a fathom, etc.
2. There is no original research here. The historical lengths of these measurement units and their relationship to the dimensions of the human body are all well documented and easily referenced. In fact, prior to the adoption of the metric system, many people were taught these relationships as school children. I would argue that this image has effectively served to illustrate these measurement units for a couple of years now and should be allowed to continue to do so. Using a famous painting to illustrate well known and well established facts is not research. Unitfreak (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdenting reply, remarks above seem to have got out of chronological order). While continuing to accept the good intentions of the creator of the image and the template, I have to point out that the comments numbered "1." and "2." contain serious misconceptions:

  • The 'nine historical units' do not belong to one system of mensuration. They are not coherent. It is no more true to suggest, as this image does, that one Flemish ell plus one English ell equals one French ell plus one cubit than it would be to write, say, "one fathom equals two metres less six pouces du roi". Those units belong to different systems, and all varied in time and in location, and were used in different contexts. Any equivalence, if one can be established, is limited to the time, place, context and source in which it is found. The values selected for display in the image are entirely arbitrary, and entirely unsourced.
  • Statements such as 'a fathom is the length of ones outstretched arms' and 'a cubit is the length of the forearm and hence one fourth of a fathom' would immediately be tagged as requiring sources if written in an article (both have an element of truth, both are gravely misleading as they stand). Yet the image can make those statements without any requirement to justify, reference, qualify or correct them.
  • Some of the information in the image is apparently incorrect, specifically that 18 handsbreadths equal 1 fathom; while the use of 'handsbreadth' is confused and confusing to this day, the majority of English sources equate it to three inches, which is one twenty-fourth of a fathom. But in what context was this equivalence ever made?
  • The juxtaposition of pieces of information from different sources in order to produce or imply conclusions that are not contained in those sources is, I believe, original research. That is what this image does. But it also acquires bogus authority from the use of Leonardo's drawing which, as mentioned before, shows proportions and not absolute measurements. I don't think Leonardo was trying to suggest that all men are exactly six feet tall, and I don't think we should either. It's a very handsome image, and in a way that's part of the problem: it appears authoritative (it certainly had me fooled) when in fact it is not. I'm sorry, but as an illustration of these measurements it is more deceptive than effective.

If the equivalences shown in the image can be reliably traced to a single source that states them all for a given place and time, then I suggest that the source be prominently acknowledged in the template. If not, I think it should be withdrawn. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cm2

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cm2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2008 but not used. Links to a common unit contrary to wp:overlink. Appears to add little value. I hope there aren't more like this.Lightmouse (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per km2 yesterday. JIMp talk·cont 01:13, 10 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:M2

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:M2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2008 but only used in two articles. Links to a common unit contrary to wp:overlink. Appears to add little value. I hope there aren't more like this. Lightmouse (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per km2 yesterday. JIMp talk·cont 01:15, 10 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:Move header

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Move header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:movenotice. Marcus Qwertyus 06:57, 9 August 2011 (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 section.

Template:Chandigarh Capital Region

Template:Chandigarh Capital Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Chandigarh Capital Region, is no longer an article, nor is it a defined area. Plus, most of the links are red. This template serves no purpose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:NRL Grand Finals

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:NRL Grand Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, template redundant to info contained in Template:Australian Rugby League Grand Finals and Template:National Rugby League seasons. EmanWilm (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete in favour of "Template:Australian Rugby League Grand Finals" which is the one that should really be named "Template:NRL grand finals". Consensus at Wikiproject:Rugby league appears to be to create stand-alone grand final articles for the NRL era, but leave them as sections of season articles pre-1998.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2011 (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 section.

Scottish Rugby Templates

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:SRU premiership 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SRU premiership 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SRU premiership 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by the complete {{SRU premiership}} in preparation for the dissolution of the divisions 3 and 2 to happen in the 2012/13 season. Bob247 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Bob247 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No point having three when one good template will do the job. AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2011 (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 section.