Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 17 August 2011 (→Template:Chandigarh Capital Region: Removing discussion to relist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• Keep, it's clearly not redundant as pointed out by AzaToth and Plastikspork. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Well, in that case Hidden is redundant with Hidden begin and Hidden end? —Fitoschido _track] \\ 14 August, 2011
  • Strictly speaking, yes. However, both styles ("pass the body as an argument" and "top and bottom templates") are extremely widely used right now both here and with other similar templates. Deletion would simply inconvenience a lot of people, and for little gain (as these are very rarely used in articlespace). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Obvious keep per all of the above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:19, 15 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)

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)

• Delete and merge history into article's talk page per Black FalconCurb Chain (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• substitute and delete after either (a) pasting the history or (b) moving the template to a subpage of the talk page, then redirecting. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 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: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)

• delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 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: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)

• Note prior discussions: From June, 2007 and January, 2010. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I read, that discussion started because this tag used to claim these images to be free, and was withdrawn when the tag was transformed in to this pseudo-non-free-copyright-tag. --damiens.rf 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The version before that last deletion discussion was this. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The tag needs to be improved (for example, the 'example' links to a CD cover example), and perhaps some re-adjustment of how sourcing is done using this template, since it's already presumed the images it is used on come from trainweb. But, those issues aside, I don't see a direct problem with the tag. A cursory check shows it is being used properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is being used properly? Are you kidding me? How many examples do you need me to add above? I see that your "cursory check" is already showing how this tag invites the uploader to ignore the NFCC (in this case, replaceability) just because the image is "believed to be fair use". --damiens.rf 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that the presence of this tag on the image had any influence on it being replaceable or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: so long as all photos tagged with this tag are treated as non-free images and have full rationales. Also, there should be an effort made to convert as many of the tagged images into {{Non-free historic image}} as can be, then consider the rest before deleting the images or the tag.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:00, 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

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. Navbox with apparently arbitrary inclusion criteria. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 14:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Delete 10 is arbitrary.Curb Chain (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• delete. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 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: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)

• delete per prior consensus on overlinking. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 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)

• delete per prior consensus on overlinking. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 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)

• Delete - outmoded template; newer approach with movenotice is better. hare j 07:41, 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: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.