< October 11 October 13 >

October 12

Template:Images

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. This discussion has become difficult to follow due to the rhetoric in the nomination, followed by a bogus SPI. No prejudice against renomination with a more concise and personal-attack-free rationale. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Some of my points were already mentioned on the template talk page).

  1. Misleading/way too generic name:
  2. Ignores the fact that free use images SHOULD BE ON COMMONS IN THE FIRST PLACE (except for (1) images uploaded by newbies who don't know about Commons (these are usually eventually moved to Commons anyway) and (2) images tagged with ((KeepLocal))). (It's not clear if pics PD in the US but not in the source country are counted as "free" here or not).
  3. Makes FU images uncategorisable, making them very hard to find (this template is already on quite a lot of "Images of X" categories, especially "Images of <place name>" categories, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was intended to be on every "Images of X" category).

What's the point of this template? I can't think of anything besides not having thumbnails show up in categories, which is easily fixed with __NOGALLERY__. According to the template: 

"This page is part of Wikipedia's repository of public domain and freely usable images, such as photographs, videos, maps, diagrams, drawings, screenshots, amd equations. Please do not list images here which are only usable under the doctrine of fair use, images whose license prohibits copying or commercial use, or otherwise non-free images here. Please also consider uploading new images and transferring images in this category to Wikimedia Commons so that they may be more widely used." (That's what it said to the best of my memory).

WE ALREADY HAVE A REPOSITORY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN/FREELY USABLE IMAGES, [Personal attack by Hop on Bananas removed]! IT'S CALLED WIKIMEDIA COMMONS AND...YOU SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT IT, JUDGING BY THE FACT THAT YOU SUPPORT MOVING LOCAL IMAGES TO IT! [Personal attack by Hop on Bananas removed.]

(Sorry).

See also the reasons I listed above the rant (which is to the person who made this template). I may mention more reasons here as this discussion comtinues-which reminds me. I want a long, thorough discussion on this problem here-if an admin disgarees with me, I'd at least like us to discuss it more instead of an immediate closure. The discussion can be closed when there's a clear consensus on what to do with this infernal probably unneeded template.

P.S.: I know for a fact that several FU images are in the categories tagged with this template, and I'm sure there's more than the ones I've seen.

P.P.S.: Note that this template is fuckin' protected. If they're still active, the user who created this template should join the discussion (see above).

 - Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Secretlondon who has been slightly active recently.--Elvey(t•c) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, drag him over here (sorry) so we can discuss this. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a she, and it was made years ago (2004!). I have no idea how it is used now. It predates commons. Secretlondon (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tone of my response. But:

  1. We already have Category:Copy to Commons for files to be moved to Commons.
  2. Tagging "Images of X" categories isn't a good idea as prevents non-free images from being in those categories. As I said, add __NOGALLERY__.
  3. Yes, the name is far too generic, possibly meaning it'll be mislinked horribly (is it already)?
  4. What's the point? As I said, it's not a good idea to conflate "Images of X" with maintainence categories.
  5. If the "Why did you create this fuckin template, asshole!" is too much, I'd least like to ask the user who created the template why he created it.

 - Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another note about the personal attacks: I knew about the PA policy, but I was so caught up adding them that I forgot it. Reminds of a case where I sourced to a wiki-I knew about the source policy, but I was so focused on adding the sources that I forgot about it.

Also, I support categorizing FU images, but I kind of like 70.51.44.60's idea. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good ideas, but I've yet to see why the template was created in the first place. Hop on Bananas (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I the only one posting here? This is a hot topic for a well-used template, we should get some consensus here. I'm strongly against leaving the template as is. Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (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).

Template:Db-fpcfail

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. Discuss any name changes on its talk page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See no need for this. We have Template:DB-f2. Elvey(t•c) 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is more specific. ((Db-f2)) doesn't specify if the file is 'corrupt and empty' or whether we have a local file information page for a Commons file. When a local file information page of a Commons file is tagged for deletion per WP:F2, the person who created the local page sometimes becomes confused and contests the deletion of the local file information page with the motivation that the file on Commons isn't corrupted. It's better to separate the two reasons by using different templates for each one of them so that users won't be confused as often. It's a bit unfortunate that both templates currently recommend that you use the same notification template. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template utterly fails to explain why it exists - what situation it is for. "This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an image, hosted on Commons, but with tags or information on its English Wikipedia description page that are no longer needed. See CSD F2." is close to Klingon to most users, so to speak. It uses an apparently undefined, meaningless acronym, 'fpcfail'. --Elvey(t•c) 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would you explain WP:CSD#F2? We still need a template for F2 deletions which explains what the criterion means. ((Db-f2)) makes a worse attempt by listing multiple possible reasons of which only one typically applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template is being used to circumvent ((keeplocal)). There is a clear consensus that editors' wishes to have particular image files kept locally should be respected. Speedy deletions of all kinds are, by definition, only for uncontroversial deletions and it is better not to have a template such as this which can be so easily abused to speedy delete files without respecting the express decision to keep local. --RexxS (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template has absolutely nothing to do with the ((keep local)) template. The ((keep local)) template is something which is used for files which are hosted locally, whereas this is for the situation where we have a local file information page with some text but no local file which is associated with that text. When a file is not hosted locally, we do not create a local file information page for that file unless it is for the purpose of adding a template like ((featured picture)) or ((DYKfile)) as text about the file is supposed to be on the project where the file is hosted (Commons for Commons files, Wikipedia for local files). It is abundantly clear from WP:CSD#F2 that we speedily delete file information pages without associated local files. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This nonsense further proves: This template utterly fails to explain why it exists - what situation it is for. There is nothing in it that resembles this explanation of the situation it is now claimed to be used for. DELETE!--Elvey(t•c) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The template clearly explains that it is to be used in a situation listed under WP:CSD#F2. Without this template, users would be required to tag the pages with the less specific ((db-f2)) template, which is likely to cause more confusion since it also applies in two other situations: if the file is 'corrupt' or 'empty'. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - This template is being used to circumvent ((keeplocal)). There is a clear consensus that editors' wishes to have particular image files kept locally should be respected. Speedy deletions of all kinds are, by definition, only for uncontroversial deletions and it is better not to have a template such as this which is actively being abused to speedy delete without respecting the express decision to keep local.--Elvey(t•c) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ((keep local)) template may only be used on the local file information page of files which exist locally. The ((db-fpcfail)) template may only be used on the local file information pages of files which do not exist locally. There is zero overlap. If some users are placing this template on the file information page of files which exist locally, then those users are misapplying the template (and this would then be spotted by the admins who evaluate speedy deletion nominations). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2015 (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).

Template:Arda Rivers

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. Take it to WP:RfD per the rules. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template I long-ago redirected to ((Middle-earth)) that can be deleted; its single non-anchor link was added to T:Middle-earth. Izno (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (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).

Template:Middle-earth weapons

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX and falls short of WP:NAV and WP:NENAN. Additionally, its single link not duplicated by ((Middle-earth)) I've added to that template. I removed the uses of this template otherwise. Izno (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2015 (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).

Template:Elizabeth II sidebar

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates links on Template:Elizabeth II. Note precedents. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2015 (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).

Template:Premier Pageants states

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist to Oct 21. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relevant and inaccurate 'navigation' template for a pageant company that folded 4 years ago and whose main article was deleted in August 2007. Dravecky (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2015 (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).

Template:Just Dance

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template with all links redirecting only to Just Dance (TV series). Needless template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:48, 12 October 2015 (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).

Template:Earthquakes by death toll

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary (unencyclopedic / redundant) template. See last week's deletion discussion:

And a current discussion on a similar list for "earthquakes by death toll 1901-1910":

These are redundant as we have lists for individual years. These lists include details on deaths. Dawnseeker2000 02:45, 12 October 2015 (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).
More