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 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:Location map Ryukyu
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 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:Suicide by country
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).
This template is redundant: The content of this template is included as a group in both Template:Suicide navbox and Template:Suicide sidebar. This template was previously nominated for deletion for a different reason (too many red links), but that deletion discussion closed (on 16 September 2011) before Template:Suicide navbox was created (on 12 November 2011). Biogeographist (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2018 (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:Television shows by U.S. city
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 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:Location map Bhutan protected areas
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 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:Lusaka
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 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:KandaharTopics
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 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).
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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 15:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Experience at Miscellany for Deletion has been that the Promising Draft template is not useful. It is applied (by editors who evidently dislike the G13 concept) to drafts that are not "promising" and are not then improved. It merely permits drafts to accumulate. Editors who disapprove of G13 would do better to use a Request for Comments to change the speedy deletion criterion. This template merely creates discussion to get rid of stale drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is widely misused by inclusionists and causes a backlog of stale drafts which aren't being improved. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is useful and, in the discussion that gave rise to this TFD, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santa Rosa (steamship) (2nd nomination), it actually prevented a draft "accumulating". Because the draft had already survived deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santa Rosa (steamship) speedy deletion would not have been permitted ("If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted ..."[1]). Everyone at the MFD2 discussion (even eventually, it seems, the nominator) thought the draft should be moved to main space and G13 was therefore inappropriate. The wording of the template is very moderate in its tone. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Something with only 14 transclusions can hardly be called widely misused. The most I've ever seen in the related category is probably about 100 pages. The template does not cause a backlog because it is merely a request (which was decided in an rfc a while back). The real problem is the incessant need some feel to delete all drafts after they hit a certain age and go unedited, even if the drafts have potential. This template serves as a lightweight way to demarcate drafts as not junk, which is useful (when userfication is not desirable). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had proposed changing the template to be a call to improve or submit the draft, instead of a fruitless call to avoid deletion (see Template_talk:Promising_draft#A_further_proposal). There was rough support for it, but I never went ahead with the change because I was out of the country and didn't have access to a computer for a while. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has few uses right now because I went through the category and cleared it out yesterday, something I've done before a few times. Almost all the remaining pages so tagged are up for deletion and will be gone in a week. I may be the only editor that regularly tries to clear the category.
Having reviewed hundreds of "promising draft" tagged pages I can say there are five uses 1. Tagging crap that has no use (a fairly large portion of tags) 2. Tagging mundane maybe useful but abandoned pages no better than the pages typically G13ed. 3. Tagging pages that should have been moved to mainspace but where the "promising draft" tagger is too lazy to move the page or even submit it to AfC. 4. Tagging content fork pages where the topic is already represented in mainspace (proving the tagger did nothing to assess the usefulness of the page including a google or onsite search that would have quickly shown that the topic exists). 5. Occasionally someone tags their own creation as a "promising draft".
None of these are reasonable exceptions to widely supported policy that we don't pile up drafts forever (G13). It would be much better for editors to DO something to improve or accept the page instead of using this problematic tag and leaving it to others to sort out.
Thincat I do not believe that policy, and definitely not practice, support not G13 deleting pages that survived a deletion discussion. Pages are often kept at MfD on the idea to give them time and G13 will apply in 6 months. Some voters would vote differently if they knew an MfD keep would mean the page had to be brought to MfD again to get it deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the practice can be to speedy delete drafts that have survived their most recent XFD. It is an abuse of policy all the same. I suppose it is, strictly, the deletion rather than the tagging that is contrary to WP:CSD but I think we should be deprecating tagging that may beguile admins into deleting wrongly. Thincat (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The draft system is not working. I agree with Godsy on the idea that time-abandoned is arbitrary, but also think that it should be easier to delete bad drafts (like 60-70 percent of them) to give more attention to good ones. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an alert, not a way of forcing the draft to remain. We need some way to avoid deleting reasonably promising drafts after 6 months, and there have been a number of inefficient workarounds--this is the best so far; the purpose of AfC is primarily to find articles that are suitable for mainspace or can be made suitable, and only secondarily to remove the others; there are other ways to delete content, but without AfC , we'd need to reject incomplete articles that might be suitable because they are incomplete or inadequately referenced. We need to emphasis the possibility of improving--deletion is easy enough, but improving is harder. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep - The solution for misuse is to check the history of the editor. If they have been gone from Wikipedia for months then chances are that the draft is abandoned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG uses the template correctly but the creator and some other users tag junk regularly and almost indiscriminately. The supporters insist that this template is a command not a suggestion and that it may not be removed by any other editor. It's weird. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood why this is separate from ((AfC postpone G13)). (I also never understood why ((AfC postpone G13)) was invisible, even before this was created.) —Cryptic 20:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Godsy. --Tavix(talk) 04:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. The template has no relevance to G13. – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It specifically mentions G13. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 17:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do believe that this template has its problems, it does help to have a rare amount of drafts (such as one of my own) that would be better off kept because they don't have quite the same problems as many of the other drafts. ToThAc (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Uanfala says that this has no relevance to G13. That is not the usual understanding, which is precisely that this template exempts a draft from G13. If it doesn't, then what is its purpose? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since this is Templates for Discussion, can this template be discussed? If an editor puts this on a draft, how does it affect G13?:
A. This template protects the draft from G13 and remains on it forever, and cannot be removed except by Miscellany for Deletion. This is the usual interpretation.
B. Any editor can remove this template. That would constrain its abuse, but might render it useless, since some editors would probably always remove it.
C. This template is a polite request and can be impolitely ignored with a G13. I would be agreeable to C.
Well, there was a long and well-attended RfC six months ago that decided how this template should be used. First, this means that making any major changes (like deprecating the template) would need a formal discussion of equivalen scope, like another RfC. Second, that RfC removed any teeth from the template, its function is to convey the message "Please consider not automatically deleting this draft", something that both deleting admins and bots that tag for G13 are free to ignore. Given how weak this message is, it's difficult to imagine it being misused (placing it on drafts most of which end up getting consensus for deletion is not misuse; misuse would be using it on drafts that are obviously inappropriate for inclusion), but if there is indeed misuse by specific editors, then the issue is with the editors, not the tempate. – Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am aware of the RFC. If the RFC in fact removed the teeth from the template and so means that drafts tagged with it can nonetheless be tagged for G13, then I am satisfied. However, there is still a common view, both by inclusionists and by deletionists, that the template exempts an article from G13. If this TFD can be closed with a clear restatement that the template is only a polite request that can be rudely ignored, I am satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2018 (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:Img-unclaimed
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).
Nominated for deletion, on the grounds that concerns were raised off wiki that it doesn't necessarily assume good faith on the part of uploaders. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 13 December 2018 (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:Img-claimed
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).
Bureaucratic overkill, Images with good metadata shouldn't need this anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (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:No-date
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).
Nominated for deletion as breucratic overkill, images with good metadata should not need this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (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:Media by uploader
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).
Deprecated, Bueraucratic overkill, either media IS by the uploader (and obviosuly indicated) or the media isn't (and thus is techncially unsoruced) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 13 December 2018 (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:NFUR not needed
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).
Proposed for deletion as the fix this is intended to flag should be made directly, or resolved at MCQ/FFD rather than with a "drive by tag" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template has 629 transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 13 December 2018 (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).
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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are fundamentally the same kind of object (see, for example, Journey to Atlantis, a "water coaster" which uses the roller coaster infobox). Although there are a large number of parameters to merge, most are not unique to one type of ride or the other; and many are simply pseudonymous (e.g. |homepage= vs. |website=). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment Is there a problem with having two separate templates? How do you propose handling the ride vehicles parameter? Water rides have boats, roller coasters have trains and cars. Crossovers of water rides and coasters, such as the example that you listed, are rare. There are a number of water ride articles that use this template, I see no compelling reason to merge.—JlACEer (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because not all water rides are roller coasters, and the RC infobox says this template should only be used in articles on individual roller coasters. Log flumes, River rapids rides, and Bumper boats are water rides, but they're not roller coasters, so articles about individual rides of those types need either a water-ride infobox or a general amusement-ride infobox. If such an infobox exists already, it would be fine to merge this one with it, or we could merge Water ride with Roller coaster to produce a general Amusement ride infobox if it doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if the templates are merged, the documentation will be amended to reflect the new purpose. The existing wording is not a reason not to merge them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – While the proposal appears to make sense on the surface, there's a lot more going on under the hood. For starters, there's auto-categorization in place for a whole slew of parameters such as opening/closing years, manufacturer, type, status, etc., that creates categories with titles like "Roller coasters introduced in year" or "Roller coasters manufactured by company". This function would clearly be lost if merged with water attractions. I looked at some article examples that are using the water ride template. The better solution might be to simply force water ride articles to use the ((Infobox attraction)) template, but of course, they'll be in the same boat and will lose the auto-categorization in place. I'm less concerned about that, however, since there are less than a 100 water ride articles (and I seriously doubt a lot of those are even worthy of having a standalone article to begin with). Worst case, they can rely on manual categorization. The roller coaster template should be remain untouched, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If needed, these can be mainainted through the use of a switch - but should infoboxes be generating categories? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be out of scope of this conversation, but it's a valid question/concern that should probably be addressed at some point. In the scope of this discussion, however, without an adequate proposal that demonstrates how a proposed switch would be implemented, I cannot support the merger at this time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because in my personal opinion because that would cause a debate, and by debate I mean argument over how to classify rides. I also think this could be a potential issue with the GP, considering a lot of them generally consider all rides at a park to be roller coasters.MitchellLunger (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a switch to handle the categories is a good idea. But I don't think a merge makes sense without inclusion of Template:Infobox attraction. But I do think a merge should be considered of these three templates. --Bsherr (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We just have to keep in mind that there are amusement attractions and amusement rides. While I think it's reasonable to look at ways of reducing from 3 templates down to 2, going all the way down to 1 wouldn't be practical. Realize that some shared parameters carry different meanings depending on the object they're being applied to. Status, for example, doesn't mean the same thing when you're talking about a parade, exhibit, or event, as opposed to an amusement ride. That's one angle. The other is the lengthy, convoluted documentation that would result from the merger. There would be lot of example use cases to cover because of such a broad scope being defined by the template. At the very least, I would encourage beginning a discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks to hash out the details. Then we can relist a proposal here, publicizing it at the WikiProject. If done in that order with a proposal that's reasonable, getting consensus shouldn't be a problem. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two templates, one for rides and one for other attractions, seems a good idea to me. Right now, Infobox attraction's documentation seems to use attraction and ride interchangeably, so I suspect there will be some sorting required of its current transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Galobtter: I don't know why this has been relisted (twice) when none except the nominator supports a merge and many others oppose it. Why not !vote support and give your reasons? Thincat (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on this (otherwise I would not relist and would indeed !vote); however, while the bolded votes are all in opposition, some of them don't actually object to a merger (e.g Nyttend says "we could merge Water ride with Roller coaster to produce a general Amusement ride infobox if it doesn't exist.", which is essentially what is indeed being proposed) and some don't make sense (though there are certainly substantial objections raised). OTOH, looking over it again it doesn't look like a relist is going to make a consensus emerge in this discussion, so I'll reclose it in a minute as "no consensus". Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 13 December 2018 (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).
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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This template (specifically and only for public domain images not subject to copyright, but which are or contain trademarks) appears to have no legitimate use case on Wikipedia, and is just being added to images as a bit of WP:BUREAUCRACY. We do not need it because:
The template's own documentation says that ((non-free logo)) should be used instead.
There is no use case for such an image on Wikipedia that could cause trademark violation problems. We already have a hard rule that non-free images cannot be used outside of articles to which they pertain (and this is not limited to only those that are non-free for copyright reasons). E.g., if you take the Los Angeles Times logo (the example provided at the template) and try to use it for your own little on-wiki newsletter about L.A.-related editing updates, this would be both against that rule and confusing even if it weren't, so other editors would undo it, and give it a more sensible name (or WP:MFD it entirely if it didn't appear to be an editorially useful page, though that probably wouldn't happen in this case unless the page were intended as a "canvassing farm" to push some specific L.A.-related point of view).
Wikipedia does not give legal advice or veer anywhere near it. WP does not exist as a public-use image server, only as an encyclopedia, so it does not need to mirror every template that exists on Commons (which does exist for that image-serving purpose). Images hosted directly on WP are intended for use in WP itself (images not subject to restrictions are moved to Commons). In short, WP has no reason to engage in trying to advise people that their off-site use of an image found here might have trademark implications.
Should there actually be a perceived need to identify a specific non-free image hosted here as being subject to a trademark in one jurisdiction or other, this is better done in a plain-English sentence on the image's wiki page. This could also be done as a simple parameter of ((non-free logo)). That is, even if there is some WP:OFFICE red-tape rationale for keeping a template for this, we do not need a separate, banner-sized one.
Question – I see it's used on something like 5000 image files, such as File:Tazo.png, but it's very unclear what it means, or what its purpose or intent is there. I'd like to know if anyone can provide a rationale or justification to discuss before deciding what whether to support this deletion request. Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is useful in basically every instance of ((Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly)) where the content is trademarked. If the documentation states otherwise then the documentation should be changed. We regularly inform when there are restrictions to use unrelated to copyright. If you would like to change that practice broadly, then you're going to need a broader consensus that a TfD. Much of the rest of the arguments, I'm not entirely sure what the relevance is. GMGtalk 18:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man, not a keep rationale. No one said anything whatsoever about changing practice or policy, and if that specific use-case is in fact the rationale for the template, it can be handled by one or more additional parameters of ((non-free logo)) (and, if applicable, other non-free image tags). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...umm...just so we're clear here, because it's not...super evident that those here understand the use of this template, or for that matter uploading or dealing very much with local files...or...files.
The template documentation says that ((non-free logo)) should be used instead in most cases. That's because in most cases free images should be uploaded to Commons, and not locally. That does not account for any case where the image is free in the US but not free in its home country. In these cases, the images cannot be uploaded to Commons, and must be uploaded locally. If these images are trademarked, they should have this tag in order to notify potential reusers that there are additional restrictions not related to copyright.
The second bullet point makes no sense. This template is only for use in free media.
Wikipedia certainly does use trademark and other legal disclaimers. Just because we don't use them in mainspace does not mean we don't use them regularly in file space. As has already been pointed out, this template is used some 5,000 times. Other templates, for example Template:Nazi symbol or Template:Ir-Money give notice of other types of restrictions not related to copyright. Each of these templates are used several hundred times.
Wikipedia does give legal notification. You are given legal notification of CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL every time you open an edit window. Every piece of media should come with some type of legal rationale why it is usable here, whether under fair use or free use. You are misapplying a content guideline to file space where it means basically nothing.
better done in a plain-English sentence on the image's wiki page That's what this template does. This could also be done as a simple parameter of ((non-free logo)) It's already done as a parameter on ((non-free logo)). This template is for free media; not for non-free media. That's why there are separate templates.
So...it's not entirely clear what part of this nomination is based on something other than misunderstanding. GMGtalk 20:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't track. If it's legally encumbered by trademark concerns, then it's not free media, it's just a different kind of non-free media than the kind that are non-free because they're encumbered by copyrights. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's a common misconception, but it's a misconception none-the-less. Trademarks have to do with unfair business practices; copyright has to do with intellectual property rights. This image is trademarked. It's free, and not copyrighted, because you cannot copyright fonts and simple type settings, because they do not have sufficient creative contribution to quality for protection. I can do whatever I want with that image as far as intellectual property rights are concerned. What I cannot do is use that image to engage in unfair trade practices, because it is registered as a "mark of their trade".
As indicated above, many Nazi symbols are free and not copyrighted or not copyrightable. But their use is still restricted in many countries according to other laws regulating hate speech. The design of many currencies is public domain according to the laws of their home country. But I cannot use them to violate laws related to counterfeiting. In the US, works by the Federal government are automatically public domain. But that doesn't mean you can take a top secret document and disseminate it to the public, even though it's a "free work", because it's also governed by laws related to national security. An image of Mohammed might be public domain because of it's age, but that doesn't mean it's use isn't regulated by local blasphemy laws that could subject you to prosecution.
Whether or not something is free has to do with ownership, whether someone owns the copyright, and thereby restricts its use for the duration of their ownership. In other words, it's not free because they'll legally make you pay to use it. But that doesn't mean there might not be a whole host of other laws restricting use that are unrelated to copyright. Trademarks are one of these. GMGtalk 11:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it this way. My bank gives away branded pens for free. If I take that pen, I'm not violating any laws related to theft. But if I use that pen to scratch someone's car, I'm still violating laws related to vandalism, and if I use that pen to stab someone, I'm still violating laws related to assault. Neither of these have anything to do with whether I stole the pen. GMGtalk 12:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 13 December 2018 (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).
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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suite of templates used on only one page and only used to create a pretty simple table. HTML and MediaWiki markup handle simple tables just fine. Delete and convert to MediaWiki markup table. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted all of the tagging that Editor Koavf added to the templates because that tagging broke the templates and thus broke the page where they are used.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: The templates were created in response to this WP:VPT disucssion wherein an editor was looking to simplify the drudge-work required to consistently change the formatting of all of the tables on List of Popes. View the article source of this version to see the pretty simple table markup. Suite of templates used on only one page. So what? The purpose of templates is to ease repetitive tasks and to produce consistent output time and time again. Where is it documented that templates must be used on more than one page? Proposer should withdraw this tdf. —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: These templates are needed for the 20 wikitables at List of popes article. Provides a consistent look throughout, whereas previously over time various editors would modifiy each wikitable differently creating different size columns & page widths. JoeHebda (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (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:The Japanese Popstars
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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded navigation box for an article on one album, which itself was just redirected. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (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).
