Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 22 March 24 >

March 23

[edit]

Template:Emulator fur

[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 delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emulator fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessarily redundant to Template:Vgrationale, which is being nominated for deletion because it creates rationales that may not be specific enough for policy compliance. ViperSnake151 19:28, 23 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vgrationale

[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 Keep. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

NFCC 8 requires individual rationales, encourages extraneous use of non-free content where it may not increase understanding ViperSnake151 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I realize I'm biased as the creator of this template, but I oppose its deletion for the following reasons:
  1. The Fair-Use Rationales for video game images are almost always the same whether they are generated by way of a template or created manually.
  2. This template simplifies the process of creating fair-use rationales and standardizes the format by which they are used.
  3. This template does not prevent images from being deleted, nor does it circumvent any policies.
  4. I also disagree that it encourages "extraneous use" any more than the upload mechanism does. Video game images are still tagged for inappropriate use and deleted all the time (see my Fair Use Log to see plenty of red links from images that were rationale'd with this template and later deleted anyway).
  5. It encapsulates the most common reasons for using an image in an article by way of its documentation.
  6. People do not have to use it, and are indeed encouraged NOT to use it if it doesn't meet their needs.
  7. This template was created in part to help create rationales for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of images that at the time did not include a rationale at all and were being used for legitimate purposes per our policies.
The template should be kept, and if necessary, it should be updated to better serve our needs. Let me know how it can be improved, or feel free to improve it yourself. Don't just delete it outright. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A point on this: This particular template actually implements {{Non-free use rationale}} - all it does is provide a framework to fill in common items in that template. It's meant to be subst'd onto the image page where it's being used, and when used properly, it BECOMES the standard NFUR template, just with videogame-specific information filled in where specified. In other words, it's meant to be used as a macro, not a substitute or replacement for NFUR. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this one I think can still be useful in providing good fair-use rationales for video game images whose rationales are expected to say the same throughout the 20,000 or so video game articles out there. For example, box art, which is the video game-equivalent of covers for music albums. It is safe to say that about 99% of video game box art FURs are going to be very similar if not identical; maybe a couple of words must be changed amongst each one, but that's it. The {{vgrationale}} template can accomplish that very easily. I think more care should be exercised in other fair-use images like screenshots, but deletion will not solve that problem, especially we can just modify what we have so that care is exercised. MuZemike 03:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template does not prevent pictures from having individualized rationales. It is still incumbent upon the uploader to do so within the template, should they choose to use it. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template doesn't prevent individual rationales. Doesn't increase extraneous use, due to WP:VG guidelines to only use one boxart image per article. - X201 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while the rationales given by this may not be great at WP:FA or other quality assessments, they give a reasonably good baseline that justifies (barring other possible problems) non-free image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly address shortcomings in the rationales provided by this template. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:03, 25 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vgscreenshot fur

[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 Delete. I'm not going to remove the transclusions, but only so that they can be reviewed and replaced manually rather than be blanket-tagged for CSD for having no FUR. The rationales provided by this template are utterly useless. Orphan the template, then mark it with {{db-xfd}}. Happy‑melon 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vgscreenshot fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like Template:Film screenshot fur, there's no way every screenshot from a video game is going to automatically be significant enough to actually meet the fair use policy, even on the article about the video game. These images need individual explanations as to why they are necessary. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a discussion going on somewhere trying to reach consensus? —Ost (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. However, video game screenshots are sometimes listed at WP:FFD, and they aren't all kept. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue to keep this template, but just because some screenshots at FFD are not kept does not imply lack of consensus on screenshots, as you mention here and the similar TfDs. Additionally, the template doesn't claim all screenshots are fair use; It's an assertion that the specific screenshot is being used under fair use. As with any fair use assertion for a file, the image can be deleted if the assertion is incorrect. Consensus may be needed to include specific screenshots, but I don't think the project is best served by removing all screenshots. If there is indeed lack of consensus for all screenshots, an RfC should likely be created to address this issue. —Ost (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How does providing a fair-use rationale imply or express notability? Don't all images have to meet notability requirements regardless of their FURs and the way those FURs are created? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All non-free images must "increase the reader's understanding of the subject" and their non-inclusion must not be detrimental to that understanding. These templates do not declare why they will increase the reader's understanding in an article. ViperSnake151 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"To identify the subject" is an insufficient statement of how an image increases a person's understanding? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how this template is harmful when images have to be viewed and evaluated per article. The template doesn't stop an editor from removing an image if it isn't helpful. The existence of this template does not prohibit people from providing more information about fair use if needed. Screenshots are removed from pages if they do not "significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject", regardless of if a editor has included this template. The template merely provides a way to present the common rationale for screenshots—explaining why it is not replaceable, that is is lower resolution, etc. Moreover, this template specifically allows editors to include a purpose to expand on the specific reason for use. —Ost (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete gebneric fairuse tremplatesare onlyuseful to intrinsically obvious stuff like albumn covers. for screen shots thereshould be individual furs to compoly with nfcc #8 Spartaz Humbug! 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template is too generic to be particularly useful with respect to NFCC 8. See more detailed Vgrationale template above. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one even though I think the other one should probably be kept. Screenshots, unlike boxart (which is the video game-equivalent to album covers), screenshots demonstrate different things depending on the context of the article. Hence, different rationales would be needed. This can be covered in some respect with the {{vgrationale}} template. MuZemike 02:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rationales are supposed to be specific to each use of an image, and templated rationales like this make no sense whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reimplement in terms of {{Vgrationale}}, which at this point has more Keep !votes. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Regions of the United States templates

[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 Delete. Happy‑melon 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Midwest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:US Northeast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:US South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:US West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These four templates cause unnecessary clutter on each state article, being largely redundant with {{USPoliticalDivisions}}. Powers T 17:23, 23 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Internet_memes

[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 Delete. Happy‑melon 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason from the last time it was nominated has not been addressed. From Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_30. Also see first TFD.

Navboxes are tricky subjects. It can be difficult to evaluate whether or not navboxes are appropriate for articles, but in this case, I would submit that it is clear this navbox is inappropriate and outside the regular boundaries of what we expect to do with templates. There are at least three dimensions of this template which are not suitable for the template namespace. The first of these is that the template does not link together salient articles which have some sort of intrinsic relationship. Navboxes are used for this type of navigation. This is why a navbox for a List of US presidents is appropriate, or a list of successive office-holders of any office or similar, or even a navigation between albums produced by a band. One preceded another, another followed; there is a sequence. A navbox of legislatures of states would also be appropriate under this criterion, there is a salient, concrete, categorical continuity between the items, which is absent from the template being discussed here. The second of these is that the definition of the term being used for this navbox, "internet meme" excludes the possibility of categorical distinction between its elements. There is no intrinsic relationship between emoticon, rickroll, and dancing baby. There is no upward limit to the number of things which may be categorized under the distinction of "internet meme", nor are there any hard criteria for inclusion. The implications of these can be seen in a future iteration of the template which is subject to edit wars by editors attempting to push a borderline-notable phenomenon into undeserved legitimacy by inclusion in a template, and as there is no upward bound on the size of the template, it could conceivably (and arguably already has) become too large for easy inclusion on pages and become too vast and unwieldy to be used for any sort of useful navigation, therefore defeating its own purpose. Thirdly, there is already a list of internet memes, which obviates the need for this template. In my closing I did not imply that no possible templates could be forged from this list, however, I strongly asserted that this particular template is inconsistent with template guidelines in accordance with its original nomination. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples of deletion of similar templates may be found at:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:Culture_of_China
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_26#Template:Seconds_From_Disaster
Resulting Deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
I hope these are helpful, or at least help to demonstrate, some of the points I lay out above. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are not willing to read the above, do not take part in this TFD.Otterathome (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Game screenshot rationale

[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 Delete. Happy‑melon 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Game screenshot rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NFCC 8 requires individual rationales, encourages extraneous use of non-free content where it may not increase understanding. ViperSnake151 11:59, 23 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Magazine rationale

[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 withdrawn by nominator. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magazine rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NFCC 8 requires individual rationales, encourages extraneous use of non-free content. ViperSnake151 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there seems to be a consensus that a cover of a magazine is acceptable in the article about the magazine, and in practice images correctly using this rationale haven't been deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...... never mind that one. Consider it withdrawn. ViperSnake151 20:30, 23 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Eastern Bloc defection

[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 Delete. Dubious navigational utility; would be much more sensibly-constructed as a category/list combo, as noted. Happy‑melon 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eastern Bloc defection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a huge, unmanageable and overly optimistic creation, duplicating about 90% of the content in the Eastern Bloc emigration and defection table (created by the same editor). The persons listed are already included not just there, but also in the category tree (here, for example). Dahn (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it will get too big with time, it could possibly have thousands of entries, a category is better for navigation in this case. bogdan (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too large to be practical, especially since a category already exists. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and its fixed now - Wow, not so much as a peep on the talk page about it being too long before someone just threw it up on the delete page. I'm kind of disappointed. Anyway:
The Length Issue Is Now Fixed. Here is the finished now short Template
I just cut the names out and pointed to lists, while adding other related Eastern Bloc defection topics.
I would advise in the future for the original person who tagged this for deletion to please start a discussion on a talk page on an article if an issue is easily fixable, like length. For example, other templates such as Template:Cold War are just as long or longer, and I had no idea anyone even had an issue with this template, so I had kept expanding it. A discussion on the talk page first will avoid articles being restarting new articles employing the simple fix that caused the original deletion issue. I'm lucky I logged on this morning and even saw that this had been tagged for deletionMosedschurte (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still is an absolute mess: many links are repeated for no apparent reason, and the arrangement is whimsical. If kept, the template would need to be removed from the articles it no longer has anything to with (those on individual defectors). But really, Mosedschurte: once it doesn't reference those people, what is its use? And have you given thought to restructuring the info on defectors as a list? The rest of the concepts can simply remain in the article you created, I really don't see any other way of grouping them together. Dahn (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: many links are repeated for no apparent reason
No they are not, this is simply wrong. There is ONE article with a repeated link in the group lists, and it is re-linked only to the table of defectors in the page. The multiple links to the words "Eastern Bloc" (in the group lists only once) simply wikify the word. If you truly believe that this is some sort of hindrance, I can simply de-wikify the word "Eastern Bloc" and solve this issue rather easily -- again, another issue that should have been raised on the Talk Page. Or you can just de-wikify the word "Eastern Bloc".
Re: it no longer has anything to with (those on individual defectors)
It's a template on "Eastern Bloc defection" literally sitting at the bottom of articles of various Eastern Bloc defectors. How could it not be related to them? I'm beginning to see why no discussion was given on the Talk page first so that the length issue could be fixed (and it now has been) before tagging this for deletion.
Anyway, the length issue -- which was the only reason listed by others above -- is now fixed.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To your first: why not just create a separate list from the table you added in the article (List of Eastern Bloc defectors)? That would replace both the table (which you could simply move as is) and the need for duplicating the link. It's easy.
To your second: Because of this simple fact: templates are designed to show the links between an article they mention and others; they appear on pages they mention, not on just any page - meaning that navigational templates on, say, the Vladimir Tismăneanu page should include links to Vladimir Tismăneanu article. Any link other than that abuses the notion of what a navigational template is. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was even more easily fixed. Nav with collapsible boxes.
Done
Again, raising an issue on the Talk Page first -- especially an easily fixable issue-- would be much more helpful than simply
I still think it's not an appropriate use of templates, so I stay behind my delete vote. bogdan (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mosedschurte, as was pointed out already: you created a category for the same info. This implies repetitiveness - one will have to be superfluous. It also implies impracticality - the info, collapsible or not, is massive enough to fill a category (and there is no indication that the category is even half-full yet). Also consider this: one doesn't need to update the category - are you telling me you're gonna fill in info in the article as it is made available? I think not. No, I think that you too will discover it was a bad idea to begin with, and the template, still massive and whimsical, will rot away on as many pages as you visited before you got bored. But why keep it simple when we can complicate it, right? Dahn (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the template is huge (e.g. it looks as if 8 new templates, rather than one, have been added to Igor Gouzenko), and the content is much better handled through a category. Template overkill. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been persuaded, as per Mosedschurte's bullet points set out below (not to mention all of the improvements that have been made), that the template is worth keeping. I don't necessarily agree with all of the bullet points, but I certainly agree that the template now provides a better navigational tool than the category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I've got to say that this was a pretty uncool move, and it's not just sour grapes. No one had raised the length issue EVER on the Talk page. I then noticed after I later added this to the article Vladimir Tismăneanu -- boy, was that a mistake -- Dahn then deleted it with the comment "pointless", and started this deletion, which I luckily just saw. His talk page buddy bogdan then piled on the length issue.

So I then went about fixing the length issue with the collapsible internal nav boxes, which was easy. And then the complaints switched to entirely unspecified "inappropriate" complaints. Also, re the Igor Gouzenko complaint above, I understand because at that time, I was still fixing the "state" parameter in the new navbox, so the whole thing was expanded on every page for about 5 minutes. So now I've gotten another person on with "overkill" comments because of the auto-expanded box that was briefly on every page while I was editing the thing, making it temporarily look like several expanded template boxes (which it no longer does after the edits were finished).

Again, the whole reason I hastily had to embark on such a fix that had briefly expanded it during editing was because someone tagged this thing for deletion without so much as a complaint on the talk page about length -- WHICH HAS NOW BEEN FIXED ANYWAY.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Mosedschurte, let's hold on to rational arguments. The core issue with the template is it being overkill and unmanageable, no matter how you "fix" it: making it collapsible doesn't fix that core problem, and doesn't make it smaller. I'm completely ignoring your "buddies" comment (which would only make sense if I were to control Bogdan's brain), but I will have you know that I removed the template long after starting this here TfD, especially since at the moment you were experimenting with it in a way that no longer included any names (per my previous comments, it no longer made any sense). Dahn (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, please stop with snide comments such as "pretty uncool" and "talk page buddy". Assume good faith, and focus on the merits (and the improvements you have made) rather than on the perceived shortcomings of the actions of others.

Having said that, your improvements are helpful. I will give my original "delete" comment some additional thought. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that too is overkill - we can do without the list and/or the template, but somebody overkilling out of boredom somewhere else doesn't validate the overkill. As for the overkill rationale, it's a most common criterion on AfD, CfD and TfD alike. Dahn (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renata, I don't think anyone is suggesting that a category automatically precludes a template, or vice versa, or that you should never have both. The comments above suggest that this particular subject matter is better handled through the category, and doesn't lend itself to a template, and that in some cases such duplication is inapprorpiate. You are, of course, free to disagree with the points that have been raised, but simply producing other examples of category and template overlap isn't directly relevant to the issue at hand.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I actually also later created the "Category:Eastern Bloc defectors" because I thought some people might want to navigate related pages in that fashion. I frankly prefer templates for navigation to related topics, which allow easier grouping and navigation without having to browse to a separate category pages.
In any event, numerous topics on Wikipedia share both categories and templates -- too many thousands to go into, such as World War II, and many of them actually have the accompanying category at the bottom, such as Template:Cold War. The mere duplication of categories and templates is clearly not grounds for deletion.
Nor is there anything the least bit "inappropriate" about it here. That was a throw in comment by a few users after I had already fixed the original length issue that was complained about. No explanation has been given for this new objection excpet that it would be "better for the categories" -- again, a superfluous objection when clearly simultaneous template and category navigation on related topics are prevalent on Wikipedia. And here, it is helpful with the individual descriptions of the various jobs for each defector listed in parentheticals in the template, along with links to related articles that do not fall within the category. Mosedschurte (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that category and template overlap is not itself grounds for deletion -- why are you beating a dead horse? As for your suggestions that no explanations had been given why this is better handled by categories, I see a lot of explanations above. I really recommend that you step back, take a deep breath, put aside your obvious frustration at seeing your template nominated for TfD, and focus your comments on substantive reasons why this template provides added value to the reader (as you did above with the comment above jobs in parentheses). I'm not sure hammering home non-issues and your objections to process is really getting any of us anywhere. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, per the comment a recap on why the new fixed version should stay:

  • The length issue that originally drew fire was fixed (I wish this complaint had been raised on the talk page instead)
  • Like most other overlapping Template and Categories on Wikipedia -- i.e, Template:Cold War and Template: World War II -- this template provides an additional navigation aid that is especially helpful for people who prefer to navigate with templates, which permit navigation without browsing to a separate talk page.
  • As stated, I also created the Category "Eastern Bloc defectors", and I certainly did not do so to have it exist as the reason to delete the related Template:Eastern Bloc defection, which I actually personally use much when writing topics on related issues, and find far more helpful.
  • In addition, the template provides:
1. Parenthetical job descriptions for each defector
2. Other related articles that do not fall within the Category
3. Defector topical groupings, and while this can be added to Categories, they are much harder to navigate there.

Although clearly I'm biased, I think that's considerably more than many (if not most) Wikipedia templates provide. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wanders across this topic and wonders where the parenthetical descriptions are in the Template that were described above as being helpful and prompted one editor to switch his vote to keep, user User Dahn simply unilaterally deleted every one of them here. Actually three times, here, here and here. I don't want to restore them because I don't want to get into an WP:Edit War over it.

Apparently this particular user is quite a hit on ANI: -- ANI Topic: Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn.

-- ANI Topic: Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn (new try)

--ANI Topic: The oppinion of other editors about User:Dahn Mosedschurte (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is getting seriously disturbing. If anyone cares, I have answered to these calumnies here. If admins judge Mosedschurte's comments here to be out of place, this here reply should not dissuade them from removing them - just erase this post as well. At the moment I for one am done discussing the matter with Mosedschurte. Dahn (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just on the actual issue a perfectly reasonable templat ewith documented examples. As for the descriptors,I would suggest re-adding most of them. DGG (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Film screenshot fur

[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 create a list of all transclusions of the template at User:Erik9/transclusions of Template:Film screenshot fur, substitute all existing usages of the template, then blank the template, and forbid further usage (but preserve the edit history to meet the authorship attribution requirements of the GFDL). All listed existing usages of the template require manual review to determine the disposition of the images on which they appear: in each case, an acceptable fair use rationale should be supplied, or the image should be tagged for deletion using template:dfu, or nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. When the review of the relevant images is complete, no substituted text of the template should appear on any image, and the template may be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film screenshot fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no way that screenshots are automatically going to meet the NFCC #8 so having a blanket FUR template simply discourages users to upload material in breach of our core principle of providing free content, not to mention the NFCC and Foundation edicts on the use on non-free content. Should be deleted so users uploading screenshots are required to justify the use properly - as is intended Spartaz Humbug! 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was just about to nominate this myself, when I saw it had already been done. Unlike album covers on articles about the album which are basically guaranteed to be relevant enough to meet NFCC, there's no way every screenshot from a film is going to be significant enough, even on the article about the film. These images need individual explanations as to why they are necessary. Looking at the template documention, it seems to have basically been copied-and-pasted from Template:Album cover fur with slight modifications. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment above. A standard rationale does not work for these images. Look at the recent ape image example. Garion96 (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, I note some images still use the following : Template:Fair_use_media_rationale which was seemingly created as a temporary measure in 2007, when a mass deletionist trawl was being undertaken.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Z-man. The consensus regarding screenshots is unclear, so a more detailed rationale is probably required. PhilKnight (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the inclusion of a non-free screenshot should require a specific rationale as to why using the screenshot increases the users understanding of the topic. A generic example is just not good enough as in most articles the use of such a screenshot cannot be justified under the non-free content criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all screenshot related rationale templates, people should be writing these themselves. ViperSnake151 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; blanket rationale templates are only okay if there exists a well-defined class of articles to which the blanket rationale applies. e.g. Album covers for album articles. That is not the case here. Hesperian 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but put more documentation on the page explaining very clearly when a screenshot is appropriate per the fair-use policy and that its use is to be specifically justified and limited to the film article alone. In fact, we'd be on better ground if the appropriate lines on the template were left blank rather than filled in with weak boilerplate as they are now, and keeping the boilerplate that's not going to change from image to image.

    And if we must delete this, let those who have voted to do so either spend their next few weeks notifying every uploader of an image so rationalized that they have to rerationalize it with the existing fair use rationale template, or (better yet) writing such updated rationales themselves (In fact, why don't they do this before making a deletion nomination so the deletion nom would be more or less academic as the template would only be in use on a handful of pages. That would have been the sensible thing to do). Otherwise, a whole bunch of images which may be eminently justified for their articles under the fair-use content criteria will be deleted for lack of a rationale by the free-content zealots and their bots on their search-and-destroy missions, and eventually we'll have to restore them where necessary and/or take the grief.

    Yet another consequence of the half-assed delete-first-and-ask-questions-later implementation of a half-assed policy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carefully and slowly delete. Rationales are supposed to be specific to each use of an image, and templated rationales simply can't be. This template encourages people to upload excessive screenshots of films when they should not be used and splash a load of templates on them to make it appear valid. However, if a consensus to delete is confirmed, the template should first be deprecated, and phased out. Deleting it, then deleting the images it's used on, would be more disruptive than the template is. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{ScreenshotU}} (in each instance), as that template allows for specific rationales to be written for each use. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_23&oldid=1257496586"