Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18[edit]

Template:CHL Arena Guide[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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Charon X/talk 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated a week ago but no one voted; I'm listing it on WP:HOCKEY so hopefully someone will vote this time. Template is little-used and is also unnecessary as its content is already covered in Template:WHL Arenas, Template:OHL Arenas and Template:QMJHL Arenas. BoojiBoy 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JamesTeterenko 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flibirigit 20:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive. Skudrafan1 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt August 19, 2006, 08:33 (UTC)

Delete I cant think of a single instance where a listing of arenas across three leagues is more useful than using the league specific templates. Resolute 17:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CptUnconscious 12:08, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:User copyright[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 page.

The result of the debate was userfy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pilotguy (talk • contribs) .

Arguably T1. There is no such thing as copyright paranoia. By virtue of Wikipedia's mission, we cannot be a clearinghouse of copyright violations. Userboxes like this only WP:BEANS inexperienced users into ignoring copyrights and uploading anything they feel like. BigDT 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and Move to userspace per WP:GUS) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly like it in userspace either ... we wouldn't, for example, look too kindly on a userbox that says, "This user ignores the no personal attacks policy." BigDT 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I support the enforcement of our copyright policy, I think there is something like copyright paranoia - i.e. overly worrying about copyrights, ignoring "fair use". Charon X/talk 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The userbox debate is supposed to be over, and nobody using this userbox, including myself, is going to take kindly to this nomination. You could have maybe asked someone to move it to the userspace per WP:GUS instead of going straight to TFD. -AlexWCovington (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as with all the others. (Has it already been done by someone? I thought I saw a userfied version of this somewhere.) And yes, there is such a thing as copyright paranoia (moreso on Commons than here, actually); it can be adequately summarized as: "Oh noes! Teh dead Nazis are going to sue us!!!!1!" Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Kirill Lokshin. —dima ^/talk/ 16:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/userfy It's a topic that bears discussion. And note, it only says that the user finds it disruptive, not that the admins don't have final say on it all. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and userify It would be welcome at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User copyright. —Mi ra 08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. —Jared Hunt August 19, 2006, 08:32 (UTC)
Keep, don't userfy. Cedars 10:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS or delete, since it was initially the work of an indef-blocked serial disrupter, Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (per WP:GUS) I made my own "copy" of this one a long while ago User:CharonX/Userboxes/User copyright, so feel free to either move it there (deleting my local copy to make room) or to Mira. Charon X/talk 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy. I respect copyrights but some of these discussions have gone out of hand. Had the box said "this user applies common sense when he/she is in doubt regarding copyrights"it would pretty much cover the same ground (that's my take on it anyway). Valentinian ^(talk) 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem here is tat the box carries a strong impression that the user is resistant to the strictly legalistic (i.e. only lawfully correct) application of copyright. Just zis Guy you know? 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're probably right. I have no problems with respecting copyrights, but if an image is 100 years old and nobody knows who created it, I consider it to be in the clear. I've updated my own userpage to make that a bit clearer. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's copyright policy is not the "only lawfully correct" policy, mainly because it takes the step of drastically limiting the rights of Wikipedia and it's users well beyond what copyright law requires, out of paranoia about lawsuits. The userbox is absolutely correct. I've watched many, many copyright policy-based deletions go forward that would have clearly fallen under fair use under United States law. Rogue 9 20:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be observed that there are those of us who strongly support copyright, at least as applied to that work which we might, in the course of our lives, undertake, but nevertheless believe it fine for Wikipedia to infringe on copyright and to view certain content as de facto free where it is altogether unlikely that any legal challenge would be essayed (toward which, for example, one might see the mailing list discussion that followed from this post), so some might use the box to convey that they think our principle of free reusability ought to be tweaked, which profession would surely be permissible as a good-faith expression of an idea one thinks the community ought to adopt (this discussion, of course, is, or ought to be, tangential to the TfD, but it ought at least to be observed that one's being resistant to the...lawfully correct[...]application of copyright is not irreconcilable with one's being a good 'pedian. Joe 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per points from all above. --Will Mak 050389 18:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per everyone. Joe 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sophy's Duckling 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS. It already links to meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia and not any official WP:POL — MrDolomite | Talk 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was discussed and was keeped. --Nikolay Kolpakov 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought this was over and done with. This already handily survived deletion once. Rogue 9 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per MrDolomite. If you delete this, then go over and delete meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Rfrisbie^talk 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not an inexperienced user and I suport the "avoid copyright paranoia" thing. I do NOT ignore copyrights. Never the less I have been bold and userified the userbox (yay that makes soo much of a difference). Why cant people allow the retarted userbox war die. --Cat out 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in template space - LA @ 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added it to my homepage ; is WP a stable platform, let me know ! ? Lilliputian 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. --Tjss (Talk) 02:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or GUS. --Swift 12:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy BigDT is insane to want to delete this Reywas92 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for remembering the no personal attacks policy. BigDT 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is about the 5th attempt to get rid of this userbox! No!! - Mike 20:41, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Wikibooksarticle[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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Charon X/talk 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template isn't transcluded on a single article. It's purpose is to reference topics which Wikipedia doesn't have articles on ... in which case there would hardly be an article to reference from! Swift 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (yes, this time I doublechecked the links) Swift 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DavidHOzAu 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Wikibooks}} --BigDT 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If the template has no references and is nowhere transcluded, there is no need for it at all since it is unlikely that anyone will attempt to use it. If this reaches consensus, I'll remove the {{Template messages}} reference and the Wikipedia:Sister projects transclusion. --Swift 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a conceivable enough name that if it isn't redirected, someone six months down the road won't realize that the template already exists and will create one. BigDT 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Six months down the road, there may well be only one Wikibooks template and one Cookbook template and they will be prominently listed on both Wikipedia:Sister_projects#Wikibooks and Wikipedia:Template_messages/Links#Wikibooks. I think the danger of anyone "accidentally" creating this type of template is minimal. --Swift 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes sense per nom. —Jared Hunt August 19, 2006, 08:32 (UTC)
Comment I've long thought the reasoning of the nom to be persuasive, but it should be noted that we regularly use cross-project soft redirects (see, e.g., {{Wi}}, which serves the same purpose—directing a user to an article on another project apropos of the subject of which Wikipedia doesn't/shouldn't have an article—as the nominated template but vis-à-vis Wiktionary). Notwithstanding that this template is unused and isn't likely to be used, it does seem, unless I'm wholly crazy, that this and {{Wi}} ought to be handled similarly. Joe 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not too fond of {{Wi}} either since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hklæ already links to Wiktionary and Commons. But you do raise a good point >:-|. How about this as a qualitative difference: {{Wi}} is contended but no-one seems to like this one... --Swift 20:52, 22 August 2006 (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 page.