Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 4



Template:PUInonfree

 * 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 deletion. The images are mostly all old, so they'll have to go as well. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PUI stands for "Possible unfree images", and a possible unfree image that is only available under a non-free license isn't much of a possible unfree image. Those cases should probably directly go via speedy or to IfD.. → Aza Toth 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant to WP:CSD --After Midnight 0001 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, makes no sense, paradoxical. Wizardman  15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have tagged images with this template several times, and I've had a fair rate of success getting the images relicensed freely. I don't use it often, but it's nice to have around, and listing an image at WP:PUI gives the uploader two weeks to respond rather than five days for IFD or almost no time at all for a speedy deletion. Often uploaders simply don't realize that they really need to release their images freely, and when notified they are willing to do so. PUI seems somewhat less BITEy than IFD. —Bkell (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the page is meant for "possibly unfree images", and if an image IS unfree, then it's not possibly unfree. So per the definition of the page, the template contradicts it's purpose. → Aza Toth 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the wording seems a little contradictory, I agree. On the other hand, based on my experience, often the images really are free, just not yet. ;-) In other words, the image summary says something like "for non-commercial use only", but in reality the image uploader is perfectly willing to remove this restriction, as he or she just didn't know that such things aren't allowed here. I consider them "possibly unfree" images when they are tagged with some free licensing tag (GFDL, PD-self, etc.), but the image summary describes things differently; possibly the summary is what the uploader really meant, but maybe not. —Bkell (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wizardman. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kind of redundant to PUIdisputed. I don't think anyone is proposing that the PUI process be done away witih.  howcheng  {chat} 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I like the idea behind this, I have to agree with Howcheng that PUIdisputed gets the same result, but without the confusion. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Kabylie

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Useless single-purpose template, created by notorious user. --Latebird 09:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, unused and redundant per Infobox Country or territory. Carlosguitar 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary, single-use fork. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cricket scores succession box

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Improperly nominated for speedy deletion but still pretty uncontroversial: broken template which isn't used. — Pascal.Tesson 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, zero transclusions. Shalom Hello 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Time for the Home of Broken, Unused Templates to receive another resident. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Entourage episode

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual series fork of Infobox Television episode. Unused, time to delete.. Jay32183 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Infobox Television episode. Carlosguitar 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. feydey 10:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary fork. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1632 Ext Links

 * 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. Wizardman 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Extremely excessive, and contrary to the guidelines on external links. adds a huge formatting table and a bunch of barely relevant links to articles that don't need them. — Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I've never seen such a crazy template for external links, and I hope never to see one again. Just put in the links as plain text and forget it. Shalom Hello 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete jarring example of template creep. heqs ·:. 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Gamepad styles

 * 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 deletion. Improper topic for navbox. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This template is more annoying than it is helpful. Several of these controllers do not have their own articles, and this template looks very out of place on Touchscreen and Yoke (aircraft). Remote and Racing wheel link to parts of other articles. Keyboard and Mouse are not primarily used for gaming, not even close. This should be at least merged into Game controller, at most deleted. — JohnnyMrNinja 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most game controllers are quite different and I don't think a template is that useful as a navigation guide as the topic is too broad. Category:Game controllers is fine. - hahnch e n 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree that a category would be better. Andre (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant with (and inferior to) . --Kralizec! (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BadJPEG

 * 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a template saying the image is a bad JPEG, a more suitable template would be to say what the image should be, therefore implying the JPEG is bad. The should be replaced by the use of ShouldBePNG or ShouldBeSVG, depending on the image. The usage of two templates (ex: BadJPEG and ShouldBePNG) is not necessary. Dream out loud (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Often the image should ideally be an SVG, but creating an SVG would really be a lot of work, and thus a high-quality PNG would be acceptable. This is the case with many free maps, for example. Tagging them with gives the appearance that in order to be improved the image must be recreated as an SVG; tagging them with  would discourage any attempts at all at creating a vector version. For these images, I use the  tag. —Bkell (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It isn't always obvious what type of image it should be, nor does it really matter. It's up to whoever uploads a new image to decide on that. Furthermore, considering the size of the BadJPEG category, it's not really in the scope of Tfd to replace this template, since it would require examining every single image in the category. Of course, you're free to replace transclusions of this with a more specific template. --- RockMFR 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it isn't always obvious which it should be converted to. — Omegatron 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to "shouldnotbeJPEG" or somesuch.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add more specific content & a explanatory image-- Andersmusician  VOTE  17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - differs from "shouldbe" templates because it does not specify a solution. In many cases, either PNG or SVG would be an improvement. Also, underwent TFD in December 2005, result was keep. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In many cases either PNG or SVG would be appropriate, and JPEG is the only inappropriate choice. Other templates should be used in addition to BadJPEG. —Keenan Pepper 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep. Converting PNGs to SVG is a minor future-proofing issue, but inappropriate JPEGs make the encyclopedia look bad now. Frequently (e.g., fair use logos) "not jpeg" is all that we really want to say, since a GIF, PNG or SVG would be fine. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - but add a parser so that things like PNG will produce a suggestion to use png instead, thus not requring two templates. Giggy  UCP 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Radiant! above. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BadGIF

 * 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a template saying the image is a bad GIF, a more suitable template would be to say what the image should be, therefore implying the GIF is bad. The should be replaced by the use of ShouldBePNG, ShouldBeSVG, or ShouldBeJPEG depending on the image. The usage of two templates (ex: BadGIF and ShouldBePNG) is not necessary. Dream out loud (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's not always obvious which it should be converted to. — Omegatron 06:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not always obvious which it should be converted to. —Psychonaut 10:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to "shouldnotbeGIF" or somesuch.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. There are many cases where either PNG or SVG would be appropriate.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are many cases where either PNG or SVG would be appropriate. e.g. maps with terrain information — 72.244.219.31 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Radiant! above. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox CUniversity

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unused; uses another template that has been deleted; author hasnt been active and I couldnt find a speedy criteria that was appropriate. — John Vandenberg 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete broken, unused template. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox National Military Albania

 * 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 deletion. No longer transcluded. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Albania. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should also be used in Albanian_Land_Forces_Command and in the other articles referenced in the infobox. --Eastmain 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think it should. The Albanian Land Forces Command needs its own infobox, not a general infobox that provides statistics for the Albanian military as a whole. Perhaps what's needed is a navigation template, but this is an infobox. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Subst & Delete as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox National Military Argentina

 * 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 Subst and delete. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Argentina. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Subst & Delete as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox National Military Afghanistan

 * 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 Subst and delete. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Afghanistan. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Subst & Delete as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BrazilianhistoryFooter

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 04:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplication of Template:BrazilianHistory and Template:Brazil topics — Guilherme (t/c) 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; zero transclusions, and it's been superseded. Shalom Hello 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as having been superseded. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.