Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 6



Template:Extinct Germanic languages

 * 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 debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Germanic philology. — Ptcamn (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Is it totally redundant in every respect? I.e., could every single usage of this template be replaced, in a user-helpful way, by your preferred one? Template overlap is not an inviolate rationale for deletion, by any means. Consider this a keep if this question is not answered or is answered in the negative.  There is nothing wrong with narrower-focused template variations. It's not like Wikipedia has a disk quota. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In answer to SMcCandlish's question, yes. All the links in Extinct Germanic languages are included in Germanic philology, which is far more comprehensive than this one.  This is not overlap, this is complete uselessness.--Aervanath (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aervanath. Terraxos (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aervanath. There are too many templates in Wikipedia.  Madman (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aervanath.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:07, 10 April 2008 (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:3dglasses

 * 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 debate was delete. Will replace with 3d glasses. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Permanent banner with no useful information. According to the No 3D illustrations guidelines, 3D images should not be used in articles. And if used, the 3d glasses template does a better job informing the reader about the existance of 3D images. Delete. — Kildor (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Change. - To a Red-Cyan 3d glasses icon next to the "semi-protected" small icon at the top right of the page. Example in the talk page of the template CompuHacker (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although your proposal is a great improvement, I cannot see what good it makes to have such an icon at the top of the article. Only a couple of pages (like Anaglyph image) should have any inline 3D images. And on those pages, it makes more sense to have the icon next to the images (using the other template, 3d glasses) instead of at the top of the page. --Kildor (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Change or Delete - This template provides no additional useful information. Moreover, the leading space in any article is such prime space that a permanent banner like this is a detriment to Wikipedia.  Madman (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trippy. Uh, change to 3d glasses where such images are allowed by No 3D illustrations (an exception, for example, would be Stereoscopy), and delete the template. If not appropriate by the guideline, the images should really be removed, where possible. Note, however, that this will require changing usages in articles from a general banner to an image-specific icon. If no objects, I could do so. Grace notes T § 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to something in the caption like a small icon, like what CompuHacker said. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a cool template.Reformeduchiha (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I have changed it to the proposed corner icon idea. ViperSnake151 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am against this idea, myself; 3d glasses is much more specific and useful for indicating anaglyphic images than a corner icon (not to mention that such icons already cause a fair amount of CSS issues for people). Grace notes T § 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this template and use 3d glasses instead. 1) per Gracenotes. 2) The proliferation of Category:Title templates is discouraged. 3) When the icon is next to the specific image it is addressing, it is much more immediately-informative and contextually understandable. – Quiddity (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this template for the few articles that have more than one. I see now that it has been edited to be a corner icon, and I understand everyone's thinking. This was not originally a corner icon; it was a full-length banner across the top, like Current Events. I understand that that was widely believed to be a distraction from the main content of the page, but I like the new idea of keeping a corner icon, just to keep the reader aware that the images exist on the page. Does anyone else agree? --Superpika66 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Don't you think that an icon next to the image is a better way to inform the reader of the existence of such images? An icon at the top corner is hardly noticeable, and duplicates the information provided by the other template 3d glasses. --Kildor (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's fair for you to speak for everyone. Yes, in fact, I do think that an icon next to the picture is a better idea. But I still like the concept of having something at the top of the page to warn the reader that the images exist below. --Superpika66 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for the guideline No 3D illustrations, is due to the low image quality; not due to any danger that the reader needs to be "warned" against. Hence, this template is redundant and superfluous to the small inline icon version, 3d glasses. – Quiddity (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. Obviously, I cannot speak for everyone. The "no" above was my own opinion and nothing else. --Kildor (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. So I guess the general concensus is "Delete", huh? --Superpika66 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to 3d glasses), or vice versa whatever name looks better. No need to have 2 very similar templates nor to have multiple warning in the same page - Nabla (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and use 3d glasses instead. A small icon next to the image is more clearly understood, yet less distracting, than a large icon at the top corner of the article. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (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:ConfirmationOTRS

 * 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 debate was wrong venue. Confusing though they may be, we still need the process and to record verification and release, so unless and until a new process and set of templates is ready, we can't really do without these. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Our current OTRS templates are a little confusing...we have at least four (listed above) when we could probably get by with just one (it could cover both images and text by using the term "work"). The template ConfirmationImageOTRS doesn't translate over to the Commons when transwiki'ing images using CommonsHelper. Recommend consolidating all of the above templates into PermissionOTRS (this is the template used by Commons - see Commons:Template:PermissionOTRS.) Kelly  hi! 04:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem merging the image templates into the commons version, but the template dealing with text is not applicable to commons, is not well covered by Permission OTRS, and should remain a separate entity. – Avi (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO there should be one for text with a GNU release, and one for Images as images can be released under various free licenses including GNU, PD, CC-by-3.0, which have different requirements. noting that actually says that the image has released under a GNU license, a quick check shows its transcluded into about 400 images many of which are either PD, or CC-by-xx. The image license should be more specific with a variable in the template to ensure correct wording. Consider this a delete on the confirmation named ones but replace with appropriately worded templates using something like PermissionOTRS-text, PermissionOTRS-image  124.182.158.213 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably one for images and one for text, the text one goes on the talk page, and should be a little different in terms of wording etc. (always gfdl for example) If you wanted to do some stuff with parser functions to accomplish this with one template that's probably fine also. I definitely support some cleanup of this though! :D - cohesion 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this, please! I am all for the change proposed as they are confusing.  de.wp has separate templates for images and text.  But please, "this template is being considered for deletion" is inappropriate.  Take it to the village pump if you need extra opinions.   Newbies are reading seeing this appear after they have provided permission, and it has been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer.  It is very confusing! John Vandenberg (chat) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (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.