Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 2



July 2

 * 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 as the template is dependent on a non-existent page. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:MOVE The Film


MOVE The Film does not have a Wikipedia article, and I'm not sure merits one as yet according to our guidelines. While it looks like a promising project, right now the film appears to have no coverage outside of the official Web site and Facebook page. Premature, and a possible violation of WP:SOAP and WP:COAT, I believe. This template has already been applied to some articles of notable dancers, choreographers and the like who have only a tangential connection, at best, to this non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until there exists an article. No article, no template, simple as that. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've listed my rebuttals for the reasons explained in the nomination below:
 * 1) Lack of a wikipedia article: I created a template rather than an article because if I would have created an article it would have been a stub (not a lot of press since it's an independent film and since it doesn't come out until next year). It also would've violated policy WP:COPYVIO since the description would've come directly from the website.
 * 2) Coverage: There are websites other than Facebook and the official that mention MOVE. There's an entry at the Internet Movie Database for MOVE which is already listed on this template's wikipedia page. In addition a google search of "MOVE the film" will bring these up -->1, 2.
 * 3) Tangential: I disagree that appearances are "tangential". This word suggest the dancers/choreographers are only passively associated with the film, like they made a cameo appearance, something to that effect. If you view the trailer, you'll see that these people are actually being interviewed. MOVE is a documentary after all.
 * 4) Soapbox/Coatrack: I understand that templates don't usually list references or external links. I listed the three that are already there to make it easier for visitors to find more information if they wanted it. However, this template is neither a soapbox or a coatrack because it's not bias toward one particular dancer/choreographer who appears in this film. In addition, according to wikipedia's quality standards, this template meets these policies to stay: WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:C.

Rather than delete the template, I suggest removing the hyperlink to the film's website in the template's title bar so it's doesn't appear promotional and removing the categories since templates don't normally appear in categories anyway. Gbern3 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've created a template for a future film, slated to be released in 2010. You've also been active in adding a considerable amount of content on this future film into various biographical articles. However, IMDB is not a reliable source, and neither are any of the blogs you've cited above. I don't agree with creating a template for something that does not yet exist and has no RS -- at least not yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * G8 Depends on a nonexistant article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:41, 3 July 2009 (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:Extra album cover 2

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)



WP:NFCC requires that multiple non-free images not be used where one would suffice. Looking through the articles that transclude this template, all of them that I can see violate this policy, and having this template encourages a violation. In album articles, the album art is included in the infobox to identify the album, and one image can do that. If a second album cover is notable in itself, discussed in critical commentary (e.g. Ritual de lo Habitual or Yesterday and Today), then the image should be included in the section that discusses this. But having it a part of the infobox just encourages the unnecessary use of copyrighted material. – Quadell (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep because this album was released internationally. The 2nd cover depicts the deluxe edtion of the album and the other cover depicts the international version of the album. I think that this is sufficient enought justification for having more than one album cover present. a rational is provided where needed. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Which album? Are you aware this is a debate about the template, not a particular image? – Quadell (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep because many albums have distinct covers in different markets (Europe vs US), and because the vinyl and cd covers often vary. Add to the list that older albums often get rereleased with updated artwork and you've got a list of reasons to keep this. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see where multiple covers are nice to have in these cases. I don't see where having multiple covers is compliant with our policy. If the image is being used to identify the album, a single image will do; we don't include a non-free image of Jack Bauer from each episode in the Jack Bauer article, because one is sufficient to identify him, even if he wears different clothes and goes to different locations. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, music covers and characters of a TV show are quite different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.120.3 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: it displays the original cover artwork before it was changed, this is also mentioned in the main article, so this image is important.  J W A D  talk 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you aware this is a debate about the template, not a particular image? – Quadell (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the template that violates policy, it's individual pages. Deleting this template will not change that, it will simply make things messy. Fix the articles that have problems first. Some albums (ie The Dark Side of the Moon) have multiple distinct covers. While one image certainly allows us to associate an album cover with the article we are reading, the point of the articles is to provide us with more information, and seeing various cover artworks does that as well as text. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Can one cover convey the information contained in a completely different cover? Does one image convey the information that there are other versions? From the opposite view, does showing more covers increase the likelyhood that a person will recognize that album in stores or on their shelves if they don't have what the end result of what will likely be major edit wars decides as thee cover for that particular album? YES!!! --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I feel the problem is with articles, not the template. "3a" states minimal usage. If two covers look similar, we can get rid of one. But if they're significantly different, like in here, we should keep them. Lots of singles/albums are released under significantly different covers, I fell there should be a little leeway, allowing a max of 2. In big articles, 3 (maybe?). "8" states sifnificance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you happen to find an album in a store, with the other cover? Albums/singles are also released in different regions under different covers. Though having multiple images on articles would not "significantly" improve understanding, but it will, to an extent. Again, NOT having them COULD prove detrimental. Just an opinion. Suede67 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. I don't think a maximum is useful, No Way Out But Forward Go!, for example, has 4 completely different covers (of which atm 3 are in the article). Brambo (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. This is helpful in talking about album in describing subject such as "deluxe edition", "limited edition", "imported cover", and "advanced cd". Lovejonesfly (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Floydian above is right. If you have a problem with a certain image's fair use status, list that image for deletion. This template doesn't violate any policy. It's almost always better to deal with things case-by-case than to remove an entire feature because of a hypothesis that it might be misused by someone-somewhere-maybe. —Gendralman (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The purpose of this template is to serve for extremely distinct covers for albums/singles with multiple releases or in some cases other artists' covered version. Nostalgically I was looking up the article about the song "Flying Without Wings" and stumbled here. I have observed other examples (such as the Beatles, whose UK/US released albums have diff covers) so yeah. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Removing the template doesn't solve this supposed 'problem' with the non-free images. They should be deleted on a case by case basis, not by mass removal of the template. This would be as rediculous as removing genres (*cough cough*). k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 06:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm seeing a lot of people !voting keep because it is helpful to illustrate other similar albums e.g. deluxe etc. The thing is these arguments don't meet WP:NFCC Cr.3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." or Cr.8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I definitely think there is a problem here, and the majority of articles (if not all) that use this, shouldn't be having second images at all because it doesn't meet NFCC. The reason I'm not !voting delete is because I see some problems in deleting this template. This will automatically orphan many fair use images and they'll be deleted within days. This is actually largely a good thing, however it doesn't leave much time to sift through the thousands of transclusions to non-orphan the useful ones that meet NFCC. Generally this a good idea, and I agree this template seems to encourage using multiple album arts, but I think more time is needed because this will have a knock-on impact on a lot of articles/images. Now if someone's willing to sift through all the transclusions I may reconsider, but I think that is unlikely in the duration of this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Rambo's Revenge raises a valid point but as he also points out that it will not solve any problem. Instead we will land up in a huge mess of orphaned images. There are many cases where the alternate artwork is as important as the original cover. Aerosmith (Nine Lives), Beatles (Y,T and T), Jane's Addiction (Ritual de lo Habitual), Tool (Undertow), etc. have the original artwork banned in stores / regions, etc due to various reasons of censorship. Also there are numerous examples where two cover arts in two territories are entirely different. Appreciate and support Floydian's POV. 54UV1K (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. In that case, then were you upload the image were it says Source make them put a website link there to provide that it is an official/alternate cover. Links like Amazon, Label's site, Music Stores, Fye, etc. If they can't provide a link to were came, then the cover is fake. So that way, you won't have many images floating about. Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per well thought out nom. In reply to Rambo's Revenge, we don't have to delete this template immediately but we can have a waiting period to clean up the bunch of orphaned images deleting this template will cause. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe, but there are over 4000 transclusions to be checked, and that could take along time. Also, should we also include in this nomination, as it is a deprecated template to this one, doing the same job, and has over 1500 transclusions. I do think these two templates are encouraging misuse of non-free images and I'm just being cautious as I don't want BJBot to go placing lots of Di-orphaned fair use if someone does delete this template. I don't know if there is precedent for holding closed TfDs or if there is a time limit on it, but if we can gather volunteers to trawl through thousands of transclusions in a reasonable time period then I'm willing to !vote delete. Rambo's Revenge  (talk)</b>  12:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize you're sitting on 10 Keeps and 2 Deletes, including the nominator. Making plans for the processes following the deletion of this template seems like it is going to be a complete waste of your time. I am of the opinion that these non-free images should be dealt with more in conjunction with the music projects of WP. To make such a big change without questioning prior policies would be quite ignorant (as said before, a la the genre deletion scandal), especially if you undertake such a stance on a large scale, before letting all parties be aware. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning prior policies, because none exist that disregard WP:NFCC. It boils down to these images don't satisfy the non-free content criterion, and as for it being 10–3, we consider the logic of the arguments not the quantity. From WP:Consensus: "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." As I said most of the keep arguments aren't based on policy, taking one example above, it mentions that Flying Without Wings has two distinctly different album arts. Yes they do, but they aren't both significant and just because somebody likes it doesn't mean we should keep it. Personally, even if this ends as "keep" it has illustrated a very real problem with thousands of images not satisfying NFCC and this needs to be addressed. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So if three people think everyone else is wrong, they get their way? That is not consensus. I agree majority does not rule, but if your argument is failing to waver people over, then you're not achieving consensus. As I said before, the NFCC deletions should be done on a one-by-one basis, not mass deletion. There will be too big of a backlash. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but whose opinion of 'significant' is taken will largely determine the outcome of those many images that may end up orphaned. An album cover is significant by being different, because that album comes in various forms. If you read the article, you'd have a better understanding of that album and its various releases... Especially true of bands whose artwork contributes to their overall image/reputation. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete our FAIR use guidelines about album/CD covers are pretty clear that we can include more than one only when we have sourced content discussing the different usages. The 2nd image should be placed by the discussion and not in the info box and so this template should never be used. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that about having sourced discussion? And why does the image need to be placed with that discussion? -Freekee (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would also like to know where it says this... I've copied the points from NFCC that apply to this discussion:
 * No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
 * Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
 * Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).  This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
 * Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
 * Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * The first is simple. As a work of art, no copy can be made that wouldn't also be subject to that image's copywrite.
 * The second is also simple. If the pictures are significantly different, then they convey significantly different information.
 * The second half of the second really just explains that non-free images should be in the lowest resolution possible without distorting the image.
 * The third can also be justified. Album covers are splattered throughout the internet, including by companies selling the album for a commercial profit (Amazon, iTunes)
 * And the fourth one is what we are left with. This is the point that should be argued, as significance in this respect is completely subjective. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they've incorrectly parsed the statement, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item." They like to leave off the last four words, or assume that "item" refers to the image, rather than the thing that the art is from. -Freekee (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The appropriate usage of alternate album covers is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and elsewhere. It is inappropriate to attempt to delete this template while these discussions are ongoing, and probably inappropriate to delete it even if the consensus pans out that altenate covers may only be used under very restrictive circumstances. At the very least there is some consensus that there are situations in which providing an image of an alternate cover is appropriate and allowable, and this template provides a convenient and layout-friendly way to do that. The problem of improperly used fair-use images does not lie in the template or its application, it lies in NFCC/NFC and with the editors who are uploading the images. Deleting the template does not solve these problems. If the consensus is that we need to be more restrictive in the use of alternate covers, then the template documentation can be altered to reflect that (which is one of the topics currently under discussion) and the template need still not be deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. We've been here before, perhaps most notably in early January this year, when  nominated over two dozen alternate covers for deletion in a single day.  Some were indeed deleted, on the basis that they were minor variations which contributed little that could not be described by text.  But rather more were kept, on the basis that showing them did add significantly to the understanding conveyed by the article (NFCC #8), significantly over and above the understanding conveyed by the other cover (NFCC #1).  As a result, Peripitus backed off his programme of nominating all alternate covers for deletion, and has since carefully been identifying only those covers he considers are "very similar to an existing one, [with] differences [that] can be easily described with (free) text" -- nominations which have then gone through (largely) uncontroversially.  WP:ALBUMS has also recognised the desirability of guidance in this area, and the following text has been proposed, to add to the documentation of the album template: "...use [must] comply with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."  Personally, I think this is a sensible position, and is a good encapsulation of when showing an alternate cover can add significantly to the understanding conveyed by the article.  I think it is a good statement, in tune with the careful assessment of the community, and I commend it.  I therefore think there is a place for (some) alternate covers, and therefore this template should be retained, for those covers that meet the criterion above.  I would also add, that when we have alternate covers in infoboxes that have been considered at IfD, and which the community has decided to keep, it seems vexatious to propose to delete the template they are put in.  Jheald (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Until the community determines either that alternate album cover artwork is not allowed at all, or that such cover art does not belong in the infobox, there will remain a clear use for this template. In addition, there is no rule stating that cover art can go only in the infobox, so doing away with the template will not prevent such images from being included in articles. -Freekee (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2009 (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:Improve references (small)
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 replace with refimprove-section and delete Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this template as being used to hide article issues, rather than bring them to the attention of editors. We already have refimprove, a second version will just cause edit wars over preferred versions. After having a quick look through, this appears to be the only small template of this type we have. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like a section template, so perhaps rename/merge it to refimprove-section ? 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, this needs merged with refimprove-section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to refimprove-section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The primary purpose of such templates is to call attention to the issue; this template does the opposite! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant. —Guy Peters Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 16:52, 6 July 2009 (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:New Zealand's Next Top Model
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, as it appears this template will have further utility in only a few months. JPG-GR (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)



Redundant to the main article where this show has only one cycle aired. ApprenticeFan talk  contribs 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Still doesn't mean that it should be posted up for deletion. NZNTM will air Cycle 2 starting in October, so there's no need to post it up for deletion. CNTM is in their 3rd Cycle, and before Cycle 3 even appeared, the CNTM template wasn't posted up for deletion. Keep it!Wikipedian girl (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It'll be used within a few months and it isn't detrimental to have it ready, even if it is a few months ahead of time. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:01, 4 July 2009 (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.