Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 7



Template:Alt Image

 * 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 marked as Historical JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)



WP:TFD #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed system added to Wikipedia in October 2008 (see WP:ALT ). Template:Alt Image/doc states that the template is no longer needed. Template does not appear to be used by any Wikipedia articles. Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deprecate mark historical. I would suppose that persons who would benefit from this template would also look into historical versions of pages. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:49, 11 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:Aviation accidents and incidents

 * 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 procedural close. While a consensus is in it's beginning stages at best, none of the templates that utilize this template (i.e Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in YEAR) were appropriate tagged, or mentioned by name, and therefore would not be deleted as a result of this discussion anyway. This close is with no prejudice toward any future discussion, provided that this discussion is appropriately linked in the deletion nomination. JPG-GR (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)



These navboxen, one two for each year, duplicate Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009, contrary to WP:Template namespace "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function.", introducing a configuration management (coherence) problem unnecessarily. LeadSongDog come howl  16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was prior discussion recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force. There are several related templates, essentially two for each year of flight plus the basic template. Variant names are "..incidents and accidents.." vice "..accidents and incidents.."


 * Comment I saw the per-year navboxes and realized it's really a bad idea to have so many of them with potentially conflicting styles, so I created a master one for style, which all the others transclude. The color was also very distracting (bright orange) which I reverted in the master to less conspicuous default purple-blue. In addition, I made sure they are all collapsed by default in the master (they were all uncollapsed originally). I have no strong opinion on the core issue of navboxes at the bottom of crash articles; I can live with or without them, as long as they are collapsed by default and inconspicuous. Crum375 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Duplicates Categories. Perhaps one template could be created for use on all the accident/incident articles. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Support  Oppose as right now, there are many templates regarding as aviation accidents or incidents per year. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 17:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - all templates are here - Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates TouLouse (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A better implementation is possible to make. For example a template showing chronological aviation accident by decades...(1970s ...1980s...2000s) TouLouse (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Further guidance on the topic is at Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates which seems to contradict WP:Template namespace as quoted above. See it's extensive talkpage too.LeadSongDog come howl  18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this set of templates duplicates the related category structure. Presumes that the reader would want to easily navigate to accidents in the same year and also duplicates information in the Year in aviation articles. The Year in aviation articles provide a short summary so would be better for those wishing to explore accidents on an annual basis. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we choose to use navboxes we should learn from Category:Olympics navigational boxes where there are multiple ways of navigating (by year, by sport, by nation). We could equivalently navigate by year, by aircraft, by carrier, by site, by flag, by cause, by severity. It's only got to be auto-generated (by transclusion or by bots) from the cats in order to make sense.LeadSongDog come howl  22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I find the templates too "busy" to be useful (i.e. too much information trying to be conveyed). The current article appears bold, even though it might have less than 50 fatalies.  (Who determined that 50 fatalities was significant?) Duplication of existing categories and lists.  The year of the accident is only one dimension of interest  - other interesting points of commonality might include the aircraft type, accident type, country etc, etc.   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   10:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Template is useful. Issues about style/presentation can be dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Duplicates category, needs constant updating (for example currently it's missing the Southwest accident). --Ferengi (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though I'm not sure whether it is really useful to include minor incidents, or incidents that do not have a Wikipedia article yet, I think it is good that there is something to ease navigation between aircraft incidents better than a messy (i.e. non-chronological) list of all Category members. Considering Ferengi's argument above, I disagree: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and only the current-year template would need occasional updating. Andreas Willow (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Andreas Willow. Minor incidents aren't necessarily template-worthy, but I do feel that a template for aviation accidents and major incidents is useful for ease of navigation. Justin Herbert (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but include just airliners -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I consider these very useful for navigation. But I agree with getting rid of the minor accidents. Those articles shouldn't really even exist. In 50 years no one is going to care that a local Continental airliner with 50 aboard made an emergency landing because of decompression. Colipon+(T) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This works hand-in-hand with categories and lists, so saying that there is already a category isn't a valid reason for deletion. The template needs tidying up a bit - say grouping them by month (much like a film directors' template is grouped by decade).  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:56, 15 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:Do not move to Commons

 * 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) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)



This template gives an non-important warning, which has a habit of be forgotten in time when suddenly PD laws updates. For example when pd-art gets new allowance in countries etc... A lot of instances of this template is wrong, and best I think is to scrap this template fully. → Aza Toth 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I suspect similar arguments could be made for all maintenance templates, so I really don't see this as a primary objection. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep without it, images will just get deleted at commons when transwikied. Aside from the fact that fair-use images fall out of copyright all the time, so you could say that the "fairuse" tag is a similar warning because it too is temporal. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the oddities of United States law, many images are PD-US but would be deleted if copied to Commons. All too often files are deleted locally after this happens, which means some contributions are needlessly deleted. Perhaps a way to maintain files using the template could be developed, possibly with a parameter that defines when it might be safe to copy them to Commons. -Nard 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its usefulness (avoiding the risk of deleting images by erroneous transfer to Commons) outweighs the problems. --Ferengi (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep useful template, that helps to keep images from possible unnecessary deletion in commons. feydey (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nard. ddima.talk 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the template is critical to survival of images that are allowed here but not on Commons. "Scrapping" the template, quite likely, will scrap the tagged images too. NVO (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this template only offers a purely advisory opinion (which people are free to ignore if they think they have good reason), but in many cases, following the advice will actually save everybody a lot of work all around (i.e. copying an image to Commons, then deletion discussions on Commons, then an admin deletes it on Common, then a request to admin on Wikipedia to undelete the old untransferred version, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Improve then keep: Add an "expiry" parameter that uses ParserFunctions to hide the entire template once January 1 of the year following the estimated expiry has happened. I almost feel like doing it myself in a personal sandbox. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Done. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment After some discussion/thoughs I think the proper way is to merge this template into pd-us as they both imply each other. → Aza Toth 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so -- many PD-US images are perfectly acceptable on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep' per everyone above, should probably be closed per WP:SNOW - Epson291 (talk) 08:09, 14 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.