Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 2



Template:MD Athletic Conference

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Navbox for teams in the Metro Detroit Athletic Conference, which research shows to be a hoax: if the athletic conference doesn't exist, these real schools can't be members of it. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spot-checking showed that for those articles that mentioned an athletic conference, it was never this one, so even if somehow this is a real conference, the template is bunk. --RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2011 (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 place Ireland

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete as redundant, aesthetically backwards infobox, considerably less flexible than infobox settlement. Compare the quality difference of User:Dr. Blofeld/Ireland. Its a comparison of the current infobox in Knockcroghery and the version that would replace it underneath. Surely there is no contest in quality? Substantial efforts have been made to make a revised version of the same template, without success. Infobox settlement replacements of this which have been praised even by WP:Ireland members and the fact that the main Irish cities use infobox settlement illustrates to me that this template is really not needed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD notification tag placed as requested. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template is still used in hundreds of articles, and I see no consensus on its talk page in favor of deletion. It is hardly surprising that it would be less flexible than a generalized template such as infobox settlement. If there are shortcomings, I'm not sure why they cannot be addressed by improving the template rather than deletion. &bull; Astynax talk 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Improvements to this infobox are being discussed here. [comment withdrawn]. ~Asarlaí 10:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. The fact the that template is used in hundreds of articles and "this may be an act of revenge" is not a valid reason to keep the template. It can easily be switched, losing no information and cleaning up the mess which currently exists. I made significant efforts to improve the current template but was rejected. If I am not permitted to edit the current template to improve it then the only way the current problem can be addressed is to delete this template which is redundant anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr Blofeld, when making this proposal you misrepresented the situation. Nobody at Wikiproject Ireland (apart from yourself) has called for the template to be deleted. A few editors have agreed what (small) changes to make and all we need now is someone to do it. You failed to mention either of those things. Also, if you're worried about consistency, why haven't you called for the UK placebox to be deleted? ~Asarlaí 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox UK place is highly modified so that given pin maps are programmed in to display. It has enough complex sub coding in this way to make deleting the template extremely difficult. I would certainly rather it at least was made to look like infobox settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All in good time. Meanwhile, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Despite requests no cogent reasons have been given (nor are they above), why the generic is not suitable for articles about places in Ireland.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per the argument given by Astynax. Bjmullan (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not an argument, replacing the existing templates it pretty straightforward and no information would be lost. It would also pave the way for adding infoboxes to all of the missing articles and cleaning them up and start improving standards/quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - it would appear that Asarlai's comment is correct as Blofeld was all for altering the current box and as he couldn't get his way is now trying to get it deleted.
 * Delete - Templates should be standard. There is no reason why Irish places should have their template. Use infobox settlement instead. Snappy (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and User:Snappy. The template is redundant, and besides that the grey infobox is of poor quality and is quite inflexible. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The closing admin may wish to consider whether or not of the TfD was in keeping with WP policy.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been withdrawn. ~Asarlaí 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But it still canvassed votes as shown with Eddy and Bjmullan...♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! It was the notification on the infobox that brought me here. And I'm old enough to decide and vote for myself. You should withdraw this no sense comment! Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This very template is being discussed at Wikiproject Ireland. While that discussion was ongoing, you proposed it for deletion without telling them. So, I posted a link to this proposal in that discussion (a public place). It would've been wholly unfair not to let those people know that the template they're discussing had been proposed for deletion. ~Asarlaí 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the other template is in my opinion not better then the present one in use. Then I prefer to keep the localized version. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare the quality of the infobox Dalkey to Ballinspittle. Really??♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not improve the present template with some additions from the newer template? The use of imperial measures for Ireland is wrong, because it officially went over to the metric system a long time ago. Eddylandzaat (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the unit pref in the example, so it now shows metric first. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per previous reason that the infoboxes should be uniform. The settlement infobox works fine with every other article. Why not Ireland ones? ★ K E Y S ★ (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The default position is surely to use the most general template available for the job. I can't see anything about Irish settlements that isn't handled perfectly well by infobox settlement. There simply is no good reason for this specialised template to exist. --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I can see, no one has provided any good reason why we need this template in addition to Infobox settlement. We don't need a proliferation of redundant templates. Ucucha 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Template redundancy is usually bad, and I don't see anything about this situation that justifies having an Ireland-specific template instead of Infobox settlement. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or refactor to use the same input parameters, but present the information in the format used by "Infobox settlement". With under 1200 transclusions, I prefer the delete option (after suitable replacement) with no loss in information.  It would be good if we could make some changes to "Infobox settlement" to display the grid reference directly under the coordinates.  Perhaps add a "coordinates_type1" and "coordinates_info1" or similar parameter.  Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * that would indeed be a good idea I think. I hope Plastikspork will consider adding a Irish Grid Reference parameter to feature under coordinates.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Justification of 
 * Delete. This infobox could be easily replaced by standardized Infobox Settlement. - Darwinek (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Refactor. Who says we have to have rigid conformity and have the exact same infobox used on Wikipedia? Also there are proposals which we were about to get inserted into the infobox that the generic one doesn't cover. If this one is deleted then the generic one is going to need to be altered. Consistency is good yes, but not a prerequsite, and not every country has the exact same requirements. Also the proposer Dr. Blofeld is having sour grapes that his proposed changes weren't accepted and implmented. When they rebuffed they go and propose the infoboxes deletion without informing anyone over at the Ireland WikiProject which is very bad faith seeing as we were all in dicussion on how to improve it. Pure and simply sour grapes by a disgruntled editor. Mabuska (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. And it was also of malicious intent (obviously) that I was actually adding infoboxes, maps, coordinates and images and making articles in County Cork consistent to start with even to those without any infoboxes. Your nonsense has postponed the improvements by several months. And no at the time this template was nominated you had rejected the real effort made to refactor it and keep it and the situation had grown stale and would like remain in the state its currently in and the articles remaining completely inconsistent and a mess. The Irish grey infobox is substandard, plain and simple and redundant. It doesn't need to be refactored when it can be replaced very easily. Sour grapes, revenge, whatever open your eyes and view User:Dr. Blofeld/Ireland, the quality difference is plain and obvious. We are trying to build the best possible encyclopedia here. Fat, drab grey infoboxes which features maps with dots the same block green colour as the land and lack even basic parameters to add further content are not helping. Rather it is the disgruntled Irish editors here which are the real problem and impeding any real progress. Now let's please start assuming good faith and start working on the articles instead of sitting around whining about me. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain which requirements articles about places in Ireland have, that articles about other places do not. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two official names, one in English and one in Irish. Note that it are not alternate names, but both official. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The parameter in  caters for that adequately.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irish Grid Reference.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe someone has already proposed introducing a facility for localised grid reference systems (Ireland is not the only place to have one), to, as part of this initiative. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
 * Comment Why is it some editors seem to feel the need to comment on everyone's reasons for keeping the template? And please do not comment on this. Reminds me of someone else... Bjmullan (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is called "Templates for discussion" - and you don't get to limit that discussion. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As an Irish editor, I don't see what's so special about Irish places that we need our own infobox. The infobox settlement is big and roomy enough to handle anything Irish specific, or if its not there at present it can be easily added. Calen11 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. On aesthetic grounds - the maps in the template are ugly; Bloefield was much better. Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Settlement template will suffice. --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and refactor as follows:

The use of non-standard place templates is justified by the fact that while places around the world share some universal defining characteristics, most of them are defined in additional unique ways following local standards and practices. This is hardly controversial, so striving to impose a rigidly defined universal template can confine editors unnecessarily.

Ireland is not the only place using a national place template. The table below shows a few other examples, and the number of links to those templates:




 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Template
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Links to template
 * || align=right | 17,727
 * || align=right | 7,819
 * || align=right | 1,702
 * || align=right | 70
 * }
 * || align=right | 1,702
 * || align=right | 70
 * }
 * }

That is over 27,000 Wikipedia articles from these selected examples which use non-standard Infobox place templates, and most of them are not Irish.

In, some locally-unique parameters are:




 * constituency_westminster
 * constituency_westminster 1
 * constituency_westminster 2
 * constituency_westminster 3
 * london_distance_mi
 * london_distance_km
 * london_distance
 * london_direction
 * unitary_scotland
 * unitary_scotland1
 * lieutenancy_scotland
 * lieutenancy_scotland1
 * constituency_scottish_parliament
 * constituency_scottish_parliament1
 * constituency_scottish_parliament2
 * metropolitan_borough
 * metropolitan_borough1c
 * metropolitan_county
 * metropolitan_county1
 * shire_district
 * shire_district1
 * shire_county
 * shire_county1
 * unitary_england
 * unitary_england1
 * lieutenancy_england
 * lieutenancy_england1
 * london_borough
 * london_borough


 * }

presently contains the following locally-unique parameters:




 * gaeilge
 * irish
 * scots
 * irish grid
 * province
 * county
 * NI district
 * dailconstituency
 * UK constituency
 * EU constituency
 * county town
 * code
 * stdcode
 * posttown
 * postcode
 * IEpostcode
 * IEpostcode


 * }

These parameters are not allowed for by the standard.

Suggested additional parameters for 

In any conversation about reforming, discussion could usefully examine which of the following missing locality-defining parameters might be added:




 * administrative county or city council
 * barony
 * city, urban district, town or village
 * constabulary district
 * sub-district
 * district electoral division
 * civil parish
 * local electoral area
 * nuts 3 region
 * polling district
 * parliamentary division
 * poor law union
 * townland or street
 * townland or street


 * }

Some of these these parameters are taken from Irish census forms. While some may no longer be used, they existed historically, so are pertinent to Irish place articles. — O'Dea (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The first disputable assertion is "striving to impose a rigidly defined universal template". The discussion has already demonstrated that infobox settlement is a flexibly defined universal template. As with all wiki-content, it may be improved, but with the resources of so many wikiprojects invested in it, it will always have an advantage over niche templates maintained by a very small number of editors.
 * The second point is that "Ireland is not the only place using a national place template." Indeed it isn't, but pointing out that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS simply isn't a serious argument on a wiki. The same goes for "over 27,000 Wikipedia articles ... which use non-standard Infobox place templates".
 * The assertion that Infobox settlement does not allow for parameters such as "province", etc. displays a misunderstanding of how flexible templates work. Infobox settlement uses a system of "key/value" pairs to allow the name of an otherwise hard-coded parameter to be used – for example,  would render the province of Munster.
 * Finally, I'd urge editors to consider the purpose of infoboxes: it is to present key facts for the article in a compact form. There seems to be an increasing tendency to try to write the entire article inside an infobox, and that defeats its primary goal. There may be dozens of archaic bits of information related to a place in Ireland, but it doesn't mean that every piece of trivia needs to be crammed into the infobox. At least leave a few things to write about in the text of the article. --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, most of the components you claim "unique" to Ireland such as codes and native language and subdistricts can be currently catered for in infobox settlement. Your extreme length post here exaggerates the discrepancy which exists, the actual required parameters to update infobox settlement to cater for all possibilities is very low,not more than a couple and will be done very easily. Also you list all of these bloated apparent criteria, the VAST majority of the Irish infoboxes at present contain little more than population and Irish Grid Reference!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – As in RL0919 above. Though, accommodations should be made in some cases, I also find arguments such as "not every country has the exact same requirements" are fairly weaselly. Settlement fits and newer editors can become familiar with it alone, which would allow them to focus on text improvements rather than pausing to learn each and every type of parochial infobox. Sswonk (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – There is no need to have a redundant template. — mc10 ( t / c ) 23:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the unique parameters of this infobox cannot be accommodated by Infobox_settlement, then at least make the formatting look like Infobox_settlement, so we get consistency that way. This would also be a compromise solution to the various arguments here. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Settlement infoboxes should be standardized. Some infoboxes, such as the Indonesian regency infobox template, have been deleted as redundant to the the settlement template. The same applies here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2011 (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:Cite google book

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

attempted to delete this template using the WP:PROD process, per a discussion about deleting it at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. Because prod does not apply to templates, I am submitting it for discussion here instead. RL0919 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even without the support of a bot to complete citations, this template is useful as a way to keep citations standardized. Ucucha 12:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — Currently directs you to a tool that uses cite book. Example: renders as
 * View at Google Books This template is not yet supported by a bot, so will not be completed automatically. In the meantime you could use this tool to easily create the citation manually. ExpandTemplates
 * Without the bot this template is useless. -—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete—I'd say that the template is basically worthless without a bot to finish the process. Since no bot exists to process the template, this template doesn't add anything of substance. In fact, it's a detriment by "fooling" someone into thinking that they've provided a valid citation that will be completed at some point.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps someone should put in a bot request? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without a bot, it's worthless. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2011 (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:Ming Dynasty's Northern Expeditions

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not useful - redlinks. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment created by a banned user. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A navbox with only one valid link serves no function. --RL0919 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2011 (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:Non-free book scan

 * 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, although well-intentioned, of very limited use and substantial risk for misuse. The limit number of cases which would be covered can be handled by other templates. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

While I believe this was created in good faith, I'm very uncomfortable with this template, which seems to me both unnecessary and ripe for misuse. There are almost never going to be fair use allowances for scanning pages from books...unless you are critically discussing the actual presentation of the book. WP:NFC permits the use of book covers for identification in the context of critical commentary of that item (and we already have a template for that purpose), but there is no broad allowance for scans of book pages. In the sole instance where it is currently being used (File:Pasteur Model.jpg), it is not the book that is under critical discussion, but the object depicted in the book. I'm not sure it would clear WP:NFCR review but, if it did, there are other templates that can be used, including Template:Non-free fair use in, which would not create the misimpression that there is a general allowance to scan book pages on Wikipdia. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the creator of this template. I fail to see how this template is any less necessary or any more capable of misuse than for example Template:Non-free television screenshot. And currently there is no template that fits the purpose of this one. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no routine allowance for this. Screenshots from television programs are used to identify television programs. We permit book covers, as I noted above, to identify books, not scans from book pages. The creation of a template that gives the misimpression that book page scans are routinely permitted may lead to misuse, particularly in bypassing our limitations on brief excerpts from that primarily text medium. Other templates exist to permit scans of images from books. (For instance, if you need an iconic image, Template:Non-free historic image.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What this template might be used for is, as far as I know, not a valid argument in TfD discussions. Templates_for_deletion does not list the mere possibility of misuse as a valid reason for deletion. Please point me to a policy that forbids the use of templates that could be misused. Also I think the template does not "give the misimpression that book page scans are routinely permitted", as it clearly states that their use should be kept at a minimum. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that there is no allowance in WP:NFC for their use at all, the "minimum" here should be well below the need for a specific template. But consensus will determine. As "Reasons to delete a template" notes: "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point me to a policy which states that if something is not specifically allowed per Wikipedia policy, it is automatically disallowed. As far as I know, no such policy exists and your arguments are therefore unfounded. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can explain my concerns with this template to you better. WP:NFC is a policy and guideline describing the deliberately narrow situations under which non-free content can be used. As stated there, Wikipedia is conservative in this respect. Nevertheless, there are certain classes of non-free content which are by consensus generally acceptable. Templates exist related to the usage of these because they are generally acceptable. The template you have created, unlike the one on which you based it (Template:Non-free television screenshot) is not a generally acceptable use of non-free content. Specific images from within books may fall into one or another of the generally acceptable uses; those that do not should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. That's what Template:Non-free fair use in is for: non-free content that "does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Non-free content or Non-free content". If you think there should be a blanket acceptance of scans from books, you should first achieve consensus for that at WT:NFC. A template implying that there is is misleading and prone to misuse, and it isn't necessary because we have the template for content that isn't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there are very limited but appropriate applications of this. Say there's a figure in a book that is under copyright and far exceeds the threshold of originality so that a free version can't be made, and artistic enough that even a derivative work would fail to meet the necessary quality of the original figure. Further say, the figure assuredly meets NFCC#8 in terms of applicability within the article. In such cases, the scan of that figure from the book would be an appropriate allowance to NFC, and this license template would seem to be a good way to describe it.
 * I do agree we have to be wary of this template seemingly allowing arbitrary book scans, which can be a problem. But as this is a license template and not so much the NFC policy itself, I'm not seeing having this template as a problems. Just because we don't call it out specific as an allowable or discouraged case, that should not affect the idea of the license file. And even if it is a form of media we strongly discourage over less obtrusive ones (such as Non-free video sample), we still can have a license template specifically for such cases. --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that would seem to be a case for Template:Non-free fair use in: non-free content that (as per its language) "does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Non-free content or Non-free content". If the image wanted from a book does not meet one of the blanket templates in use, we do have that viable option. (There is at least some specific guidance for Non-free video samples at WP:NFC.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to keep in mind that there is a different between "type of copyright license" and "allowable non-free uses"; they overlap but are not one-to-one. Having specific licenses help to create defacto categorization of non-free content such that all uses within a specific category can be periodically reviewed to make sure they are appropriate. Of course, we don't want this area to be overcategorized - forcing users to select from a 100-some different licenses would be completely impractical, so of course we don't need license templates for narrow uses. But I don't see this as being that narrow. --M ASEM  (t) 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unlikely to have any significant amount of legitimate use; the rare cases it could be legitimately can be handled by other general templates without the need for this specific one. Regarding the "what is allowed" policy debate above, most of our policies are intended to reflect past community consensus, not to restrict what that consensus can be in the future, and often a TFD results in deletion based on grounds other than "it violates a policy". Some legal policies are an exception: we are obligated to follow those regardless. That includes copyright policies that limit our use of this type of scan. As a result, I don't see the acceptable use case for this template being at all common, so while Masem is right that we could have a template like this, but I believe Moonriddengirl has made a very reasonable case that it is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Again I think the template is not any less necessary or any more capable of misuse than Template:Non-free television screenshot. And please point me to a policy which states that a template is suitable for deletion if it is stastically used on very few articles. If the use in the specific articles is appropriate, I would say these few cases are acceptable. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The two are not analogous; Template:Non-free television screenshot specifically falls "into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Non-free content". Templates are suitable for deletion for any reason, of course, that the community agrees is a valid one. As I quoted above, "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." (See DP). In specifics, the template in question does not reflect consensus. It claims that "Per § 107 of US copyright law it is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book pages or parts thereof for identification and critical commentary on the book or its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." No consensus has been established that the use of book pages or parts thereof qualify as fair use "for identification" of the book; community consensus is that we may use book covers for that. Interior pages are not the same. While some few scans from books may be appropriate, there are other tags to address that, including the previously existing Template:Non-free fair use in, which acknowledges that the use is not "blanket acceptable". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The template satisfies none of the criteria in Non-free_content. Thus deletion per WP:NFCI is not applicable to this template. You say


 * "Templates are suitable for deletion for any reason, of course, that the community agrees is a valid one."


 * However the only agreement applicable here would be the outcome of this discussion currently in progress. Thus it can only be deleted on the grounds of the outcome of this discussion. And this discussion has hardly reached a state that can be called consensus. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say or mean to imply that consensus is established here; these discussions remain open typically for seven days. I'm sorry if my text was misleading. The point of noting that was to epxlain that there is no policy needed that says that templates are suitable for deletion if statistically used for very articles; Consensus is the policy that governs here. The template satisfies none of the criteria at WP:NFCI; we have a template specifically for images that do not as well as several others that will govern when images taken as scans from books actually do meet NFCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Moon's assessment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The template does not satisfy any of the reasons to delete a template
 * @Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: Consensus is not a majority vote


 * Per § 107 of U.S. Copyright law considering § 107 (1)-(4), if the use of scanned book pages or parts thereof
 * "is for nonprofit educational purposes"
 * "presents only a limited amount of the whole copyrighted work if not used extensively on Wikipedia"
 * "has no substantial negative effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"
 * and if no substantial amount of the copyrighted work is used on Wikipedia their use is allowed. And yes, people might abuse this template. However, nearly everything on Wikipedia could possibly be abused, so this is not an argument. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete without prejudice to future recreation. I am recommending deletion not because of the potential for misuse (which I believe is a complete red herring), but simply because there is no current need to separately categorise the single use separate from other low use reasons for including non-free content. This said, I can see the potential for more such sans to be used in future, so if at some future point there is somewhere in the order of a dozen or more places where such a template would be legitimately used, then will be the time to create it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The creator first used this tag on File:Pasteur Model.jpg. This was already a (well intentioned) abuse, for the use was for identification of the subject of the image—not for "critical commentary on the book and its contents." —teb728 t c 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: We don't, by default, allow non-free content to be used without a very good reason being provided. We do have several "blanket" templates that are used to various degrees, including this one. I personally dislike Non-free fair use in as an alternative to anything. At least the templates, such as the one being discussed here, are specific. I have said in prior discussions if we delete one of these we should go ahead and delete all of them for the basic reason/s - it can be misused greatly. The Non-free historic image tag is an good example of such a tag. However what I do like about that tag is it trys to be very explicit in how such images can be allowed - if the worry with this template is potential misuse than lets keep it and just add explicit wording that emphasis that a page may only be used where it is, itself, the subject of sourced critical commentary. We can even be more specific if needed - stating that pages simply consisting of text should not/never be used (This same exact concept should be applied to other like templates - for example Non-free newspaper image : This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article... / Non-free sheet music : This is an image of sheet music...). There needs to be some barrier between acceptable use and misuse of re-purposed non-free content. By that I mean, for example, you cannot crop an image from a CD, DVD or Book and than slap another Non-free template on it in hopes of using it in another manner. If a page from a book was scanned, and was the subject of sourced critical commentary, it should use this template. It should not use, for example, Non-free historic image, Non-free mural, Non-free board game cover or Non-free poster simply because the page contains that. It is the exact same concept of why you can't take a book cover and use it to illustrate a subject that appears on the cover.  Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are few cases where this is correctly applied, and it sends the wrong message, since it is frequently misapplied. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (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.