Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 22



Template:Denver Public Library public domain images

 * 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. Misleading tag. Will replace existing transclusions with appropriate public domain tags, or PD status can't be confirmed, appropriate fair use tags or WP:FFD nomination. RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no arguments why the files from Denver Public Library is public domain. http://history.denverlibrary.org/images/copyright.html#copyright says: "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees." MGA73 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The original template in 2006 included a link to http://photoswest.org/ which now redirects to http://digital.denverlibrary.org/ -- it seems plausible that in 2006, photoswest.org hosted only public domain images, but that's clearly no longer the case. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:27, 22 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:Do list

 * 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 no consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite the name, this does not "do lists", in the HTML sense, but makes pseudo-lists, which are neither semantically correct nor accessible. It is now redundant to the recently-improved Flatlist, which uses proper list markup (and can accommodate ordered lists, too). If the choice of separators is really required (this is debatable), these could be added to by way of a switch. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per accessibility issue and redundancy with Flatlist. With 382 transclusions it shouldn't be too hard to make the changes either way, but could a bot replace Do list with Flatlist? Dodoïste (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. Here's a - note though, that there is talk of embedding the class in Navbox (see that template's talk page), so Flatlist may not be needed.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys realise the absolute mess this proposal is making of the live site, right? See, for one example, Template:Intel processors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionsPhil (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now fixed with the use of a noinclude -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replace with WrapItemsAfterSeparator. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to nominate for deletion, pending, for the same reasons.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - Tomorrow I will weed out the last uses of {Do list} (of which {Intel processors} is the biggest one) and then delete {Do list}.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hear it. But we can't do it just yet, we will have to change the flatlist template first. See, currently you can't make nested horizontal lists with flatlist. That's because we are mixing wiki syntax and html-like DIVs. Before opening a new DIV, MediaWiki closes the previous UL. This kind of behavior is usual, it does the same with several other kinds of syntax. It probably has it good sides. We're probably at fault for not using a SPAN, or not styling the UL itself. See Template talk:Flatlist‎ for details. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that there's only one remaining instance (all others seem to be transclusions of that), we could keep the template but deprecate it; or Subst: it. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Substing is a mess, I'll convert Intel processors tomorrow.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep until it can do the nested lists, then delete as redundant and improper "list" code. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nested horizontal lists are impossible. I have tried various tweaks, but HTMLtidy keeps getting in the way, and there is no way around it (unless Mediawiki implements ).  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, cannot be replaced by "flat list" template. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 10 May 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:Flatlist compact

 * 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, but userfy upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fork of Flatlist, used to apply a different style. If that is needed, a better solution would be to add a switch to, or to add conditional CSS to Common.css  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this template, I agree completely that a switch in Flatlist would be a much better solution. The extra class ("hlist nomargin") already exists in common.css, but Flatlist does not make use of it at present - hence this template. I would request therefore, that this template is not deleted until after Flatlist is modified to make use of the "nomargin" class, so that we retain a template that is usable directly in navboxes, etc. Having looked, this template is now unusable because of the tfd notice associated with it renders it worthless for use as an example in navboxes. Delete. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you need it for demonstration purposes, may I suggest a copy in your user space? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:04, 23 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:USdollars

 * 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * USdollars
 * Half dollar (United States coin)
 * Pennies
 * Coinage (United States coin)

Propose merging Template:USdollars with Template:Coinage (United States coin).

I think it is better for the reader to have a single unifying template. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Coinage (United States coin) should probably be moved to Template:Coinage (United States).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I would have thought "USdollars" would also cover dollar bills... 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:46pm • 10:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I like the dollar coin template, but the generalized one seems to cover the topic just fine. I still think that all U.S. denominations should be included, though. An "other" (20 cent, 2 cent, 3 cent, platinum eagles etc) and a "gold" section would cover everything nicely without making the template much larger.-RHM22 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, either extend it or have one for obsolete coinage. Frankly, I think, like RHM22, it could all be put in one template.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems pretty solid to me.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:24, 5 May 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:Do not move to commons - copyright subject

 * 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. Redundant to other fair-use tags that are already required. RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, photos of a copyright subject are copyright; I don't think the English Wikipedia follows different rules than Commons. The only files this is applied to are tagged as non-free, fair use images, which it is no more necessary to say can't be on Commons than with copyright covers of books and magazines. &mdash;innotata 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful tag; reminder and wakeup call - serves a useful purpose. Good template...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it needed here, and not with every other copyright image? &mdash;innotata 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This template is a failsafe, it is useful and needed...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the same could apply to all copyright images. &mdash;innotata 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need a big banner for such a basic prerequisite. Anyone moving images to Commons should already understand the requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant, the notice itself is used on VERY, VERY few pages. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:48pm • 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Redudant as (1) copyrighted files could only uploaded under a non-free license and (2) Commons doesn't accept copyrighted files. Armbrust  Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  02:21, 26 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:LOSS UN
<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 Delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:49pm • 10:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's unclear for what it should be used. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  02:23, 26 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:Irreligious people
<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 Delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete This template is rather misleading in implying that agnostics, humanists, deists, pantheists are all necessarily irreligious, which is factually untrue. Additionally, we already have Template:Irreligion and Template:Irreligion Sidebar, so this template is duplicative anyway. <b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

*Neutral I created the template, but i wished Cybercobra discussed this with me before proposing deletion. I am wiling to change my vote to delete if you propose an alternative heading. Pass a Method  talk  09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - i changed my vote to delete. I am gonna make an identical temp but with a new name. Pass a Method  talk  08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Duplication & problematic - Template:Irreligion already has atheism & agnosticism; Template:Irreligion Sidebar has a section on "people" which has the same items & makes the same problematic presumptions this template makes. That template also needs fixing, but we do not need to compound the problem by needlessly duplicating its problems. The whole topic of irreligion is problematic and needs review - see Talk:Irreligion. Hardly any 2 studies use the term in the same way --JimWae (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:51, 23 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.