Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 19



Template:Kevin Simm

 * 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) 00:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Too soon. A navbox with only a single directly related article to navigate to is not worth having. Would only be placed in two articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - too few articles to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 23 July 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:Filmbiorationale

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly incomplete fair use rationale template. Literally every single image where it is used has been tagged for an insufficient fair use rationale. Due to the existence of other, more complete fair use rationale templates, I see no reason to try and fix this one up, but rather just migrate the images over to a more complete fair use rationale template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * not kewl to del-tag all the images that need migrating; that one pretty clearly is intended for Gwili Andre. Uncontroversial Obscurity 13:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * && proper form is to tag usages, so that more eyes (than inactive original uploaders) might fix the mess. Uncontroversial Obscurity 13:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like to comment on the merits of the template today, or just discuss decorum? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not - especially when the licence tag on these images mentions the article where the FU applies. Agathoclea (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The template sucks; it's old. I'm all for consolidating on fewer, better templates. Meanwhile, you've put a lot of images at risk. Uncontroversial Obscurity 15:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until a useful way can be transfer the intent of the template together with the licence information given elsewhere on the image pages into another FU template. Agathoclea (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Should have been addressed by reviewing and migrating to whatever teh 'more complete' templates are first. SchuminWeb should finish the process of tagging the usages or withdraw the DI-taggings and focus on migration to said 'more complete' templates; and sure, some of the images may be appropriatite to delete; I only looked at about a half dozen, but they looked like a simple matter of the appropriate information just not being in quite the appropriate form. Once orphaned with care, should be an easy reconsideration. Uncontroversial Obscurity 05:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like to help migrate fair use rationales into a more correct template, knock yourself out. Otherwise, the treatment of images tagged with this inadequate rationale is out of scope for this discussion.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What most bothers me about your conduct here, is that you skipped tagging the extant usages and this will likely result in the tagging being unnoticed, many the images deleted, and bot-removed from the 50-100 articles this seems to involve. You are right that this is not the most appropriate forum to discuss your conduct-unbecoming... I'm mostly focused on other things, so I realy don't have much focus on this, atm. *really* unimpressed with your I-broke-it, you're-free-to-fix-it snark. Uncontroversial Obscurity 04:43, 21 July 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:Alli, the Alliance of Action Sports

 * 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) 00:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unused template with multiple red links created as part of a spam campaign (see User:OlYeller21/Prob/Dew Tours - Alliance of Action Sports). MER-C 02:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per my report. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agathoclea (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This template has no purpose now. --  At am a  頭 17:51, 19 July 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 Montenegro municipality

 * 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) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Had two uses but I replaced those with Infobox settlement - now orphaned. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Agathoclea (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per this-should-a-sd-criteria. Uncontroversial Obscurity 15:12, 19 July 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.