Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 21



Template:Non-free use rationale photo

 * 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) 04:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)



Apparently hard coded template with minimal usages? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 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:Hpfur

 * 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) 04:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)



Redundant to other templates ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:17, 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:Album rationale

 * 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 support for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)



Substed template that is seemingly redundant to Non-free use rationale album Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - for image non-free use templates, there are 2 styles - those which are intended to be substituted, and those which aren't. I prefer the substituted style, because after the template is substituted, the wording can be adjusted without having to understand the intricacies of a complex template. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we should write the documentation better. There is no reason why there should be redundant templates; that's confusing.  I guess the problem is the guide and not the template.Curb Chain (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and redesign template to call on Album cover fur similar to how Manga rationale calls on Manga cover fur and Book rationale calls on Book cover fur . This will require some alterations to Album cover fur so that is can switch between Non-free use rationale and Non-free image data/Non-free image rationale to allow for a more condense summary pages when the image is used on more than one article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:53, 25 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:Law & Order: Trial By Jury

 * 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 keep. Articles covered in the navbox are at AfD; template's future can be discussed once they close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Most of the articles in the template are for characters who are either non-notable (and which I have redirected as non-notable and unsourced for several years) or not primarily associated with this series. All of the articles are accessible through the article on the series. No additional topics related to the series are likely to ever become notable and the template is unnecessary. Calvin Grant (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The undiscussed merges have been reverted. This template is part of a series. And I disagree with the "primary association" as being the only reason to include a navbox; it's exactly the sort of situation where a navbox is beneficial to the reader, in that it reminds them that these characters Appeared in the opening credits of more than one series. oknazevad (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those would be undiscussed merges of articles that have had sourcing requests in two instances for three years, with none forthcoming since they don't exist, and which can be removed as unsourced at any time. The only legitimate character articles are accessible through the article on the series and the series is accessible through the character articles. "Part of a series" is not a valid reason for keeping an otherwise unneeded template. Calvin Grant (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Why? What's a REAL reason to have this template removed? User:Calvin Grant, or User:Rajah (or whoever you are) I've been following you and a lot of edits in the pages of the Law & Order (franchise) I feel that you've been abusing the power of the discussion/delete articles act on this website. I will not quit until there is a full and thorough investigation of the articles/templates/redirected pages you wish to see deleted. Other show's templates don't even have this much information and they last longer than this show did! So no, this is a keep. All notable and all referenced as much as can be. No vandalism to be seen on said page(s). Keep.--SVU4671 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the articles in question are at AfD now, it seems prudent to withdraw this TfD. If the result of the AfDs is that there aren't enough separate articles to justify having a navbox any more, ping me and I'll speedy it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:04, 22 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.