Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 22



Template:Like

 * 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 now that the image has been changed. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like
 * Dislike

These two templates have been nominated twice before, and kept both times. This time the situation is different. Firstly the rationale is a different one than the other times, copyright infringement, secondly the discussion here may be moot as I have already nominated the two files used in these templates for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, I recommend people who want to influence the fate of these templates to particiapte in the Commons deletion discussion at. In order to further encourage people to participate in a centralized discussion at Commons, I will abstain from elaborating on my rationale here which I have presented in full there. __meco (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Duck the issue. I've uploaded a quick attempt at a thumbs-up of my own, which is independent of Facebook's work.  The previous file is an exact copy of a 13x12 image, whatever status that has.  (See ) I don't think that the formatting (choice of font, curved box, background color) is copyrightable, but you can makeover if you want.  I think we can address the copyright issue independently of deletion, which is against the consensus of previous nominations. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous times these images were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia.  Moreover, the images that were nominated for deletion by Meco on Wikimedia Commons do not even appear to be the same images nominated here.  What gives with that?  How can we have a "centralized discussion" when we are discussing two different sets of images.  And contrary to the assertion above by the nominator, the copyright rationale has been repeatedly addressed, but the nominator glosses over that fact by saying that this "rationale is a different."  I am prepared to call this a "bad faith" nomination, an obvious attempt at forum shopping to achieve a different TfD result, and a violation of the previous consensus that was reaffirmed only two months ago on Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons TfD.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The image for the Dislike template is the same image that is nominated for deletion at Commons. The Like image has been changed by Wnt after this nomination was made, as Wnt explains also. The only problem is, of course, that anyone can decide they like the older version better and simply revert to the Facebook-identical version. I'm also wondering how you could perceive a TFD nomination as forum shopping? As for your blatant misrepresentation of the two previous TFD discussions, anyone who reads them through can confirm that my description in the nomination is correct. Neither nomination mentioned the copyright issue. A couple of commenters in the first nomination asserted it seemed like a copyright violation, and there was certainly no consensus against that. In the second nomination copyright was not mentioned at all. Finally, the last previous nomination was in October 2011. That's 6—not 2—months ago. __meco (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a rule, any article with a copyvio issue can be reverted. Copyvios in history can be revdeled, but in this case the history is just links to a different filename, so that would be pointless.  I think probably the Commons picture will get deleted, in which case some other image will be necessary. Wnt (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to Meco's comments above, here is a linked list of four previous TfD nominations on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons:


 * 1. Wikipedia: Closed July 20, 2011 – Result: Kept.  Rationale: "The result of the discussion was keep."


 * 2. Wikipedia: Closed November 25, 2011 – Result: Kept.  Rationale: "Given the raw headcount (a tie), I would normally close this as 'No consensus to delete'. However, the arguments for deletion are not strong, there is no clear policy-based argument against the templates, and there were no truly compelling non-policy-based arguments against the templates. (The arguments for keeping are also not strong, but the onus is on the proposers). So I'm closing it as a clear 'keep'."


 * 3. Wikimedia Commons: Closed August 25, 2011 – Result: Kept.  Rationale: "No copyrighted file who is used in several pages."


 * 4. Wikimedia Commons: Closed February 23, 2012 – Result: Kept.  Rationale: "Too simple to be eligible for copyright, also a case of prior art (Facebook didn't design the thumb nor the hand)."


 * This image has been repeatedly attacked on what was essentially determined to be an "I don't like it" basis in two separate Wikipedia TfDs, both of which were rejected by the closing administrators. In two separate Wikimedia Commons TfDs, the copyright rationale was considered twice and rejected, the last time on February 25, 2012, two months ago (contrary to your statement above).


 * As for the image(s) being different, exactly what is the large thumb's-up image (1.5-inch by 1.75-inch) immediately below your TfD nomination box, to wit: ? This image is clearly different, unless one of us has impaired vision.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Any potential copyvio here resides in the thumbs-up image, and should be dealt with via deletion discussion for the image(s). The idea of "thumbs up" for liking something far predates Facebook, and I think there is no problem in general with us using a thumbs-up sign to mean support or liking. Because Meco did not participate in any of the past deletion discussions for these images and templates, I do not think there is any bad faith, just a bad decision to try to apply copyright at the wrong level. cmadler (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Pursuant to Cmadler's logic above, then the simple solution to the purported copyright problem is to tweak the image enough that it is clearly distinguishable in its detail from the actual 13-pixel Facebook image.  That should be readily achievable by removing the darker colored sleeve, adding detail to the folded fingers on the fist, and altering the colors.  While I appreciate Wnt's effort at addressing this, the current proposed replacement image clearly needs work.  As it currently exists, Wnt's proposed replacement image is not recognizable as a thumb's-up image to my naked eye.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the image is deleted (which I think it should, but that's a separate discussion), the solution for the templates is to create a different "thumbs-up" image. cmadler (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The copyright issue can, in any case, be resolved by substituting original images, as noted above. Otherwise, there is no harm in keeping the templates. (I realize that, separately from the nomination here, there are editors who in good faith are annoyed by these templates, but that isn't the current deletion rationale, and if you don't "like" them, you don't have to use them.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to concur that it is unlikely that any IP-based arguments are valid here (though I would not be at all surprised if the USPTO had allowed Facebook to patent the thing). If this is to be deleted it should be on the same grounds as the previous proposals: namely, that it encourages me-tooism, voting and groupthink both in principle and in practice (see the old TfDs for abundant and sadly non-ironic evidence). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thank you Wnt for taking the time to innovate so we can avoid the tedious IP argument (that probably would also have eventually resulted in a keep). ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That it would have ended up as a keep even if there were a clear copyright violation (which there arguably was previously) is not a sign of a healthy debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Tryptofish. I find the copyright rationale a red herring, as the images can easily be (and apparently already have been) swapped with different ones. I realize that some editors find the templates annoying, but then again some of us find the refusal to accept the consensus from the last two deletion discussions a bit annoying too. 28bytes (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close, per all of the above. There is not even an argument for deletion here.  The only possible reason is provided in a vaguely worded statement about copyright violations, but it's not clear whether it's saying this time that's the argument, or that was the argument the previous times.  In any case, there is no argument for how these are copyright violations.   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a speedy keep candidate. I do wish people wouldn't use the term "speedy" (which is jargon in the context of deletion) as some sort of synonym for "strong". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Much appreciated template; also free image has been uploaded. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - does not violet any copyright and there is no harm in keeping it.  Yash  t  101   15:40, 30 April 2012 (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:NASCAR next race

 * 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. Can't be directly replaced by Succession box. If someone wanted to look at merging all the motorsport next race templates into a single one, they are welcome to have a go though. WOSlinker (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NASCAR next race

This template is a duplicate of the Template:Succession box. Fbdave (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are differences in the template; therefore, 'NASCAR next race' isn't exactly a duplicate. "Previous race" and "Next race" is designed for NASCAR races only, unlike the Succession box, which is a universal template that seems to belong more on biographies than events. Now if the Succession box could be changed to match 'NASCAR next race', then delete this template. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk •  Contribs ) 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a duplicate and used fairly extensively. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nascar1996 and The Bushranger. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both sides are right, here. Succession box is meant for biographies, and is thus inappropriate here, but it's built on top of the s-start system than this template already partially uses. What we want to do here is take this and F1 race report (along with any similar templates) and generalise them so that they can be used for all race articles (there is little F1- or NASCAR-specific about these templates) while stripping out as much manual table code as possible in favour of template sub-calls. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So combine both Motorsport templates? That would be okay, I guess. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those and any others (experience in maerging motorsport templates of this sort suggests there are probably another half-dozen good merge candidates). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I only know of two. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found Grand Prix race report, WRC race report, Sportscar Race Report, V8 race report and WTCC race. So there are 7. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 23:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this approach better than using a template like Template:NASCAR Sprint Cup races that lists all the season's races? Fbdave (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I hinted (and Nascar1996 has diligently evidenced), this sort of succession is so common on motorsport articles that we'd inconvenience the rest of the encyclopedia less by sticking to the style but with a unified template. Additionally, my understanding was that we typically prefer succession boxes to navboxes for series (especially in sport). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NASCAR next race is mostly used on yearly race reports, (2010 Ford 400) not the race article themselves (Food City 500). NASCAR Sprint Cup races are on the series' article and the race articles . --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs )
 * 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.