Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 28



Template:PD-UK-unknown

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-UK-unknown

This template is being used, at present, as a justification for treating a British image as PD. However, in it is being claimed that it is not adequate as a justification, and therefore I would surmise that we shouldn't be using this template at all. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is true that it doesn't provide much information about the copyright status of the work in the United States. In fact, the template is only relevant for determining the copyright status in the United States if the work was first published in 1923, 1924 or 1925, and it tells nothing about the copyright status in the United States if the work was first published at some other point. However, the template tells if the work is in the public domain in the United Kingdom, which is very useful information if you wish to move a file to Commons (since British files on Commons have to be in the public domain in both the United Kingdom and in the United States). It is also very useful for people who may wish to use the file in the United Kingdom since it tells those people that the file is in the public domain there and that you don't have to depend on any fair dealing. However, I think that the template should be reworded to indicate that a file with this template sometimes isn't free in the United States and thus doesn't count as a freely licensed file on Wikipedia. Also, non-US templates like this (and PD-Australia, PD-Canada, PD-old-70 et cetera) are useful when determining if a file qualifies for PD-URAA or not.
 * If the work was published before 1923, use PD-US-1923-abroad in addition to PD-UK-unknown and consider moving the file to Commons (with Commons:Template:PD-1923+Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown).
 * If the work was published in 1923, 1924 or 1925, and without United States copyright formalities (notice+renewal), use PD-URAA in addition to PD-UK-unknown and consider moving the file to Commons (with Commons:Template:PD-1996+Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown).
 * If the work was published in 1923, 1924 or 1925 and with United States copyright formalities (very unlikely for a UK work from that time), then the file needs a non-free licence tag and needs to comply with WP:NFCC.
 * If the work was published in 1926 or later, then the file needs a non-free licence tag and needs to comply with WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Stefan2. Gobōnobō  + c 19:52, 4 February 2013 (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:Injury

 * 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) 04:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Injury
 * Referee
 * Minutes

unused and largely decorative templates (see prior discussion). Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add
 * Str
 * Stre

into consideration on the same discussion, for the same reasons. C 679 20:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, these should be considered as well. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete All – per nom. C 679 09:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete especially "str" and "stre" which look like some of the extensions to MediaWiki parser functions -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all - None of these have any discernible use. – PeeJay 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Template:Injury, as I think it could be a useful indicator as to when a player couldn't continue during a game but wasn't replaced by a substitute (e.g. if a team ran out of substitutions, or the game was played in an era before substitutes were commonplace) Delete the rest, as they aren't of any apparent use. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (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:Geographic Location 2

 * 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. Although there appears to be consensus to merge this template with Template:Geographic location, that template was not tagged for merger with this one. If someone wants to relist this as a merger proposal, please feel free. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Geographic Location 2

General duplicate of Template:Geographic location, although there are some more parameters containing here than there, all of which do appear useful. I would propose merging this template's contents into the above template, because it does not seem necessary to have two seperate templates. TBrandley (what's up) 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A merge is obviously the right approach here, but if it were easy it'd probably have been done by now. This really needs its technical details discussed on talk: TfD is unlikely to move that forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * merge, perhaps with a simple "#if" switch to check for the additional directions so as to not generate unnecessary blank cells in the simple case. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (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:2004 TNA pay-per-view events

 * 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) 04:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2004 TNA pay-per-view events

DELETE Navigates two articles already linked by infobox succession markers on both of the articles. WP:NENAN -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2013 (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:Rob Letterman

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rob Letterman

WP:NENAN. Director has only three films to his credit, two of which are from the same studio. Three is way too small for a template, especially when two are already on the DreamWorks template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * keep, useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep. A legitimate exception to NENAN, I think. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious that we need a quicker navigation tool between these articles than via the director's article. As the nom states, two of these films are already linked via a navbox, and the third is of quite a different genre; the two are not obviously of interest to readers of the other articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because I think that three directed films is the proper threshold for having a navigation template for a film director. For directors with just two films, I've created "See also" sections. I think that templating three or more films lends structure to cross-navigation. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:33, 7 February 2013 (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.