Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 4



Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot

 * 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) 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free Microsoft screenshot

Attempts to exert unnecessary conditions beyond those needed for normal fair use cases on Wikipedia. (Non-free software screenshot) ViperSnake151   Talk  22:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It states clearly and links to the explicit use license, and makes reliance on the fair use doctrine unnecessary. This is a special case of "non free", in that permission is explicitly granted for publication. Such explicit licensing is an entirely separate class than either "freely licensed" or use under fair use. Fair use presumes an adversarial relationship with the copyright holder, who grants no permission for use. The fair use doctrine was created to balance the rights of copyright holders with the rights of authors to discuss, and quote with restrictions, small portions of copyrighted works. IMHO, this class of use (licensed, but not free) merits separate representation, as expressed in this template. If only other image sources would "get it" and publish such clear use licensing. WMF Legal really should weigh in here. --Lexein (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It does not exert unnecessary conditions beyond those needed for normal fair use cases on Wikipedia. Rather, it informs readers that a free, but limited license for use beyond non-free exists for the media.Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As my friends said above, it does not attempt to exert unnecessary control because Mirosoft's terms are far less restricting than that of Wikipedia itself. For every clause in there we have tighter policies. However, I also see two additional huge benefits in this template:
 * It gives more legitimacy to Wikipedia's work. We are no longer using Microsoft's image under fair use, which is deliberately written in vague terms, but rather with permission of the author.
 * It informs the reader that he or she has more liberty as to what to do with the image outside Wikipedia. Like I said above, Mirosoft's terms are far less restricting than that of Wikipedia itself.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While I personally dislike licence proliferation like this, we do have an entire category for files which are non-free but have liberal licensing. That said, the requirement not to resize the image means that we are basically never using the images thus tagged under MS's licence on en-WP, and it's therefore not obvious why we care. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just a minor clarification: Microsoft license grants freedom to resize. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It tells us a lot of things:
 * We don't need to worry about WP:NFCC in any situation (although this rarely if ever should be a problem with software screenshots).
 * We are not actually depending on fair use as there is explicit permission. Compare with Non-free with permission and similar templates.
 * The template tells that the use of the image isn't only permitted in the United States, but also in other countries. Compare with Non-free Old-70 and similar templates. By knowing that an image is covered by this licence, people using Wikipedia data outside the United States do not have to strip articles of the images.
 * It seems to provide the same kind of information which we also have other templates for, so I don't see any reason to delete this one unless you wish to avoid providing useful legal information to anyone trying to use Wikipedia data. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 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:SinglesCat

 * 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 after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SinglesCat

It produces an automated list of interwikis and categories. I suggest that we subst it instead of leaving it like this. This will enable mocing interwikis to Wikidata. Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: May I suggest you do the work to do that, then, once you have made this template have no links using it and all of the pages that used it are inlined/subst'd, then, and only then, come back and say that you have made the template superfluous. Otherwise, if the template is deleted, how are the links to remain? You think it's unnecessary, you do the work to make it unnecessary, then I'll agree. I don't care and I used a template for this exact reason, because I'd rather the computer do the work than me! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the template will be deleted before the changes are made. Moreover, I didn't suggest a deletion but a template substitution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but somebody has to do the dirty work. I'm simply saying, I don't care that the template no longer remains if someone (wink, wink, nudge) does the work to replace the template by something else, as long as that someone (wink, wink, nudge) isn't me, and once that someone has done the work to replace it, I would withdraw objections to removing it. Otherwise I object to it being proposed for deletion at all until after that work is done lest the someone who should do the work turns into no one and the template is deleted without the substution having been done. You cannot trust that someone will promise to do something, as Ronald Reagan said, trust, but verify. If it's been done and the template has no usage, then I agree it's superfluous and there's no reason it can't be removed, after the work has been completed. Until the work has already been done and is complete I strongly object in the highest possible terms to this sham of a mockery and a mockery of a sham of something or other, I just need something to rouse a complaint about it! Once the work is done, then I have no longer have something to complain about and object to, then, like the late Whitney Houston, I have nothing to complain about and will not object to it being removed. Until then, I say no, no, a  (some number usually at or near 1000) times, no! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk)
 * Don't worry. We have enough willing editors and I have a tool to do the job automatically. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So let's see it. As of right now there are still links to that template by pages that are using it. If there are so many 'willing editors' why does this page still have links to it? Why is this page still in use as a template? Where are they? Where are these willing editors to step forward and complete the work? From what I am seeing, sounds more like ghost editors. Again, I oppose this in the strongest terms because those demanding its removal (which, from what I've seen, is you and you alone) have done nothing to make it superfluous. Make it superfluous first, then say that the work has been done and it's worth deleting. Why has this not been done if its deletion is so important and necessary? The fact that no work has been done shows clearly that if it is deleted nobody will bother. Show, not tell. Prove, not claim. Act, not talk. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete however...  There are 68 articles that use this. No template should be automatically adding interwiki links now Wikidata is online. Besides, the majority of interwiki links have already been added to Wikidata, rendering the template's interwiki link capability a hinderance. Using a template to add categories is generally regarded as a bad idea. I can see some merit in having the template if interwiki link and category code was removed from the template. Bgwhite (talk) 18:02, 8 May 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:Nicktoons

 * 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 to Nickelodeon original series. Ruslik_ Zero 17:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nicktoons

Literally Almost 100% of these shows are already on Nickelodeon original series. Either split them off that template or delete this one; we don't need an overlap this significant. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of them (Wayside, Kappa Mikey) aren't a Nickelodeon original series however.--Sd-100 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's still a monstrous overlap that needs to be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The templates are redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree per . JJ98 (Talk) 12:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like if we delete it, we could transfer it to a wiki called Speedy Deletion Wiki about recents deleted Wikipedia entries ^^; --Sd-100 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge Maybe a sub-listing for shows unique to Nicktoons? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * comment using diff, it looks like the following are in Nicktoons, but not in Nickelodeon original series:
 * Alien Dawn (2013—)
 * Edgar & Ellen (2007–2009)
 * Making Fiends (2008)
 * Monsuno (2012–)
 * NFL Rush Zone: Guardians of the Core (2010–2011)
 * NFL Rush Zone: Season of the Guardians (2012–)
 * Nicktoons Film Festival (2004–2009)
 * Random! Cartoons (2008–2009)
 * Ricky Sprocket: Showbiz Boy (2007–2009)
 * Shorts in a Bunch (2007–2008)
 * The Secret Show (2007–2010)
 * Three Delivery (2008–2009)
 * Voltron Force (2011–2012)
 * Wild Grinders (2012–)
 * merge, making a subsection for the ones listed above. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 16 May 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.