Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25

Template:InvalidSVG

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 debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InvalidSVG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

SVG editors such as Inkscape add their own attributes to SVG files that the validator doesn't recognize. This template could therefore be added to every SVG created with Inkscape, which is a lot of them, this "invalid markup" claim says absolutely nothing about whether or not it will render properly since almost all images so tagged do render properly. In short this template says nothing other than "This file was edited with an SVG editor that adds its own attributes" and is therefore useless -- Gurch (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see how Image:Beijing 2008 Olympics logo.svg renders incorrectly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok so yes, the images do render correctly on the browser but isn't the W3C Validator concerned at how standards-compliant the image is? A valid SVG markup will then ensure that the SVG file concerned is browser interoperable, that is, it will be rendered properly on different web browsers that render it. Xeltran (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really don't mind the idea behind this template, but shouldn't the requirement for W3C Valid SVG be a listed as a policy before this template is applied to all the SVG files with proprietary headers?

…regardless Delete: Furthermore, even if W3C Valid SVG is adopted as policy, this would be better managed with a regular bot-run applying a [[Category:Proprietary SVG]] instead of the use of a userbox-ish template on a page people rarely look at. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I love to be a code purist HTML/XML/etc, but due to the way Inkscape handles SVG I wouldn't bother. Inkscape gives user the option to save in "Plain SVG", but if you do, you lose a lot of information, most important of which is layering information, which helps future editor. --Voidvector (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ongoing legal case

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 debate was Redirect - to {{Current court case}} --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing legal case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

superseded by Template:Current court case. ninety:one 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as alternative if it should be used on the same cases. But I wonder if that is correct, is legal really the same as in court? Because threatening to sue someone makes something a legal case...but it's not yet in court. Can't that be a different situation where this template works and the court-case-one not? So Why 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as duplicative of {{Current court case}}.
(And also both of these templates redundantly copy the functionality of the {{current}}. ) The articles that either of these legal/court templates have been applied to tend to not warrant use of any kind of disclaimer, as it is unremarkable that a topic is in the news or subject to change, and typically the subject topics do not change for months or years at a time. {{Ongoing legal case}}, as duplicative of the functionality of {{current court case}} is a likely candidate for speedy deletion, via WP:CSD T3 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete although perhaps merging of one or two more could work. --Candlewicke (Talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:State highways in Illinois

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 debate was delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State highways in Illinois (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Browsing with a navbox isn't necessary, since both browsing and a link to the list are provided in the infobox. A list of prior discussions on state highway templates here shows previous consensus to delete. Also, why does the navbox only go to 110 when the highest numbered route is Illinois Route 394? -- Kéiryn (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Kéiryn's comments. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You think that's bad? Look at the ratio of template-to-content on Auzielle! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of state highways in Illinois can do a much better job of presenting the list (although it's currently rather eh), and is linked from the infobox of every relevant article. --NE2 03:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Make Infobox

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 debate was delete all. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Make Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Pub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Private park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a significantly kludgier version of {{infobox}} with less features. I would speedy it under T3 but it isn't a substantial duplication as such as it goes about things a different way. The two co-noms are unused instances of said template, which themselves are mostly T3 candidates. No mainspace transclusions and alternative templates are generally superior. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Redundant. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Infobox}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead

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 debate was Speedy keep. As several people have pointed out: a list of compiled data (what these templates are used for), as well as the order in which this data is organized, are inelligable for copyright, as there is no creative element involved. This principle is reflected in WP:COPYRIGHT in the following way: Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:DoctorWhoEpisodeBody (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copyright violation of the "archive" tables in Outpost Gallifrey's episode guides, e.g. [1]. Declined speedy (which was a stupid thing to do, as it's a copyvio) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No matter how "stupid" you think it may be, facts aren't covered under copyright. The presentation is significantly different enough that it isn't even remotely infringement. Rearrange a column if you feel so strongly about it. (As best as I can tell, that is your argument, that presenting the data in the same order is the infringement.) user:j (aka justen) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea why this is up for deletion...how can it possibly be considered a copyvio? Gavin Scott (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of facts constitutes a new creative work that is copyrightable. The presentation of the table is so similar to OG's (the only change is that the episode name has been moved a little bit) that it constitutes a copyright violation. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong, they do not have a copyright on what is an extremely basic way to present facts. Gavin Scott (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be basic, but by presenting it that way, they hold a copyright on that method of presentation, until they relinquish said copyright. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mere compilation of facts is not copyrightable, either. The presentation here is not an exact duplication, it is sufficiently (and quite visibly) different. I think you're arguing that the compilation of the facts (i.e. the similarity in the order of the rows and columns) is the violation, and under international copyright law, there's no protection extended there. user:j (aka justen) 03:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "Sufficiently different" as in the colours onyx and black are "sufficiently different", then yes, they are. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep hopefully this will put an end to this silliness. Having tried to discuss this reasonably on the template talk page, lets get a decision one way or 'tother. IMO the idea that a table structure can be a copyright violation is just ludicrous. Perhaps we should all be paying royalties to the estate of Mr. Gutenberg or whoever came up with table structures in the first place? --Deadly∀ssassin 03:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the arguments cited above. Also, where do we take the bad faith action of Sceptre for removing transclude uses of the templates in lieu of working through the deletion process? - J Greb (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I requested that Sceptre pause his removal of the template until the conclusion of this discussion. He declined. user:j (aka justen) 03:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the place to take it would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents although I stand to be corrected. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really believe WP:AN/I would be appropriate. I think Sceptre was incorrect on a few points in this matter, but this issue can, should, and hopefully will be resolved here at TfD. user:j (aka justen) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, just one other point, can I ask since when is nominating something for speedy deletion the answer to an ongoing discussion that you're loosing? Spectre - this isn't good form at all you know. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as based on the clearly false premise of copyvio. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Facts aren't copyrightable. Presentation can be copyrightable, but it takes more creative input than seen here. There's no copyright violation present in this template. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention, not only are we copying the table-like format sufficiently to be seen as very similar, we're copying the text in the table verbatim too. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "text" in the table is not copyrightable. Facts are not copyrightable. The title of the episode would obviously need to be verbatim. The original air date would need to be verbatim. The designation of the length of the episode is an international standard. The ratings, in millions, is a number. And the type of film, well, you get the point (or you don't, apparently). You should withdraw this. user:j (aka justen) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way the dates are formatted (with a leading zero, against WP convention) is proof enough that the data was pretty much copied and pasted. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If every single one of the facts was copied and pasted verbatim, it still does not make it a copyvio. Repeat after me: facts and the compilation of facts cannot be copyrighted. If the author of that template came here right now and admitted to using that table as a source, or even to copying each fact over, it simply does not matter as far as copyright law is concerned. One more time: a compilation of facts is not copyrightable. The presentation may be, but it would have to be practically an exact duplication, literally: the background of the table would have to be black and the text white, there would have to be a line break between the episode title and the rest of the data, the archive information would need to appear at the bottom, not in another column. Now you said in your nomination that you think I'm "stupid" for disputing your speedy on this, so no matter how many times I try to persuade you of the facts here, I don't think you're ever going to accept them coming from me. Therefore, I wish you luck, and I'll let you go on about, without any further interference from me, in baselessly trying to have this template deleted as a copyvio. user:j (aka justen) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have a problem with these, per above. U-Mos (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:j makes a perfectly reasonable point. Even if something is copyvio because it uses a "wrong" formatting as Sceptre claims, then the way to go is to fix the formatting, not to delete everything. So Why 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.