Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 15

< May 14	May 16 >

May 15

Human evolution/Species chart large

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. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in article space. Dismissed as too large to be used at Talk:Human evolution/Species chart#Help. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only real difference between this chart and Human evolution/Species chart (which is actually used) is that "ImageSize" was changed from "width:650 height:400" to "width:1150 height:500". --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 15:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and presumably unwanted. Robofish (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into an image file and upload to Commons to see if anyone wants to use it if the creator wants to try to keep it, but as a template it's an obvious Delete as unused and unloved. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2009 (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:Non-free with permission

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. Garion96 (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free with permission (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The fact that these images end up having to comply with WP:NFCC and thus fair use makes this template stupid and unnecessary. If we end up ultimately doing fair use for these images, why even have permission since most fair use is done without it anyway. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need some template to indicate that additional permission was given. Otherwise the effort of people who seeked it out and gave it will be wasted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Securing permission for the use of non-free images covers our collective posteriors, since there may exist a class of images which meet the requirements of our our fair use policy, but are not legally fair use. Furthermore, images uploaded on good-faith fair use justifications may turn out to be neither consistent with WP:NFCC nor fair use under American copyright law; obtaining permission limits the potential harm inflicted upon the uploader by protecting him against a possible lawsuit for copyright infringement. Given the vagueness and uncertainties of the fair use doctrine, permission may sometimes be a prudent measure to avoid legal risk. Erik9 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik9 - better safe than sorry. Good faith in fair use claims is fine as a general method of hoping to avoid problems, but evidence that there's permission is very helpful should anyone ever try to complain. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2009 (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:Infantes of Aragon

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. Garion96 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infantes of Aragon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Of no navigational aid to anybody. These "generations" are absolutely unknown by number, the majority of names are unlinked and nondescript, and often preceded by a redundant "Crown Prince" or "Infante". Srnec (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a navigational aid to me, and I'm certainly somebody. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, let's crosscheck the generations listed and improve the template rather than delete it. --Caponer (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick! Off the top of your head, what is the ninth generation of the rulers of Aragon? I'm sure the links help you "navigate" from one page to another, but how do you know where you want to go from this template? Or where you should go? If you already know who most of the names on the template are, you might find it useful, but in that case you don't really need it, do you? After all, I might be looking for information unrelated to the other infantes of Aragon and there is no template to help me find that. This template, as is, is irrelevant to the articles it occurs in. I'm sure it could be improved, but I see no point to waste time. Add content, not templates. Srnec (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is how to handle historical topics of this nature. Apparently we are being requested to delete it because we don't already have it memorized. But this is exactly where one finds the names if one doesn't previously know them. Templates like this are for discovering other articles. DGG (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are loads of templates like this one (Template:Austrian archduchesses, Template:Danish princes or Template:Russian grand duchesses by marriage). They help people to look for someone among all the members of a royal or princely house. I know the this one, particularly, has a lot of unlinked names, but creating this template is a first step to create the articles. --Paliano (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2009 (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:Hotels and Pension Houses

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hotels and Pension Houses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Having a navigational template for these hotels is completely pointless as none of the articles listed has articles. So

it's pretty much the definition of a single-use template. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not useful as a navigational template, as it doesn't contain any actual links. Robofish (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2009 (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.