Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 7
| < February 6 | February 8 > |
|---|
February 7
[edit]- 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) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
fork of infobox in Indian Army. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:26, 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.
- 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) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:21, 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.
- 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) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:12, 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.
- 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) 22:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:09, 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.
- 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) 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Polskie opisy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused, and hard to see it being used here since it's in Polish. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - It translates to something like Polish words were made using Inkscape. I think it refers to Inkscape#Text support, an open source way to put text in images. If it was being used, I'd say include a translation, but move it to something more descriptive like Polskie opisy w Inkscape, rather than just Polish names. PC-XT (talk) 02:08, 12 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.
- 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) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Photo of art (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template asserts a potentially confusing argument that an image is free and unfree at the same time. Allowing a user to assert a free license on an image where they do not have the authority to assert such a license, because derivative works are subject to the copyright of the subject. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Considering that the previous approach of flagging them as PUI or conflicted license en-bloc was considered disruptive, this template was a pragmatic approach. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of a statue has two copyrights: the copyright of the statue and the copyright of the photo. The photo part is replaceable, and photos of statues without permission from the photographer tend to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. Also, legally, it is presumably much easier to find a way to use fair use for a statue than to use fair use for both the photo and for the statue. It is necessary to indicate the copyright status of both works. Also, a file with this template is 100% free in a lot of countries, although not in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Stefan and Sfan00. They tend to know what they are talking about when it comes to copyright. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak keep the nom has a point: "potentially confusing argument", but this is because of US law, not the template. the merit is that it is a standardized way to reflect the two copyrights on the one item: the item's copyright; and the derivative photo copyright. if not this template, how would you license these photos that wasn't confusing? Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 23:23, 15 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.
- 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) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Main article was recently deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard dance, on the grounds there there is no evidence of notability from reliable sources. Only one of the sub-genres claimed in the template mentions hard dance and without a source. This proposed deletion constitutes a tidying up after that AfD decision.SabreBD (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete since parent article was sent off elsewhere, and anything here is OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:06, 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.
- 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) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Template:None/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:None/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:American politics/party colors/None (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United States political party shading/None (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:None Party (United States)/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
These templates call a link to "None" for a political affiliation. However, "None" is a disambiguation page, not a political affiliation. The correct call would be "No party affiliation", but these templates are too complicated for a typical user to figure out how to make them call that, and in any event that term redirects to Independent (politician), which already has its own set of templates. If the intent is to signify a nonpartisan race, then the link called should be "Nonpartisan", rather than "None". bd2412 T 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Anything to clean up the horrid mess that is /meta/color and /meta/shortname. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- delete, and I added template:American politics/party colors/None and template:None Party (United States)/meta/color. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 15 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.