Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Template:Infobox animanga/MediaMix[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob13Talk 04:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, no history of it ever being used, and really there is no use for it either. —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 4 July 2016 (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).

Template:List of Top 10 Radio Songs in 2016[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. WP:REFUND applies if the user would like this moved into their userspace. ~ Rob13Talk 04:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content is not appropriate for a template. Creator appears to be doing edit testing here (mostly on the template's talk page) rather than using the sandbox. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as test page. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:35, 5 July 2016 (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).

Template:No political diagram[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).

The result of the discussion was keep but use only on talk pages. I will list this at the holding cell for editors to move the existing transclusions to talk pages and then convert the template to display an error in the mainspace. ~ Rob13Talk 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary intrusion on articles – although it can be a useful visual aid there is no requirement whatsoever for them to have political diagrams displaying the political makeup of the legislatures (and it's useless on articles like House of Delegates of Palau where there are no political parties). If some kind of highlighting of articles missing them is required, it can be done via a hidden category. Number 57 19:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this template is useful at all (and I'm not at all sure it is) it should be placed on the talk page, like {{Image requested}}, and certainly not on the article itself. Thincat (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The legislature diagrams are very helpful as they provide an easy way of understanding the relative power of the different parties. It is true that there is no requirement to have them in an article, but by the same token there is no requirement to include any specific information in an article. Certainly, for a typical legislature article to become a featured article, it would require such a diagram.

    As for legislatures without political parties, I had assumed that it was standard practice to add diagrams anyway (e.g. Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia, Parliament of Nauru). Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Orthogonal1: The diagrams are useful in some cases (not all – see the Palau example above), but there is no reason to deface perfectly adequate articles to try and force editors to add them. There are other ways of doing this without plastering a template at the top of articles. Number 57 07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template but don't use it to deface articles nilly-willy. It can be on the talk page, as mentioned above. --Pgallert (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2016 (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).

Template:Blip[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob13Talk 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template to website which closed August 2015. Reidgreg (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly after replacing the single use by a link to archive.org's 2014 snapshot, though the 2015 snapshot seems to say the show was removed from blip.tv on November 7, 2013 for not meeting the TOS, this seems to be a generalized message that may not apply? —PC-XT+ 05:36, 10 July 2016 (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).

Template:Orphan image[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cases where a file would have no incoming usages, but shouldn't be moved to commons or deleted, to whit:

Reasons not to be on Commons:

  1. Not out of copyright in its home country
  2. {{Keep Local}}
  3. Other {{notforcommons}} reason.
  4. Part of a discussion (e.g. screenshot)

Reason for no inbound file links:

  1. Uploader followed best practice, and uploaded the original image before editing.
  2. Uploader followed best practice, and uploaded a PNG version as well as a JPEG.
  3. Part of a discussion, where it's linked to, but not included, as a thumbnail wouldn't be useful.

Given a bot, User:FastilyBot is adding this everywhere, this template needs to change, and probably should be deleted. It's actively harmful to the project. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks as if in-use sound files have been tagged[1] on the highly technical grounds that they have "no inbound file usage" when in practical terms they are in use (see American pronunciation in Antidisestablishmentarianism (word)). Last time (two or three years ago?) the orphan tagging was also very bug-ridden and so perfectly proper files were later deleted by a different process with the boilerplate "unused, no foreseeable use" even when they were in use. For File:Pronunciation of 'antidisestablishmentarianism'.ogg I see it is also a target of a redirect so that may be another problem. I'd hoped all this trouble had gone away. Thincat (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I have addressed Adam's concern by removing the text that suggests a move to commons or FFD. Please note that this template was originally conceived as a machine-friendly way to help analyze and compile statistics about files uploaded to Wikipedia. -FASTILY 21:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good start - and it's at least not an explicit deletion template now, which it probably was before - but if it's meant to be machine-friendly, why does it need to actually be visible? For example, why not put files into a hidden category, then make sure the category's well-described? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It never was a deletion template, and the changes I've made to the template make it clear this is not the case. The template already adds files to this hidden category. I'm also not opposed to removing the visible portion if there is consensus for it. -FASTILY 00:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I've thought about for a bit, and I'm thinking about removing the visible position of the template because the template as-is does not add any useful information for a reader. If there aren't any objections within the next few days, I'll go ahead and do this -FASTILY 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd object to that. When I see this template on a file that I'm considering moving to Commons, it leads me to search for articles the file would benefit. The key word there is "see". I think there's significant value to editors noticing that an image is orphaned. I fully support the changes you've already made to the template with regard to the text change. ~ Rob13Talk 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the purpose of the template? Before recent edits, it seems that the purpose was to track files needing evaluation with respect to WP:NOTIMAGE ("Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"). This fits the former description of outcomes: the file could be added to an article, or moved to Commons (which is a repository of images and media files), or nominated for deletion. Fastily seems to have some other purpose in mind, though: he seems to want to specifically track files that aren't embedded in other pages whether or not they're used by being linked from elsewhere. And he has been forcing this view via the operation of his bot.
    My suggestion as to what should happen here:
    1. The template should be reverted for use by people who still want to track files needing evaluation with respect to WP:NOTIMAGE. Or, if no one wants that anymore, it could just be deleted.
    2. Fastily should create a template and corresponding category for "files not embedded in any pages" to match what he and his bot are actually doing. And explain his purpose in the template's/category's description to avoid them being brought back to TfD.
    Anomie⚔ 03:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a deletion notice but a maintenance one and a poorly designed one. Category:Wikipedia orphaned files has over 112k images and what I presume the point of this is to identify a backlog of the images for later review. I support that idea but the template is not the way to do it. Instead, we should have a bot identify the orphaned images (in the category, simply enough) and create a table of the images by upload date or something. From there, that will be a backlog for review that people can work on. If a person find an orphaned image, they can find a use, move it to Commons or suggest it for deletion. Either way, as a maintenance or organizational system, this is not the way to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are far too many problems with this template (see above). If it were to be kept its text would need to be completely changed to give a careful, non-technical account of its highly idiosyncratic usage. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template but keep all the files in the category. Maybe a bot can go along all the new uploads and check for orphan images, along with removing them from the category if they are used in articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam Cuerden identified a few reasons for why a file can't be moved to Commons. However, reasons #1, #2 and #3 do not exempt the file from WP:NOTHOST, and this template may help identifying files which fail WP:NOTHOST. #4 is not a reason for not moving a file to Commons, although such files are low priority MtC candidates in my opinion.
Thincat noted that file usage sometimes is missing. This isn't a problem with this template but with MediaWiki software or template design, and MediaWiki and/or templates should be fixed instead. If users see nothing in the file usage section, users are likely to nominate the file for deletion as 'unused, useless' or 'orphaned fair use' regardless of whether this template is used or not. In this case, it's the file usage section which should be fixed instead.
Anomie asked about the purpose of the template. The purpose of the template is, and has always been, to assist in spotting unused files which are in violation of WP:NOTHOST. I believe that this template always has been added and removed by bots based on file usage, but there was a gap of a few years when the template wasn't maintained. Fastily's bot Fbot stopped editing, and the template wasn't added/removed based on recent file usage until Fastily's FastilyBot resumed the task. There is currently no way to mark files which have been confirmed to be orphaned without violating WP:NOTHOST. Maybe the template should have a parameter for this purpose which can be added and removed by evaluating humans.
If the template is deleted, then it will be more difficult for users who want to find files which potentially violate WP:NOTHOST. I don't know why you would want that. It's possible that we don't need a template but that it would be fine to only list a category on the pages, but uncategorising all pages sounds like a bad idea. In the past, the template used to contain a link to a tool which allowed users to quickly check what the uploader did directly after uploading the file, but that tool stopped working some time ago. This feature was very useful for files without a description as you could easily see when the file was added to an article and whether an image caption was used. If a replacement tool is written, it would be very useful to have a template with a link to that tool. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using that tool recently, it was working fine. I don't know why the link was removed. Kelly hi! 13:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful maintenance template which encourages editors to find articles which could use the images. This template has prompted me to do that several times, same as an orphan tag for an article would encourage editors to link to that article from other relevant pages. This has nothing to do with tracking images to be deleted, and I'm not sure why we're only talking about that purpose of this template above. ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful. The confusion on its use should be worked out, and maybe a category could be used, instead, but I expect a template will attract more attention. I would certainly like a tool as mentioned by Stefan2 to be recreated and linked as well as WP:NOTHOST —PC-XT+ 05:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, useful for site statistics, in encouraging editors to help find orphaned images homes, and in helping to find files in violation of WP:NOTHOST. -FASTILY 06:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful template for site statistics, and as a way of encouraging editors to find useful places for unused images. Also, until very recently the template contained a very useful toolserver link to find information on images lacking descriptions. I used that tool all the time to fix file descriptions and I don't understand why that was removed. Kelly hi! 13:24, 11 July 2016 (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).

Template:Atlantic Sun Conference men's soccer coach navbox[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob13Talk 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... not enough to navigate. Corkythehornetfan 07:35, 4 July 2016 (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).

Template:2013 Atlantic Sun Conference men's soccer navbox[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob13Talk 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... not enough to navigate. Corkythehornetfan 07:33, 4 July 2016 (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).

Template:ABS-CBN News personalities[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 03:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. We don't create cast navboxes. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_4&oldid=1143743091"