Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

Template:SV Dynamo (A-I) and Template:SV Dynamo (J-W)

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) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SV Dynamo (A-I) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SV Dynamo (J-W) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These should be merged to {{SV Dynamo}} to follow WP:NAVBOX. There are far too many redlinks to be useful to a reader, and its creator is now indef-blocked for persistent abuse of image policy. No object to splitting the main navbox if it gets unwieldy, but I envisage that takng some time. Rodhull andemu 21:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. Jared Preston (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as has been done once before back in May 2008 and for the same reason (see: Template:Kinds of sport and sport associations of the SV Dynamo).

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:Wez and Larry Shows

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) 03:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wez and Larry Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Parent article Larry Bundy Jr was deleted. Currently navigates only three articles, all three of which are also up for deletion. Even if those three are kept, this would still fail WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:32, 15 November 2010 (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:Short-Rationale

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. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Short-Rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be a go-between on something that, due to Wikipedia's strict non-free content guidelines, should not exist. Either a non-free file meets all ten WP:NFCC criteria or it doesn't. If it does, then great. If it doesn't, or if the given rationale is unclear, the fair use rationale should be revised to make it clear, or the article should be nominated for deletion, either via deletable image or FFD to give interested parties the seven-day grace period to make it so. It would seem that this template is wishy-washy at best, and at worst appears to enable the use of inadequate fair use rationales because it doesn't require their correction. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I streamlined and tried to clarify the template usage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template came about because I got blocked (see WP:ANI archive) for picking up and questioning a number of short-rationales via the Disputed Fair Use tag. This template (which I've already tried to reword several times), was intended to support a compromise position, that flagged an image without the alleged 'disruption' using DFU was causing. By all means, I'm all for rewording a template to meet policy.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be material - please link to the ANI discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#Bot_malfunction Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking at the discussion and then digging up this diff as an example, it would appear that the problem being addressed in the discussion was not inadequate fair use rationales per se but rather about inadequate explanations when tagging disputed fair use rationales (thus it's not material to this discussion). Additionally, going through the images in Category:Wikipedia files with short rationale, almost all of the images I went through did in fact have inadequate fair use rationales, which I then tagged for deletion with specific explanations as to why it fails. This appears to prove my point, that this provides an unacceptable middle ground between images that fail parts of WP:NFCC and those that don't. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it like that, then I am starting to see your point. However, I still feel it's a reasonable idea to have a 'hang-on this might be an incomplete rationale' tag which doesn't require the burden of proof to be on the image nominator,

as opposed to the image uploader. An incomplete rationale as you say is an incomplete rationale, and it should be for

the uploader to prove how it passes, not the nominator to demonstrate how it fails, which is what the above mentioned ANI thread seemed to be saying.

Short-Rationale was not intended as means for clearly inadequate FUR's to 'slip' through the process, many short-rationales probably should be upgraded to a full blown DFU or FFD. However, even you can presumably accept that Short-Rationale is a less

aggressive approach than DFU/FFD on every single rationale that may only be missing minor points?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right path, but you've got a detail wrong. When nominating an image for deletion via deletable image for a bad fair use rationale, it is the nominator's responsibility to explain specifically why the rationale fails. The ANI discussion, from what I can tell, was about subpar explanations as to why a fair use rationale fails to pass muster - not the rationales themselves. It is the case that the person who places a non-free image should be the one to ensure that the fair use rationale is adequate, and if a rationale does not pass muster, the non-free content needs to be corrected soon or go. Thus the seven-day grace period to allow for corrections to be made.

Meanwhile, my point seems to be proven again in practice - in the case of File:12ziff.jpg, the short-rationale tag was placed on a file description page with an inadequate rationale. No action was taken at all during the one month that the tag was there. When a tag with real consequences attached to it was placed on the page, the problem was corrected within three minutes of the tag's placement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've managed to convince me :).

Delete, or merge into DFU system... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (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.