Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

October 1[edit]

Template:Db-nowcommons-notice[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) 21:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-nowcommons-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Utterly useless, no need to notify people about F8 deletions. It'll probably show on their watchlists anyway; template unused and never will be. Designed for Twinkle use but not incorporated. Acather96 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary about presuming that this is uncontroversial: see the recent ANI discussion over {{KeepLocal}}, for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar to redirnone, which was deleted recently. There is no point template-spamming a contributor over such a non-issue as F8 deletion. (If deleted, please notify WT:TW so I can fix Twinkle.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DTTR →Σ ⚑ ☭ 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd be hesitant about deleting this when we still have such templates as {{Keep local}}. As User:Thumperward mentioned above, there was a recent discussion now archived on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive721#File:Pacs2.jpg and File:Pacs1.jpg about that template. Plus that tag also survived two prior TFD discussions. Thus, my preference would be instead to modify {{Db-nowcommons-notice}} to notify users that they have that option to tag their images with {{Keep local}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it seems to me that 1) this template is unlikely to be used in the first place and 2) if a user has been around long enough to know whether a file should be "kept local," presumably he's also been around long enough to either have applied {{keep local}}, gotten that image protected (if relevant), and/or watchlisted the image. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KeepLocal is intended for a user to express his/her preferences, if it does not exist on an image, it should be assumed that the user would not mind their work being moved to Commons. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (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.