Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20

Template:Non-free use rationale television screenshot

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 deprecate/delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free use rationale television screenshot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a useful rationale template. Unlike, say, album covers, company logos or film posters, there is no presumption in favour of television screenshots in any article. This template simply encourages inappropriate images to be uploaded with an utterly useless rationale- "This image is intended to illustrate the subject in question from a television programme." Any screenshot usage will require a specific, detailed rationale, not this. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As my concern with this template is more related to the NFC policies than any template-specific guidelines, I have advertised this discussion here. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate (and perhaps later delete) probably by redirecting to the standard NFUR template, which would put it into a maintenance category needing a purpose. Reasons per nomination. Should we message image uploaders? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) withdrawing not-vote while discussion about how to improve the template proceeds. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate/Delete While we regularly allow screenshots, there is no standard reason for including them and thus a boilerplate rationale makes no sense (editors need to prove a need). --MASEM (t) 20:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: I see what you mean, Josh Milburn. I think I envisaged that this would be used for fictional characters/things from TV shows, but the existing wording sounds as if the template claims to cover screenshots of real people/things, which of course would generally not be valid. File:Sehlat.jpg and File:Xindi-Species.JPG are examples where I used the template to state a rationale, which I believe are valid. (Both are Star Trek images that would otherwise have been deleted.) File:Organian council.jpg is an example of a (valid) use for a fictional species and a (non valid?) use for an actor, added later by another editor.

I based it on Template:Non-free use rationale software screenshot in 2012, which seems to have been developed a great deal since then. Perhaps the nominated template could likewise usefully be made more specific, requiring the editor to choose between "character" or other valid subjects for non-free screenshots. If there is consensus to delete this, Template:Non-free television screenshot should be edited to refer to {{Non-free use rationale}} instead; only once that has been propagated will you be able to see how many pages actually transclude the nominated template. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding my concern- that explanation does sound reasonable. I suppose I wouldn't object to a template something like "Non-free use rationale fictional entity screenshot" to capture those kinds of cases (fictional characters, swords, species, whatever). It could be a generic rationale for a single image of a fictional entity in the infobox/lead in the article about said fictional entity. However, the template itself would have to be much more specific than this, and I think the documentation (and/or template itself) would need to be much clearer what the purpose was- it wasn't clear to me, and it wasn't clear to many of the people using it. In addition, someone would need to keep an eye on it. For illustrative purposes: I checked the first ten transclusions. At first glance, two were rationales of the kind you/I have described: File:AMcCord NClark.jpg and File:Victorsenyung.gif (though that latter image is used elsewhere more problematically). Three were in the same sort of area, in that they were images of fictional entities in articles about/addressing the entities, but their usage is more controversial, as they appear in lists or they are not the sole image of the entity: File:Callahanreview.jpg, File:Zero Louise.jpg, File:Saito Hiraga.jpg. A template rationale is not appropriate in these cases. The remaining five were not of the kind you described, and, regardless of the merits of the use in question (some, at first glance, are acceptable, while some are less so), this template (and/or the better template we're imagining) would not be appropriate: File:Kids Choice Awards 2000 logo.png, File:Wcbi news 2009.png, File:Charlielolacartoon.jpg, File:Welcome to Korea (M*A*S*H episode).jpg, File:WateranimationLAM.jpg. I think we can all agree that if this is representative, there's a real problem with the template right now. (As an aside, using the "what links here" tool, you can show only transclusions if desired. There's also a transclusion count tool- there are 282 at time of writing.) I'm going to have a go at cleaning out some of the current inappropriate transclusions, but I doubt I'll get far. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Josh's links, I notice now that, although the doc doesn't say so, the boilerplate purpose (which I don't like for the reasons in the nomination) can be overridden by a custom one - as was done for the Kids Choice Awards logo that Josh mentioned. This makes the template useful for more situations, such as 'illustrate an episode that is the subject of critical commentary in the article' and 'represent a scene/technique/visual that is the subject of critical commentary in the article'. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'm not really seeing what this adds that could not fit just as comfortably into the standard template. If we were to deprecate, switching over to that one would be the best option in those cases. I've already done one. I think if we were to have a template of the kind mentioned above, it would be better for it to be a whole new one. That said, I'm not sure I do support it- I note that Fayenatic london's examples are two images which are definitely not the sort that should rely on a "template" rationale. File:Xindi-Species.JPG is a whopping six non-free images brought into one file (presumably in an attempt, probably in good faith but misguided, to circumvent NFCC#3a) while File:Sehlat.jpg is a non-free image used to illustrate a list, which is a controversial issue. Neither of these should be relying on template rationales- if these are what are being brought forward to support the retention of this template, I think that says a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFCC#10c, all non-free files are required to have a valid fair use rationale. By default, this template uses an invalid purpose, although you may override this by using the "Purpose" parameter. This means that unless the "Purpose" parameter is used, the file currently doesn't have a valid FUR and doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10c. Therefore, either delete the template altogether (so that the files using it may be tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#F6), or add {{subst:dfu|Invalid [[WP:FUR|]]: invalid purpose given.}} to all files which do not use the "Purpose" parameter. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2015 (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:Gamebryo games

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 relisted on 2015 June 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2015 (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:Icon-issues

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 relisted on 2015 June 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:39, 28 June 2015 (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:PMID3

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PMID3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nowadays, PMID autogenerates link, making our life much easier. No reason to have this template around. Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This template is not equivalent to the auto generated links. The auto generated link generates a single external link. This template in addition generates an internal link to PMID that provides an explanation for the external link. Compare:

auto generated link: PMID 12345 → PMID 12345 (external link only)
template generated link: {{PMID3|12345}} → PMID 12345 (internal + external link)

If the auto generated link were modified to behave like this template, then I would support deleting this template. Boghog (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boghog I already have posed the same question you posed here for ISBN: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Link_to_ISBN -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the difference is small enough and dropping the link to the PMID article is helpful due to overlinking problems. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes and Magioladitis: This template is mainly used in talk space where overlinking is generally not an issue. The whole point of the template is to provide an internal link to explain what the link means and to provide consistency with how pmid links are displayed in Module:Citation/CS1 style citations. Boghog (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep overlinking not an issue--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ We have cite journal. We need fewer templates to KISS not more templates to confuse new users and old users alike. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only intended to be used in talk pages and never was intended to substitute for {{cite journal}} in main space. Boghog (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - As long as it is only used on talk pages I have no opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ keep unless the autogenerated link is modified. This is almost exclusively used on talk pages; suggesting the use of {{cite journal}} in talk page discussions is the exact opposite of KISS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Provisional" struck; template has been upgraded with new, non-redundant features. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's really pointless shit like this that makes me less inclined to stick around on wikipedia. Instead of addressing actual templates with issues, we end up wasting time bickering over dumb shit like the perceived utility/usefulness, or lack thereof, in a template which one person finds useful, but a second person does not. Cases in point: this Tfd and the Tfd for {{Addiction glossary}}. What does deleting a slightly redundant, yet still slightly functionally distinct template like this – one which some people find useful – actually accomplish anyway? Just one less template out of the countless remainder? (aside: how exactly is the # of redundant wikilinks on talk pages an issue?) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This deletion nom is misleading because it suggests this template and the autogenerated PMID link do exactly the same thing, when quite clearly they do not. If partial (not full) redundancy is the only reason for this Tfd, then even if the added functionality is useful to only a small number of editors, there's no reason it shouldn't be kept; WP:JDL isn't adequate justification to remove that added utility which it provides to some editors. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ The PMID magic word does the trick, and we really don't need to be told every time what a PMID is. This template is transcluded on 54 pages. JFW | T@lk 17:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfdwolff: You and I do not need this explanation, but this template was intended for use on talk pages often in communication with first time IP editors that may not know what a pmid is. Finally "don't need to be told every time" – "template is transcluded on 54 pages". Somehow I think there is a disconnect between these two statements. Boghog (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: The observation about transclusion was not intended to support my argument. In all honesty, I was expecting 100s of transclusions. Which begs the question: if we want to make life easier for IP editors, shouldn't the template be used much more intensively? JFW | T@lk 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. It should be used more often. Boghog (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep as template now (1) only works on talkpages, (2) has multi-PMID functionality. Thanks to Boghog for the changes. JFW | T@lk 12:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially redundant. Looking at several of the talk pages where this is found, they were all messages added by Boghog. No need for this with the PMID magic word already doing the work and virtually only one editor using the template. Bgwhite (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained above, this template is not redundant. If the PMID magic word were modified so that it included an internal link to PMID, then it would be redundant. Boghog (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not alter PMID than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Completely agree (see my initial "keep" response above), but no one is listening. The PMID "magic word" is controlled by MediaWiki software and therefore would have to be changed by them. I am not even sure who to ask. Boghog (talk) Boghog (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

There have been two main criticisms of this template. The first is that it is equivalent to auto generated links. In addition to the template generating an internal link, the template now also supports multiple PMIDs which auto generated links do not do. Compare:

template generated link: {{PMID3|12345|23456|34567|45678|56789}}→ PMID 12345, 23456, 34567, 45678, 56789
auto generated link: PMID 12345 23456 34567 45678 56789 → PMID 12345 23456 34567 45678 56789
auto generated link: PMID 12345 PMID 23456 PMID 34567 PMID 45678 PMID 56789 → PMID 12345 PMID 23456 PMID 34567 PMID 45678 PMID 56789

The second criticism is that including the internal link is WP:OVERLINKING. In article space, this is debatably over linking, but this template was never intended to be used in articles, only in talk pages. To reduce the chance that this template will be used in article space, a caution banner has now been added to the documentation:

This template is only intended for use on talk pages. For articles, please use {{cite journal}} or equivalent instead.

and an error message will be generated by the template: PMID3 template error, this template should not be used in articles if the template is added to an article. This should deter most editors from using it this way. Boghog (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improved version of template clearly provides utility beyond that of the PMID magic word. Other arguments for deletion are sufficiently addressed. Whether the PMID magic word should be altered is an interesting question but beyond the scope of this TfD. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog I agree to keep if we make this talk page only. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Magioladitis. That was certainly my intention when I created this template and that is how I have used it myself. The caution banner and error message should now make crystal clear that the template should only be used on talk pages. Boghog (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The differences between PMID, PMID2, and PMID3 are so minuscule that the existence of not one, not two, but THREE templates is completely unwarranted.

{{PMID|12345}} produces "PMID 12345"

{{PMID2|12345}} produces "PMID 12345"

{{PMID3|12345}} produces "PMID 12345"

That's it. No other difference. The correct solution to this situation is merging PMID2 and PMID3 into PMID and adding a new parameter to PMID that controls output format.

What's wrong with three templates? Same reason why subroutines / functions were created in programming languages ages ago. The current situation with three templates reflects lack of experience with programming more than anything else.

Boghog You're right--PMID should generate an internal link as well as the external link. If it doesn't, well, with your experience, I am sure you know that the correct solution is fix the template code in PMID, not create a new template (e.g. PMID3) with working code. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2015 (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:Caption

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) 18:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in five templates as the result of a syntax error and otherwise misused in mainspace. Alakzi (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, doesn't do much anyway. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2015 (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:UPC search link

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 merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UPC search link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:UPC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:UPC search link with Template:UPC.
After fixing 1000s of broken ISBNs, I am now making order with templates encountered during the process. Keep UPC. Merge UPC search link into UPC. Reasons:
1. Each template is simplistic
2. Each template requires the same parameter
3. The templates differ only in format of the output
4. Minimal number of affected users: UPC search link has only 3 transclusions. - Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but include parameter to suppress display of the label and use that parameter in the cases that were using the parameter-free template, I would think. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:54, 20 June 2015 (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:AEK Athens F.C. captains

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) 18:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AEK Athens F.C. captains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NENAN and FANCRUFT; we simply don't need a template of team's captains, it's just silly. I am convinced a similar navbox for a different club has been previously deleted but I can't remember which... Giant Snowman 07:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike the position of manager, being the captain of a team is really a very insignificant position with little responsibility other than "geeing up" the players. We really don't need captaincy navboxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2015 (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.