The result of the debate was no consensus Maxim (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This template just creates more work for everyone, for no apparent good reason I can see. Images and their descriptions evolve and improve over time just like articles. The images are cleaned up, cropped, renamed, replaced with better versions, etc. The descriptions are improved, sources are updated, licenses refined. The images are occasionally challenged and have to be deleted. Centralizing all of this in one place prevents having to repeat these actions in more than one place. I understand there were previously some watchlist concerns from uploaders who did not have Commons accounts. With the advent of SUL, a Commons account can be automatically created with a single mouse click, in most cases. And Commons still has the option to update preferences so that a user can receive an e-mail if an image on their watchlist is edited. I would argue that the benefits of centralization, and the work saved by preventing duplicate actions on multiple wikis, outweighs any claimed benefits of local copies. (I understand exceptions in the temporary cases of Commons images on the en Wikipedia Main Page, and similar situations.) Kelly hi! 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Strongly keep. An image may be fairly legitimate on en-wiki (PD in the U.S.), yet be deleted on Commons due to, for example, vio of COM:FOP (not P.D. somewhere else). Removing the no-commons warning triggers the wheel of movetocommons-delete-uploadlocal-move... NVO ( talk) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
PD-US-1923-abroad}}
which essentially include copies of {{
NoCommons}}
, but many scenarios aren't covered by such templates, and keeping {{
NoCommons}}
would be a lot simpler than creating (and making uploaders dig through) a comprehensive list of such templates. —
xDanielx
T/
C\
R
22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused template, possible a table header. -- Thetrick ( talk) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Some kind of user header template. 1 use. -- Thetrick ( talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused semi-navigational box. -- Thetrick ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete as there are no objections Maxim (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused template that would only duplicate Category:Grammatical moods if it was complete. -- Thetrick ( talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep Maxim (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Non-standard licensing template. Probably duplicates {{ Non-free logo}} -- Thetrick ( talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete as there are no objections Maxim (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Series simply isn't substantial enough to warrant a template. There are only two articles directly relating to the show (the main article and a "List of...episodes" article) and I cannot see a future point where additional articles will need to be created (other than, perhaps, a "List of...characters" article). — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 10:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Thanks to the work of Octahedron80, the template has now been split into two parts, leaving this redundant ( WP:CSD#G6). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I am modifying all Category:Unicode chart templates for better and unite looking. This template is already seperated into two templates: Template:Unicode chart Linear B Syllabary and Template:Unicode chart Linear B Ideograms due to Unicode sections. And no article uses this template anymore. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused template; not actually a template. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete per no objections. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Overspecific fork of {{ Attack}}, not used in current warning systems. MBisanz talk 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect to {{ AFDNote}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused notification template, {{ AFDNote}} provides more information. MBisanz talk 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)}}
The result of the debate was no consensus Maxim (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This template just creates more work for everyone, for no apparent good reason I can see. Images and their descriptions evolve and improve over time just like articles. The images are cleaned up, cropped, renamed, replaced with better versions, etc. The descriptions are improved, sources are updated, licenses refined. The images are occasionally challenged and have to be deleted. Centralizing all of this in one place prevents having to repeat these actions in more than one place. I understand there were previously some watchlist concerns from uploaders who did not have Commons accounts. With the advent of SUL, a Commons account can be automatically created with a single mouse click, in most cases. And Commons still has the option to update preferences so that a user can receive an e-mail if an image on their watchlist is edited. I would argue that the benefits of centralization, and the work saved by preventing duplicate actions on multiple wikis, outweighs any claimed benefits of local copies. (I understand exceptions in the temporary cases of Commons images on the en Wikipedia Main Page, and similar situations.) Kelly hi! 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Strongly keep. An image may be fairly legitimate on en-wiki (PD in the U.S.), yet be deleted on Commons due to, for example, vio of COM:FOP (not P.D. somewhere else). Removing the no-commons warning triggers the wheel of movetocommons-delete-uploadlocal-move... NVO ( talk) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
PD-US-1923-abroad}}
which essentially include copies of {{
NoCommons}}
, but many scenarios aren't covered by such templates, and keeping {{
NoCommons}}
would be a lot simpler than creating (and making uploaders dig through) a comprehensive list of such templates. —
xDanielx
T/
C\
R
22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused template, possible a table header. -- Thetrick ( talk) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Some kind of user header template. 1 use. -- Thetrick ( talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused semi-navigational box. -- Thetrick ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete as there are no objections Maxim (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused template that would only duplicate Category:Grammatical moods if it was complete. -- Thetrick ( talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep Maxim (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Non-standard licensing template. Probably duplicates {{ Non-free logo}} -- Thetrick ( talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete as there are no objections Maxim (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Series simply isn't substantial enough to warrant a template. There are only two articles directly relating to the show (the main article and a "List of...episodes" article) and I cannot see a future point where additional articles will need to be created (other than, perhaps, a "List of...characters" article). — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 10:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Thanks to the work of Octahedron80, the template has now been split into two parts, leaving this redundant ( WP:CSD#G6). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I am modifying all Category:Unicode chart templates for better and unite looking. This template is already seperated into two templates: Template:Unicode chart Linear B Syllabary and Template:Unicode chart Linear B Ideograms due to Unicode sections. And no article uses this template anymore. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused template; not actually a template. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete per no objections. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Overspecific fork of {{ Attack}}, not used in current warning systems. MBisanz talk 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect to {{ AFDNote}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused notification template, {{ AFDNote}} provides more information. MBisanz talk 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)}}