Commons:Deletion requests/Unused license templates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Unused license templates|year=2024|month=September|day=19}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Unused license templates|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Unused license templates}} at the end of today's log.

Unused license templates

Redundant to {{PD-USGov-NASA}}
A strange version of {{PD-USGov}}
replaced by {{PD-VE-Photo}}
Redundant to {{PD-Hubble}}

PD-Country templates no longer considered for deletion

Other reasons to keep

The following unused templates are either license templates, templates transcluding license templates or templates that are formatted so they look like license templates. They are unused, and I think should be deleted to ease license template maintenance. If any of them are still useful please comment below each one. --Jarekt (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rerun your bot and remove any which contain "{{Must be substituted}}" such as Template:Mapillary. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done there were two Template:Kettős-GFDL-cc-by-sa-2.5 and Template:Mapillary. --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the DR notices from those templates. BethNaught (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also many some of these are source or collaboration templates rather than license templates. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of above templates use one of the Style formatting templates reserved for license templates and they are not used. Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion lists unused templates as target of speedy deletion, so they are still fair game, unless they are still of use or can be of use in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jarek, good to clean up. I do have some points:
  • Please inform all the creators of these templates of this deletion request.
I was just thinking about how to do it. The list was created by quarry:5201 which I will try to modify to get a list of template creators as well. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Removed Template:DMonniaux, Template:Data ingestion layout Airviewonline.com, Template:Data ingestion layout IUCN, Template:RCE data ingestion layout shipwreck and added {{Must be substituted}}. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all the valid cc-by and cc-by-sa templates. We provide those as a service and these are really low maintenance
✓ Done Removed 40+ old cc-by and cc-by-sa liceses. They are low maintenance, but also very unlikely to be needed since they were replaced by new CC versions. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Multichill (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the templates that have OTRS permission or OTRS pending, one could check the tickets and ask the respective copyright holders why the uploads did not happen. I suggest to separate these cases to give them more time. --Krd 17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads might have happen, just without using those templates. I am in no hurry to close this DR so if someone wants to take on this task, it would be great. --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a kind of DR that should not have been started, as it combines dozens of completly different templates. My comment here refers only to the country-specific templates I created some years ago: Most of these templates refers to rather small countries, so they might have a rather narrow area where they can be used. But the fact that up to now no one started using them is not a reason for deleting them right now. For example Template:PD-Democratic Republic of the Congo, also created by me, is used dozens of times). And for any other templates, the issue has to be decided case by case (pretty sure that there are enough templates that can be deleted, as they are outdated or single-purpose ones).--Antemister (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those templates have one common property: they are unused and that is one of the Criteria for speedy deletion. I opted for slower deletion requests, because there is no hurry. I do not think anyone would like to see 200+ separate deletion requests. If you think, some of the country-specific templates are potentially useful for future uploads than please tell which ones. I looked at some PD-Country templates and they mostly seem well written listing and linking to specific laws. I would agree about such templates. --Jarekt (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to delete templates like {{PD-Niger}} and {{PD-Guyana}}. These are useful templates, we just don't happen to have much content from those countries yet. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{Iowa highway}} can be speedily deleted with template creator's approval. –Fredddie™ 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep all the PD-Country templates. Those are pretty helpful. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per popular demand I separated most PD-Country templates and withdraw my proposal to delete them. See list above. --Jarekt (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've already struck from the list the country templates that I was just about to ask to be kept. However, I have a few more. I would  Keep the following templates (or at the very ask that they be considered with dedicated deletion discussions):
  • {{IMFA}} — actively in use as a license tag on files using {{TNT}}) translation scheme (probably should be used directly rather than via {{TNT}}).
 Agree template being used. No transclusions was due to interference of {{TNT}} which was calling {{IMFA/en}} directly. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Irfanview}} — although not currently in use, it looks useful and was created by Steinsplitter only a month ago, so deletion seems premature.
 Agree --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite not currently being used, these are recommended for use by a page in Commons namespace:
All those license were around for a while, are very specific and narrow-scope, and are not being used. I do not see much reason to keep them.--Jarekt (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep three PD-ROC tags, please. I will upload some PDFs soon.--Jusjih (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I have a few more that I wouldn't necessarily vote to keep, but because of more complex situations may deserve dedicated discussions rather than being a part of a mass delete:
  • The following were created as part of still-pending "New requests" at Commons:Batch uploading (but are nonetheless years old because of the multi-year backlog at that page):
Those 2 seem to be old proposed mass uploads which do not seem to be happening and one of them was created by me. User:Dcoetzee was interested in one at some point, but now he is banned ... --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is just a short license+OTRS tag, I would rather see them added directly to the files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template was created to ease a planned mass upload from that user - what never occurred. I have deleted the template again. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree deleting Wikilivres page.--Jusjih (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That OTRS is closed, I do not expect that we will need this license. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—RP88 (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I withdrew the nomination. --Jarekt (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I have not examined each of these licenses and do not feel that it is useful to do so. It is not reasonable to expect the volunteer Wikipedia community to crowdsource a legal review of so many different copyright license releases. In a discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/08#What_to_do_with_images_with_home-brewed_licenses, I advocated for a ban on home-brew licenses and for the Wikimedia Commons community to permit uploads only with a licensing from a limited number of community approved licenses. I further would limit calling those licenses with a limited number of license templates, and not an ever-expanding list.
I know that it is controversial in the Wikimedia Commons community to restrict users in this way. However, at the least, I think it should be less controversial to delete unused license templates. There might be an argument for applying odd licenses and odd licenses templates to some files, but I more strongly oppose encouraging future uploaders to continually seek new personal licenses or to make unpopular licenses more popular on a whim without community discussion. I am happy to support the deletion of all of these. Every one of them is a community liability without giving benefit in return. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep this is exactly the kind of mass nomination that we don't want. Each license template should be nominated for deletion separately so they can be considered individually. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is it easier to look at 200 separate identical DRs than at one? Per policy this should be a speedy deletion not requiring discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Liliana-60 --Miha (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Liliana-60. This list is way too long and complex to be handled in a single DR or by default speedy deletion. That said, {{Blausen}} should be used on all files in Category:Images from Blausen Medical Communications. Many of these don't have the OTRS ticket attached which would be useful for clarification, and BruceBlaus is probably not the copyright holder of all these images but just an employee who uploaded them. Maybe we can get a bot to put the template in use? De728631 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment about these:
Before deleting, it should be checked if these translated versions were integrated in the respective multilingual template. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tuválkin, Template:GFDL-ku is the same as Template:GFDL-en/ku and the rest are not translated versions of GFDL but copies of GFDL with hardwired links to authors from different wikipedias. --Jarekt (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The template Photos by Stortinget was a project at Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia, but due to several unforseen problems it was not possible to maintain the interest. I was the original creator of this template. Now I doubt that it will ever be possible to restart the project. Delete the template, it is unused and it is not likely that it will ever be used. That said I don't think it is a good idea to lumping together so many different templates in one single delete request. Jeblad (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done deleted per request--Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The template PD-Norway-record is a slightly incorrect reprhasing of Åndsverksloven §45, but the original text has some important distinctions between movies and sound recording. The template bescribes the situation for movies, not for sound recordings. Jeblad (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeblad what do you propose to do? Fix and keep or delete? --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep Template:IAPH. Wikipedia Spain created it to add it to images that would be uploaded from the website of the Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico. The collaboration has not been signed yet but we don't give up the hope that it will be.--Hispalois (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed my nomination --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and Kept. Read cmts Alan (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Unused_license_templates&oldid=538489961"