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. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete.Was previously nominated at MfD, but the discussion was closed due to a technicality. To quote the original nomination: "This template gives horrible advice, saying that photos must be stored in a lossy medium, instead of an appropriately lossless one for archiving. It gives no advice about quality, and could remove the original lossless photo from the use of any image editors." PlasmaDragon (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you mean Template:ShouldBeJPEG rather than Template:BadJPEG ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've changed the TfD title now.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any digitisation of analogue data such as non-lineart images results in loss anyway. It is nonsensical not to request that this material is available in JPEG format when that format was specifically designed for the kind of use Wikipedia puts it to. We certainly shouldn't be requesting that "lossless" originals be deleted (especially if the work was digital in the first place), but nor should we be trying to dissuade people from using JPEG where appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because some loss occurs, doesn't mean that it should be exacerbated by further lossy compression. I do agree with you that the lossless originals shouldn't be deleted. The template wasn't clear on that point. If the purpose of this template is merely to save bandwidth while retaining a lossless file elsewhere, then I'm OK with its existence.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the existence of Category:Images made obsolete by a JPEG version makes me concerned that lossless images will be deleted and information will be permanently lost.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that these "lossless originals" may still be digitised versions of analogue originals, and thus not really "lossless" at all. There is no point in keeping PNG copies of scanned photographs, for instance, over a high-quality JPEG. It's the same situation as keeping uncompressed digitised copies of analogue audio recordings. This doesn't apply to every lossless image, but certainly to an easily-identified subset. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes there is a point. If someone wants to make an edit to an image, then if it's in PNG, they can keep it in PNG and avoid the loss of information. If multiple people made many edits to an image in JPEG, saving the result as a JPEG each time, then compression artifacts would accrue and the image would degrade in quality. Every photograph represents the loss of some information (dynamic, 3d objects are rendered as a static 2d image) but that doesn't mean we should go on tossing out information.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question to me is whether or not it's likely that pristine originals will be held on Wikipedia or not. To me, true pristine originals should be on Commons. Photograph-style images held on Wikipedia are more likely to be non-free or otherwise less likely to warrant having a pristine original around. It may be that this needs wider discussion than a TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as stated above, the advice given is hardly helpful. Nothing about image quality is mentioned; aren't PNG and GIF encouraged over JPEG anyway here on WP? Airplaneman ✈ 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• They aren't encouraged for every purpose. A scanned photograph in PNG format is silly, because the scanning process itself is lossy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason to encourage the conversion of images from PNG to JPEG. If they are already in JPEG, then leave them in JPEG. If they are already in PNG, then leave them in PNG. I can see a reason for converting PNG/JPEG/GIF to say SVG, but going from one non-vector format to another doesn't seem like it is generally a good idea. If you want to reduce the size of your photos, go right ahead, but I don't see a reason to suggest that JPEG is the best choice. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 16 May 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.

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. Everyone seems to agree that it can be deleted eventually if no users come along to object, with varying degrees of reservation about how long to wait. Since this TFD has itself been open almost a month, and there was a previous TFD in March, I'm taking that as sufficient time. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Track listing item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. Previous TfD was no consensus because the template was to be substituted, but documentation has been amended and I have checked this list and see no instances of the template. Any that are there can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the previous discussion indicated that the template did not show up in transclusions because it had always been substituted. The template, in substituted form, still appears in the majority of the listed articles. While the template is depecated, none of the editors who have used it have been engaged in discussing what to do about replacing it; ((track listing)) does the job, but it isn't a drop-in replacement. Recommend that the nominator stops aggressively trying to remove templates naively identified as not in use if this is established not to be the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please show me an article using this template. I've looked through the first 51 articles on that list and it doesn't appear that any of them do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A methodology for finding articles which use the template was given by Gadget850 in the previous TfD, which was how your own list was generated. A quick look at the first five examples on that list shows that they're all using it. If you don't understand how a template can still be "in use" while it's substituted then I'm not sure how to explain it to you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Infolepsy EP is not using this template at all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. See the following output:

((Track listing item| title = Punishing2004| subtitle = | artist = | guests = [[MC SKM]]| writers = | length = 4:22| on-line = | notes = ))

In this case it looks like you're right on accounts of this diff preceding the creation of the template, however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay So to confirm: this template is unused, right? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would require checking every existing example of that code against the template as it was at the time of editing. For now I'd rather be cautious and give this another month. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete it's been about 6 weeks since it was deprecated, and it appears it is no longer in use, so it should be safe to delete. If it isn't deleted now, it can always be reconsidered in another month as suggested above. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:52, 16 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attribution-path (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, should be checked for spelling, and documented/linked somewhere if it is of some use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and document It would seem that this would be a necessary disclaimer, for derivative works based on it. I would think this would concern an original in one format and someone's hand drawn SVG trace of it, or conversion to PNG. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe there is already a mechanism for documenting derivative work. When you upload a new image, you specify what images you used when making the derivative work. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 23:28, 13 May 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.

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. I've reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lotus in F1 timeline in addition to the discussion below. Along with some editors participating below giving more extended opinions, at least two other editors in that discussion supported deletion. For ((F1 constructors spiritual timeline)) the consensus for deletion is very clear: it is a new POV fork of the other template. The support for deleting ((F1 constructors timeline)) was initially not as strong, but the consensus that developed is that the subject is too complicated to summarize accurately in this type of timeline, and therefore both templates should be removed in favor of textual explanations of the history. RL0919 (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 constructors timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:F1 constructors spiritual timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two variations of the same/similar information. Both templates are only transcluded in one article (Formula One). IMO, they have been the subject of an inordinate amount of discussion and angst compared to the benefit they provide. Propose they should both be deleted. Refer to WP:F1 discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's certainly no need for two. I'd be more comfortable with this being brought up for discussion on the transcluded article, though; this isn't a general-use templates and was designed simply to replace an inaccessible image with the same information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to this discussion to the existing discussion at Talk:Formula_One#Constructors_time_line. DH85868993 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think the timeline provides a good visual illustration of the timeline of every current constructors participation and name changes; this should be about the actual race teams and their personnel, rather than the 'spiritual' continuations like in Lotus and Mercedes' case 91.106.36.171 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'actual' teams are the spiritual continuations. The other template just shows the take over of a place on the grid. John Anderson (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this, it preserves an historical continuity that would be much more difficult to document without the graphic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per discussion. I'm sure this could be covered just as well using prose. Airplaneman ✈ 23:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is acctually no need for these tempaltes, especially not for the F1 constructors timeline which is just showing the take-over of teams but makes you think there would acctually be a kind of continuation of old teams in the new ones thus created. The history of teams in Formula One is more complex than these templates may make you want to believe. John Anderson (talk) 10:42, 15 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FlagPASOteam2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically redundant to ((FlagPASOteam)) and ((FlagPASOathlete)). It was only being used on one page, so I replaced it with the equivalent expression using ((FlagPASOathlete)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant and now orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 23:22, 13 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney Northern Districts suburbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other templates like Template:Sydney Hornsby suburbs, ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to more specific templates as mentioned in the nom. Huge (and therefore cumbersome) as well. Airplaneman ✈ 23:14, 13 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, not sure this type of sidebar is desired in article space. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 23:12, 13 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theological concepts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be redundant to ((Philosophy of religion)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant. ((Philosophy of religion)) better covers the topic. Airplaneman ✈ 23:11, 13 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thumb noclear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, appears to be redundant to putting the image inside of ((stack)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - orphaned and redundant to ((stack)). Airplaneman ✈ 23:09, 13 May 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.

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. Unused and no objection to deletion. Per the bot's page on Meta, it has never worked for en-wiki, but if it is ever fixed I would be happy to undelete the template. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not think this bot has run since 2007. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:04, 6 May 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, not sure if it still of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was used to put information on articles for tiebreaking games, but if a better infobox exists then this is no longer necessary. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:44, 12 May 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.