Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6 edit

Template:Mission 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21. Primefac (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (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).

Template:Nach Baliye 4 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless with Template:Nach Baliye present as one consolidated template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:P.I Private Investigator 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded and quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:Indian Idol (season 6) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless with Template:Indian Idol present as one consolidated template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:36, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:Zara Nachke Dikha (season 1) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:Indian Idol Junior (season 2) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:X Factor (India) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion, that too only on the main page of the topic, quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 6 January 2016 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} should be modified to echo c:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, and all instances of {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} be changed to that template. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is still in use and unmodified, despite this statement a year ago that the license status of these images has been changed to a free CC license with trademarks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest that we rename the template and change the text into {{cc-by-sa-3.0|[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}{{Wikimedia trademark}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest to replace the template with these instead and delete the template. Doesn't seem to me we need a specific template for Wikimedia logos, but I am definitively up for commentary on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and amend text per Stefan2 (assuming that synchronises with c:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia per Stefan2's subsequent comment). This seems like an uncontroversial correction to a misleading statement, rather than something needing a TfD thread, I'd suggest. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (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).

Template:Latest stable software release/ChatON 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-coded text used only in a single article. Better to just merge contents into article than hidden away in a template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone is still on the fence, it's still possible to consider this a violation of WP:T3. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: and delete per nom, as it is not likely to change, since the software is discontinued. —PC-XT+ 09:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 08:45, 20 January 2016 (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).

Template:TriMet Rail System navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21. Primefac (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (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).

Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after replacing with {{Di-fails NFCC}} as indicated below. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent with Template:Di-fails NFCC.
{{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} seems to mean that a file violates WP:NFCC#8. For that purpose, we already have a different template: {{di-fails NFCC|8=yes|date=~~~~~}}. I fail to see any need for this extra template. Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:Modern Family episodes 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).

The result of the discussion was merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Modern Family episodes with Template:Modern Family.
Barely any links at the target, so wouldn't make for a substantially larger navbox if they were merged. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree. The two templates could be merged without any issues since the "main" one is almost empty. TeamGale (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems appropriate —PC-XT+ 08:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. -- Chamith (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2016 (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).

Template:IPL Winners 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).

The result of the discussion was delete, consensus is that this template is redundant to other sources of the same information. Note that the creator has been blocked for socking since this discussion began. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a reason why there should be a template for the winners of the Indian Premier League? An encyclopedic one? ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then there should not be an encyclopedic reason for keeping Template:IPL Player of the Series. Do you have any explanation? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 11:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never made it so I don't know. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to nominate that for deletion then be my guest. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem in keeping these templates. Is there? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 08:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is one problem with keeping this template. This template just shows the teams that have won the IPL. There is already the IPL template which already lists all the eight IPL teams. Other than a few teams which leave/suspended and some which came in through rebranding/expansion, the teams pretty much remain the same since this is a league, not a tournament like the UEFA Champions League where all the teams that compete in it change yearly and that there is a process to qualify for the tournament in the first place. Eventually there is a good chance that every team can win the IPL so that would make the template kinda useless since there is already a template that lists the teams, whereas that is unlikely to ever happen with the Champions League or similar tournaments like it. You can make a section in IPL team templates (we should create these) where you list what honours they won and when (like in this). There are already a list of who the champions are and details of every tournament final. Basically, due to the nature of the IPL, there is no reason for a template detailing who the winners of every tournament are. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What are you, Swastik? A kid in primary school? There was a lengthy discussion (in which i was a part of) already on some useless templates he created before. And now this. I need you to understand that you are wasting other users time with your school projects on wiki. The explanation given by ArsenalFan700 in the last comment is common sense. Shocked to see 2 similar templates on the same page (IPL). Chris8924 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to be CIVIL during these discussions; personal attacks are unacceptable and could result in sanctions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris8924, put your bloody thoughts in your 'old' brain only. You are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a place for evaluating whether person is a kid or not? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 17:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; not particularly different from {{World Series champions}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this template is not necessary, if it necessary some one create this in past, no need wait till the 9th season. if we open one team like DD/RR/KKR/All the teams, we can see their performance in that pages, Or if we open IPL Main page we can find out all team performance at one place.

Player of series Template also no need as specially. Nivas88 09:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2016 (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).

Template:Non-free Philippines government 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21. Primefac (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_6&oldid=1086088960"