Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15 edit

Template:6 Hours of Circuit of Fuji 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be created by mistake (copy of Template:6 Hours of Fuji) Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2018 (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:2017–18 Catholic Conference Hockey standings 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

all redlinks; high school sports conference Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2018 (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:2003 World Rally Championship season 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, all redlinks; duplicates the this of events in the main article Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2018 (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:2002 World Rally Championship season 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no links; duplicates the list in the main article Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2018 (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:Four Great Classical Novels Television Series 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, Template:Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Template:Water Margin, Template:Dream of the Red Chamber and Template:Journey to the West all include TV adaptations already. The 4 Chinese novels are not related in any meaningful way such as setting, author (Water Margin may share one co-author with ROTK but that's debatable), or story, to warrant inclusion of their TV adaptations in the same template. (Four Great Classical Novels has already been moved to Classic Chinese Novels for what it's worth.) Timmyshin (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (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).

NC license templates 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 Keep, Keep, Merge. AFAIK, multiple licensing if coupled with a free one is allowed at WP.Anyways, one of the near-duplicate template has been set for a merge. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All needs to be deleted because Wikipedia don't allow NC licenses. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:AD9E:5801:81C:7CD9 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the templates. Those who use those templates are licensing their contributions under multiple licences: GFDL, CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA. This is permitted as long as one of the licences is a free licence.
{{MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng}} and {{MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng-3.0}} seem to duplicate each other: the only difference I can find is that one uses British spelling ("licence") while the other uses American spelling ("license"). Confusingly, both use British spelling in the page title, though. It may be possible to merge those two. The third template uses a different version of the licence and therefore can't be merged with the other two. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (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:LUMS 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No article to navigate. Redundant temp. Störm (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2018 (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:Monastic houses of England 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 to Template:Monastic houses of England. This is done mostly for brevity, but I will note that the longer-title template was converted to text-only in 2017, so technically speaking the shorter navbox is actually "older". Primefac (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Monastic houses of England with Template:Map link to lists of monastic houses in England by county.
{{Monastic houses of England}} duplicates scope and content of {{Map link to lists of monastic houses in England by county}}, which has older edit history, except for the footer links. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2018 (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:2018 UPSL Wild West standings 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template for an article that fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination for these templates as a result of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article itself is notable and receives WP:SIGCOV, the template helps preserve the article from being too long in length. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete Useful template for the 2018 UPSL season article. Keep if that article is kept, delete if it is deleted. Bashum104 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I mentioned above, there is a mass move to make this league disappear from wikipedia, so its component articles and the templates to support the articles are under attack. The league is notable, the season they play is already (and will continue to be) notable. The templates that support the layout of that season's article are useful for the cleanliness of that presentation. Even if it is a single use template, templates make content more orderly and are justified. Trackinfo (talk)
Comment "Under attack"? Please dial back the accusations and allow the content to be discussed in a civil manner please. Whether or not the league is notable remains to be seen. Jay eyem (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every TfD is an attack on the content. There is no other term for it. The intent is to destroy. Trackinfo (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would appreciate it if you read/re-read WP:CIVIL before your next response. "an attack on content" and "The intent is to destroy" are highly accusatory, and such comments are not needed for this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:attack, #1 and 2 apply; wikt:destroy, #7 certainly, and 2, 3 or 4 could also suffice. This is not an issue of civility, this is a statement of fact. If you did not want this content to disappear, you would not have started this action. Trackinfo (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your word choice clearly implied ill-considered accusations of impropriety and implies that deletion of content that is somehow equivalent to destruction, neutralization, and euthanization. It absolutely is a WP:CIVIL issue, and unless you intend on making actual arguments about the merits of keeping the templates, you should not be making such comments. Jay eyem (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was in WP:DR
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:*Wait pending the outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (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/2018_February_15&oldid=828262250"