Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27

[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 relisted on 2017 June 4. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:56, 4 June 2017 (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).
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) Yashovardhan (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's for templates like these I wish we had some sort of T4 parameter. This template is being created seven months before the first game will even be played. I don't mind a refund later, but it doesn't need to be here now. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you please save this template. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:2932:5932:8296:523C (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this template now. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:1105:E55B:3E49:4EA1 (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2017 (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).
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 relisted on 2017 June 4. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2017 (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).
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) Yashovardhan (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. A wikitable with the same info is already in-use at Ugandan general election, 2016. ~ Rob13Talk 22:35, 27 May 2017 (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).
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) Yashovardhan (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to use as team doesn't exist. Greenbörg (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2017 (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).
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) Yashovardhan (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant as it serves no purpose. All articles here are redirects. Greenbörg (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2017 (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).
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) Yashovardhan (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This cricket team is no more active. Redundant to use now. Greenbörg (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2017 (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).
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 relisted on 2017 June 4. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2017 (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).
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 as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original creator of the template. Unused template. It was used in one article, but I substed it. Wikipedia should be easy to edit. I created the template to cease the disruptive editing over multiple indic-script names (marathi, urdu, telugu, and kannada), and for another issue. It seemed logical to add infobox template instead of RFPP entire article. But as with WP:NOINDICSCRIPT it can be handled. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:57, 27 May 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useless now when its articles are redirected. Greenbörg (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2017 (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).
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) Yashovardhan (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template and its subpages don't actually work because the gadget for them does not exist on the English Wikipedia and will likely never be enabled for logged-out readers due to the usual accessibility/JavaScript/colour/hiding-of-information concerns. Several subpages are unused. Uses can be replaced by {{ill}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
06:08, 27 May 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. It was used in one article, but templates should not contain article content, so I substed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the original creator of the template. Wikipedia should be easy to edit. I created the template to cease the disruptive editing over multiple indic-script names. It seemed logical to add infobox instead of RFPP entire article. But as with WP:NOINDICSCRIPT it can be handled. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:44, 27 May 2017 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

nominating for discussion: unused. previously used Gonejackal (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Gonejackal (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2017 (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).
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 move. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 11:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unusedGonejackal (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:39, 27 May 2017 (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).
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 move. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unusedGonejackal (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. This template contains valuable work that shouldn't be thrown away. It needs a more balanced inclusion of cities in the south (and possibly the exclusion of possibly controversially included non-Punjab cities in the north). Once this is done, it can be used as a map in a section within Punjab (region). Whether it could be used in other articles, I do not know, but if it isn't, then its code could be hardcoded into the abovementioned article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should have a plan in mind before they create valuable material.Gonejackal (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and nothing is ever finished. We don't delete stuff on the sole grounds that the editor who started it isn't able to complete it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We used to keep articles in creation around forever; that policy has change to reflect WP:NOT policy.Gonejackal (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified both original editors.Gonejackal (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was something you were supposed to have done at the time of nomination. Of these two editors, only one has made any substantial edits to the template and he can't comment here because he's currently blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was a courtesy as I wouldn't have done it if 1000 editors edited the template. And the creator's block is selfimposed. WP:REFUND is also an option.Gonejackal (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:39, 27 May 2017 (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).