Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7

edit

Template:Start date and age

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) wctaiwan (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "and age" segment can only be used on people with biographies. It cannot be used on companies or cable channels. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see absolutely no reason why the "and age" segment can't be used on articles for companies or cable channels. All it does is show how long ago something happened, in this case the foundation of a company. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The idea that non-people don't have an "age" is a little silly. The template documentation is clear that this one pertains when an event started or an entity was created. -- ferret (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This template is specifically made for companies, and not usable on biographies. Biograhpies use {{Birth date and age}}. Lordtobi (✉) 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the "and age" segment is very useful so you don't have to calculate the time elapsed!!Gioto (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm fairly certain nobody gives a crap about the specific age of a network unless it's hit some sort of milestone anniversary, and even then only a few networks even celebrate it officially. MadManAmeica (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This discussion of removal is appearing in the infobox of some colleges and universities. These institutions celebrate their anniversaries with pride and fanfare; why should they not revel in seeing how close they are to the next? Jzsj (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any problem on using this template on companies and cable channels articles especially in entities that are 5 years or older. It help the readers to know in an instant time when the entity was founded or launched. Hollyckuhno (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful for reporting the age of the many thousands of living people with biographies. Companies and other entities can always use Template:Start date. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A company, such as a sports franchise, can have an age. Ever wonder how old your favorite sports team is? Come here and see the exact age. CrashUnderride 00:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposer appears not to appreciate the utility of this template. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I found myself here from an article on a software project, where this template is used to show the total age of the project, as well as the time since the latest release. It clearly has utility beyond that specified by the OP. AJCham 00:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing about this template says it is only useful for biographies; its 24,652 transclusions indicate this template is clearly quite useful. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used extensively in Fraternity and Sorority infoboxes.Naraht (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per arguments above. It's also used for determining the age of software titles. This template is used so extensively, that if it's deleted, then there will be lots breakage, and someone will most likely re-create it. -Mardus /talk 00:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful to use it with {{Infobox football club}}. SLBedit (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason "age" should not be used for companies, cable channels, softwares, etc. Claw of Slime (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the delete reasoning boils down to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. As expressed above, there is clearly value in seeing age of software, and I see no detriment in seeing age of companies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:41, 8 February 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:Pay TV Networks in Sri Lanka

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 Feb 26. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Media of Sri Lanka. obi2canibetalk contr 21:06, 7 February 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:Cricket five-wicket haul takers

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) Primefac (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template, all the things on it are redlinks, and nobody in their right mind will ever create any of these articles, as they fall under WP:LISTCRUFT. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 7 February 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:Railway Stations in Kollam District

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 Feb 26. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 26 February 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:Infobox Romanian political party

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 Feb 26. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Romanian political party with Template:Infobox political party.

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:GamesSport2

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 Feb 26. Primefac (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:GamesSport2 with Template:GamesSport.

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).

Record label navboxes

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 no consensus to blanket delete them all. Everyone wants to save a different template (with no apparent agreement on anything), so I suggest making a separate case for each one. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No artist roster per precedent at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Without this, navbox is useless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep in mind, as Frietjes said, that this discussion is about the templates themselves, not their source material.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep navigation templates for Brainfeeder, Chocolate City, Hospital Records artists, Jungle Entertainment, K.Pone.Inc, Mush Records, Poe Boy Entertainment, Reel Life Productions, Rhymesayers Entertainment, Stones Throw Records, Top Dawg Entertainment, Web Entertainment, and Woollim Entertainment as useful navboxes for... wait for it.... navigation. It is particularly important to keep the navboxes for Alpha Records and Thumper Punk Records because there is no article for the record label, but the articles are tied together by this common thread. Delete Reach Records navbox template, as it merely links the company's founder to the label, which is accomplished easily within either article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to delete them, as per WP:NAVBOX there should be an article on the subject of the navbox, otherwise we should consider the record label in question non-notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to keep them in this instance, as Alpha Records is a long running, HIGHLY important Greek record label, for which few if any English sources exist. How would the encyclopedia be improved by the deletion of this navbox? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Alpha Records does have an article, so not sure why you mentioned it. But, the point is that the articles are only tangentially related - the only thing that most of them have in common is that they happen to be on the same record label. These label rosters fail WP:NAVBOX for this and many other reasons. Take Stelios Kazantzidis for example. The article does not mention Alpha Records once. And how is he related to Antzy Samiou (for example)? Like I said, these are only tangential connections, so the navboxes do not provide useful navigation. To take it to a larger scale, both Mel Tormé and Led Zeppelin were at some point in their careers on Atlantic Records, but that doesn't mean they have any shared connection, and neither does it mean that they should be included at {{Atlantic Records}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 17 February 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:PD-unknown

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not used template Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Stefan2: Can you foresee any use for this template? This seems like a template that would need to be updated in the event that new information helps determine if the file is free or non-free, but doesn't declare either by its existence alone. It's almost like a "bookmark" for a page to be checked again at a later time, like this template is supposed to place the page in some sort of cleanup category, though it currently doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally, we use country-specific templates such as {{PD-UK-unknown}} for anonymous works. Different countries define 'anonymous' differently and may have odd rules, so a generic template which doesn't refer to a specific country doesn't seem useful to me. Another problem is that it doesn't say in which countries the material is in the public domain. For example, United States law makes no difference between works by known authors and works by unknown authors if the work was published before 1978, and completely different rules are used for works by anonymous authors which are either unpublished or first published in 1978 or later. In Sweden and the United Kingdom, the template doesn't always apply if the work is unpublished or if the first publication was later than 70 years after the work was created. I suggest that we delete this template and make sure that we always use country-specific templates instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since EN.wiki operates under US law, this template should only work for US legal circumstances. Just like all the other general templates that apply to all resources on EN.wiki regardless of local source jurisdiction because Wikipedia itself operates under US jurisdiction. Indeed, that's why EN.wiki has different media rules than COMMONS, because we follow US law, and why PD-US images from foreign countries reside on EN.wiki instead of COMMONS due to source country legal differences. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is useful to indicate that something is free in the source country as this helps people who wish to move files to Commons. This template reveals nothing about the copyright status in the United States, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't imagine a scenario where even without knowing the copyright holder nor the country nor anything really we can still say with certainty that it's in the public domain in the United States. I'd rather we actually take the file to FFD and discuss it now than "bookmark" these kinds of images for later review (if that ever happens). It's too problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 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:I-League Champions

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 No consensus. I don't see any discussion in either direction based on any policy grounds so I don't see any clear consensus. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 7 February 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:Wikivar

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 ensuring that transclusions are replaced with {{tld}} or {{tlx}} depending on current use (in other words, subst it). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the recently added and rarely used {{{style}}} parameter, this is basically a subset of {{tlg}} though it only supports a single parameter.
I'm proposing transclusions to be accordingly subst'd and the template to be redirected to the plain version Template:tld. PanchoS (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 7 February 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:Weatherbox Rio Branco, Acre

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merged with Rio Branco, Acre, so no longer needed (could move to article space and redirect if we need to preserve attribution). Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:44, 7 February 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_February_7&oldid=1138532970"