Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 30

< January 29	January 31 >

January 30 edit

Template:Firefox release compatibility 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 February 8. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (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.

Template:Did you know nominations/Mouna Ragam 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) —PC-XT+ 19:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mouna Ragam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Due to being in limbo for long without any progress, I give up this DYK nomination. It also seems to have failed the DYK criteria. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why do DYK nominations sit in template space? They aren't templates, and so seems like they should obviously sit in project space (WP-space); this nomination seems like it should be processed through WP:MFD as this isn't a real template. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree. I wonder if a speedy deletion rationale would be appropriate. —PC-XT+ 12:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I asked at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK subpage deletion discussion. —PC-XT+ 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: old DYK noms are archived, not deleted, just like old AfD discussions. This is done by subst:ing the {{DYKsubpage}} template and filling in the |passed= parameter as yes/no. However, the nomination is not beyond hope; in fact, there are many nominations that have gone longer without a review. But if you really want to withdraw it @Kailash29792:, it should be closed, not deleted. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, consider that I now withdraw the deletion nomination. But what should I do to make it reviewed? Ask someone (like in GA reviews), or something else? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, if you wish to pursue the nomination, we can complete step 3, which you missed when you originally nominated. This step makes the nomination visible to potential reviewers. It looks like you missed the message on your talk page on January 3, which told you this step had been omitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as G S Palmer notes, we archive old DYK nominations. They shouldn't be deleted, especially if there's already discussion there. Also, if Kailash29792 doesn't want to pursue the nomination, we should allow the person whose article was nominated to take over if desired (this person has already suggested a DYK hook). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The error has been rectified, and I do intend to continue with the DYK. So this deletion entry can be closed. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2015 (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.

Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 February 8. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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.

Video game series chronology 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Onimusha chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Killzone chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ys chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Devil May Cry chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Silent Hill Chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dead Space chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Professor Layton chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ace Attorney chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the outcome of this discussion, these templates have been found to be trivial information, based upon in-game information. How these games are chronologically set can also be easily explained by the main series' article. --Soetermans. T / C Nomination procedurally created on Soetermans' behalf by ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉. 18:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per discussions referenced in nom. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 1 February 2015 (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.