Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29

[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) 00:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one working link, not counting another one in the title. It's a navigation box that hardly allows any navigation at all. Victão Lopes Fala! 23:59, 29 March 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).
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) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and broken Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 29 March 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).
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) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 29 March 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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia licensing guidelines, it kind of useless to has a template that allow you to license stuff under a invalid license. The CC BY-ND is incompatible with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA version 3.0 and the GFDL 1.2+. The ND license is disallowed on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:91B9:158A:7BA4:ADA9 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this is allowed as explained in Wikipedia:Multi-licensing#How it works. It must be understood that a contributor with this template on their userpage is "dual-licencing" their contributions, i.e. under releasing them both under the CC-BY-SA-3 and the CC-BY-ND-3. If the work (presumably article) is not derivative, then either one of those two licences can be chosen (again see the section linked). It doesn't make much sense to me why a person would want to do that, given that ND is more restrictive than SA, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. --Inops (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 29 March 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).