Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 13



Template:5 News

 * 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) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Not enough links for useful navigation. anemone projectors  15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5 News
 * delete, now that the anchors have been removed, this is basically pointless. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Mandals of Nalgonda

 * 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) Primefac (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC) per WP:NENAN, Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_9 and also the district was divided, so the list is even small  Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   06:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mandals of Nalgonda
 * 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:Integrated development environments for Java

 * 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) 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Redundant to Integrated development environments. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Integrated development environments for Java
 * Delete as per 50.53.1.33 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Integrated development environments for C and C++

 * 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) 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Redundant to Integrated development environments. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Integrated development environments for C and C++
 * Delete as per 50.53.1.33 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/delete and friends

 * 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; no opposition. REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC) These templates look as though they were intended to be utilized at WP:ANRFC, but that both never occurred and ANRFC hays alternate methods to mark discussions closed. Also, these templates look as though they were actually designed to be used for WP:XFD discussions, but if that is the case, they are probably unnecessary since closing results in XfD discussions can be typed out and don't need a template just to say "retarget" or "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A ping to AN might be appropriate since this is used in their space.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/delete
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/retarget
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/no consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Red Barrels games templates

 * 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) Primefac (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Links only 3 articles, which fails the soft requirement in WP:NENAN. All of the articles are well-linked together without need for a navbox. Izno (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Red Barrels games templates

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete, standard linking works fine. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Years in Ukraine

 * 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 2016 October 21 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Years in Ukraine
 * 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:Double soft redirect

 * 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. There's cleanup to do regarding where it's used, but it seems it does have a use. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC) It seems that most (if not all) transclusions of this template should be replaced with disambiguation pages since that seems to be the standard in regards to how such issues are resolved when a primary topic is not clear. With that being said, this template should be deleted with the following resolution for the existing transclusions: Procedural nominating all transclusions for WP:RFD with the "no consensus" option being "create a disambiguation page". (Then, after all of the transclusions are removed per the discussions, the template can be deleted.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Double soft redirect
 * Note: pinging who I've seen doing soft redirects. I've also notified WikiProject Redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but limit use to when redirecting to two sister sites or two different pages within one sister site. We occasionally redirect terms to Wiktionary or in even more rarely to other sister sites. Both Wikiquote and Wiktionary may have a relevant entry on a phrase and we might want to soft redirect to both sites. Wiktionary sometimes has an entry at a title with and without a dash, or even just two synonymous terms, and we may want to link to both. I think this template has potential. However, I do agree that all non-userspace pages that use this to link to one or more local pages should be converted appropriately. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not quite sure I understand the rationale above. This template, just like the single soft redirect template, is designed to be used as described by Godsy above.  A good read of WP:SRD may be in order.  When I find softies that should be hard-redirected, then I do so.  In the case of double softies, either a dab page or a ptopic redirect is the solution.  This template should only be used to go to sisters and special pages.  Use within enwiki is misuse.   Paine   u/ c  14:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have placed a note on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion as participants there may have input about this nomination due to similar activity on RFD. Here's the note. Steel1943  (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is sometimes used validly on enwiki pages (such as here). I can see it not being used in most cases, but in a few cases like this, it is very useful. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The documentation tells us that it is not to be used for portal pages, only for sister projects. Also, it is not so useful in your example since there is a backlink near the TOP of the page to Portal:Current events.   Paine   u/ c  17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Godsy. Plausible to have two good targets among sister sites for soft redirecting to. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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).