Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 17



Template:User WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Already listed at MfD. - F ASTILY   01:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @TenPoundHammer under CSD criterion G8  F ASTILY   23:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan
 * User WP Islamabad
 * User WikiProject Lahore
 * Can you explain to me how these do not meet G8? They are dependent on nonexistant articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Under "Examples include:", I see no entry for templates of deleted WikiProjects.  For the record, I interpret CSD more loosely than many of peers, but even this is a stretch for me.  -  F ASTILY   00:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue These are userboxes, which go to MfD (where I already nominated them several days ago) not TfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:54, 18 March 2021 (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:Double soft redirect

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Double soft redirect with Template:Soft redirect.
 * Double soft redirect
 * Soft redirect

The double soft redirect is not that widely used compared to the main soft redirect template. However, the second param of the soft redirect template is used for a different purpose, so all instances of the template using the second parameter need to be modified or else the new template would not display properly for those transclusions. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment or change Soft redirect to accept parameters 3 and 4 to be used for the second redirect? Nigej (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep separate. Having something simpler to implement without complex parameters is better for the arcane domain that is soft redirection. That aside, the plain soft redirect template, (WP:SOFTSIS). It is easier to track separate occurrences of each this way; if they were merged and the double soft redirect eventually finds use in the mainspace (see previous TfD discussion), then the pseudo-maintenance category would be unnecessarily cluttered. Little benefit (especially given such spare use of the double), a maintenance burden of an existing template in regard to merging (the second paramater is useful and more known; moving it to 3 etc. would be unwise), and a lot of other drawbacks. Net negative. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Godsy. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 22 March 2021 (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:Triple soft redirect

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 March 25. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Triple_soft_redirect
 * 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:Tempo Storm

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Tempo Storm does not have divisions for these teams anymore; divisions that Tempo Storm do have have only one article for that players. Pbrks (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tempo Storm
 * delete after merging the list of players with Tempo Storm. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly it needs rewriting if it is to be kept. However there are not really enough links for it to be useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. It appears that Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa, Trump (gamer), Axe (gamer), Trihex, Jeff Leach and Ahman Green are the only people who have articles and are listed as currently representing Tempo per its website, and I have added the Tempo Storm category to PVDDR and Trihex. However, the last two do not seem to have current or active connections to Tempo Storm, per their own social accounts. It's my experience that navboxes for esports organizations are not kept updated; in fact, of the four others, only one is even on the navbox in its present state. The fact that ZeRo is still on this after being banned from Twitch and the Smash community is a massive sign of the disrepair this navbox is in. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:35, 20 March 2021 (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).