Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 13

[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) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links for useful navigation. anemoneprojectors 15:43, 13 October 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).
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)[reply]

per WP:NENAN, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_9#Template:Villages_in_East_Godavari_district and also the district was divided, so the list is even small Vin09(talk) 06:55, 13 October 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).
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)[reply]

Redundant to {{Integrated development environments}}. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:56, 13 October 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).
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)[reply]

Redundant to {{Integrated development environments}}. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:56, 13 October 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).
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:05, 13 October 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).
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:05, 13 October 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).
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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[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).