Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25

Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/Pacific

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 per consensus in prior discussion Magioladitis (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/Pacific (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Forgot to list this one at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 25#Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/, unused. Svick (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (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:PD-US-flag

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) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-US-flag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not based on any law me and others could find. The last time it was bought here, many images were tagged with this template. Now, there are none tagged with this template, so it should be safely deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several previous discussions (such as here and here) have questioned whether the copyright claim made on this template is accurate. If it is accurate, then the images would be public domain and we would prefer that they be loaded to Wikimedia Commons instead of just to the English Wikipedia. So either way it isn't useful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above IJA (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2009 (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:Alex Jones

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 as not currently useful as navigation. It could be recreated if redlinked articles are created. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alex Jones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template mostly has red links, which are likely to (not all) be notable. (Navigation templates "traditionally" point only to actual articles.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only one of the body links which is blue does not redirect to the subject's article, Alex Jones (radio), and that one is being considered for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me to the policy that says that this is unacceptable for templates to have red links? I can't argue if I'm not aware of the rules. Thank you. Varks Spira (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAV#Properties states "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles." Now, it's not obvious that this is intended as a navigation template, but there doesn't seem to be any other appropriate reason for its existence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this template was nominated very quickly after it was created, there is the possibility that the editor who created it was planning to create the redlinked articles. If so, then the template may just be a bit premature and could be userfied instead of deleted. (Or even kept, if the article creation is proceeding very quickly.) I've left a note at the creator's talk page to see if we can get some input on this question. --RL0919 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I created this template was for potential future articles on Alex Jones's documentaries. No I don't plan on creating the articles myself. If the red links is in violation of some template guideline or policy then I understand. Go ahead and delete it if it violates WP:CRYSTAL, or some template guidline. Burningview ✉ 14:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there is an official guideline against it, but there is widespread disapproval for navigation templates that contain a large amount of redlinks. (I'm one of those who disapproves, see below.) --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough existing articles to justify a navbox, and no plan for them to be created quickly. Can always recreate in the future if/when a larger number of relevant articles actually exist. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people are complaining about all the red/ dead links, removes the red/ dead links, but the others can stay IJA (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support that, except that such removals would leave the navbox with just three links, including the main article. All the rest are redlinks or redirects to the main article. Do you really think three links is enough to justify a navigation template? --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to navigate. One film about the Bildebergers snagged just enough media attention to eke out an article but the rest don't have a chance, honestly, as they were direct-to-video investigative documentaries. Alex Jones filmography wasn't even notable enough for an article. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (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:Ninel Conde

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) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ninel Conde (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of the articles exist. Blank template, no potential of ever being used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 28 October 2009 (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.