Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9

Remaining Canada political party meta color 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alberta Liberal Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alberta New Democratic Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alberta Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alberta Social Credit Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CAQ/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Conservative Party of Canada/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Conservative Party of Canada (historical)/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Liberal Party of Canada/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Democratic Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Progressive Conservative Party of Canada/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saskatchewan New Democratic Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wildrose Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No articles use these templates. All of their functionality can be duplicated by Template:Canadian party colour. There is no reason to keep them for subsitution because the contents of the templates are shorter than the template names. There is no reason to keep them for their histories because they have had few-to-no edits and few-to-no mentions on talk pages. Their corisponding meta shortname nemplates were already deleted here and in speedy deletions. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why wasn't this speedyed? 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone requested that I start nominating these. If standard practice allows me to nominate them for speedy, I'll go back to doing that because it only takes three clicks, and it presumably saves time here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, make my day. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just add - {{db-t3|08:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)}} or {{Db-g6}} linking to this tlak.Moxy (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2013 (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:Bradley Manning

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) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bradley Manning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded and unhelpful; "Awards" are linked in his infobox and not particular to him; "Places" are simply locations where he has been held and not particular to him; His article is well linked with the "Related" and "People" entries. Various hatnotes cover related topics, as does the See also section; as the majority of links are pertinent to the Wikilinks navbox, the links here should simply be a line in that navbox. S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PS: I have added the People and Legal topics from this template to Template:WikiLeaks20:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PPS: I note that Manning is not mentioned in the various target links. This is not in keeping with WP:NAVBOX guideline #4 "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."02:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)19:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC) PPPS: Award & two places articles, which did not mention Manning, have been removed from the template. Arguments for deletion (SA section, hatnotes, article inline links) remain. --S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains two primary groups: People and topics already wikilinked properly in the article (in some cases, linked properly as sub-articles or "see also"), and material which of of extremely tangential connection to the BLP. Oh - and a non-notable "author" who wrote a book. (Who is used for way too much of the BLP, alas) If we include all authors of a single book on a topic in a template, we would be in an untenable position - at least the template does not include every newspaper and reporter in it. Collect (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (forgot to sign initially)[reply]

Delete This seems to serve no purpose beyond being a navbox for navbox' sake. As S. Rich and Collect point out, the articles mentioned in the navbox are already mentioned in the article proper, and it certainly doesn't belong on pages such as Marine Corps Brig, Quantico or July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. Huon (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2013 (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:Olympic Games American football

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) 02:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games American football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

CSD G4 declined with reason: "Not the same and doesn't have an element that worked toward the previous deletion" (previous discussion here) Anyway, the sport still has yet to be an official Olympic sport, and with only two links, I feel that WP:NENAN may apply. Zappa O Mati 03:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined the speedy attempt because it's substantially different from the template that was deleted before, and the previous template suffered from its small size, while this one links to every relevant Olympic Games. However, both templates are navboxes for a sport that didn't appear frequently at the Games. Why do we need a navbox with two links and no reasonable hope of adding more? Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there were a Template:Demonstration sports at the Olympics I would say redirect there, but there isn't, and this is a single instance template, so delete -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a template that really has only one useful link (American football at the Summer Olympics and American football at the 1932 Summer Olympics should probably be merged). Reso lute 21:37, 14 January 2013 (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.