Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 15



Macedonia flag 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 close. Redirects are listed for deletion at WP:RfD. JPG-GR (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)



Strictly speaking, these are all redirects, but I am nominating them here because they are all used like templates. Specifically, they are used with flag, flagicon, etc. to render the flag of Macedonia and perhaps a wikilink to the Republic of Macedonia article with the corresponding template name as display text for that link. In effect, they are alternate "aliases" of Template:Country data Macedonia. This nomination is is response to WP:MOSMAC2, which prescribes the instances where the country should be referred to as "former Yugoslav". I have found no instances where these alias templates are needed, and keeping them is a type of POV, in my opinion. If it is absolutely essential to show "former Yugoslav" with a flag template (as is arguably the case in the current ISO 3166-1 article), then the  parameter can be used, as per its intent (e.g.  . — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There's not any "arguably" about the naming in the article ISO 3166-1 (unless you're arguing that any flag templates are unnecessary there), since that is the name used in the ISO 3166-1 standard and we're not here to "correct" or editorialize about their choice of names. But is entirely sufficient, so I have no objection to the deletion of these templates. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my "arguably" comment referred to the necessity of having a template to render that text (vs. using the "name" parameter), not to the text itself. I am not fond of single-use templates, especially when they are not necessary, and the ISO 3166-1 article is the only instance I have found across all Wikipedia where "former Yugoslav" is used in conjunction with the Macedonia flag template.  Elsewhere, "Macedonia" is almost always sufficient (per WP:MOSMAC2), and "Republic of Macedonia" covers the remainder.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I misunderstood you. Anomie⚔ 00:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer in the first place! No worries. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Close this should be listed at RFD 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, these aren't like "normal" redirects. They exploit the MediaWiki redirect mechanism to serve as flag template selectors.  That's why I listed them here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Civil Parishes of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)



Per MOS:PUNC the correct form is Template:Civil Parishes of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, which exists. No article transcludes this template. ClickRick (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposer. ClickRick (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. magnius (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree, since I nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion T3; why bother with this nomination when it would have been deleted routinely after seven days? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: if I'd seen that I'd clearly not have nominated it. I checked history, but at the time I nominated it I could see no sign that anyone else had already done so. T3 would be clearly preferable - please make it so if possible. ClickRick (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: after staring at the nominated template for ten minutes in order to perceive the one-character difference in the title, I've redirected it. I realize that it's not currently transcluded, but it seems likely to be useful in the future. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Repo! The Genetic Opera

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)



I do not see the point in having this template as all of the characters are redlinked, non-existent pages, and there doesn't seem to be a need to set about creating pages for them anyway. magnius (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

--ZydrateSupporter (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I created the template in advance as I am going to be making pages for them, I could switch the to unlinked until they get started. But if you are going to delete it anyway, I will just be wasting my time adding more stuff to Wikipedia that won't go anywhere.
 * Keep for now - Currently, several items in the template have pages. If more will be added soon, this template will be valuable.  If not, the template can be deleted in due time.  But given that the template was just created, it does have some linked existing articles, and the creator has indicated an intent to create the currently non-existent articles, it makes most sense to give it a chance to develop. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: And delete those character pages too! This is a movie that has no sequal and all the information about those characters (which consists as about a paragraph) should be listed in the films's article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.