Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 9



More redundant conversion 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 per discussion and consensus in similar discussions Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

None of these are used. All of them are redundant to convert. automatically llinks. The two "bot" templates have an auto-rounding system based on the magnitude of the input number. We should use its precision not magnitude. uses precision. J IM ptalk·cont 10:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, August 10, 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:Economy of Pakistan infobox

 * 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 merge by subst on Economy of Pakistan. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This template is only useful in one article (Economy of Pakistan). The same text can be managed better within that article (as evidenced by the thousands of other articles that don't do this) Green Giant (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The basic idea in making this template was to save the article of Economy of Pakistan from excess load; as done in the article Economy of India. If more users think that the information in the Template:Economy of Pakistan infobox could be managed better within the article of Economy of Pakistan, only then I would recommend it for deletion. nomi887 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I realise that the Economy of India article and about 70 other economy articles use a similar style but the work of these templates is done by the Infobox Economy template which they transclude. This forces the database to call up more templates than necessary. The main article transcludes 52 templates without an infobox, the Infobox Economy template transcludes 9 templates, and the Economy of Pakistan infobox template transcludes 14 templates. If we transclude Infobox Economy directly, we can avoid the extra strain without affecting the actual functionality of the article. As for managing editing within the article, there are literally tens of thousands of other articles that transclude relevant templates directly. Green Giant (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Agree entirely with Green Giant. What are all these national economy templates providing that isn't in the generic template? If there are no necessary additions, then the generic template should be used. If there are additional elements that are commonly added on top of Infobox Economy to create the national templates, then these should be standardized and added to Infobox Economy. The whole idea of templates is to standardize across multiple articles, not for every article to have its own special template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 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:Malta-Christian Doctrine

 * 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 Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All articles linked by the template have been deleted. uKER (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless. As far as I can tell, most of the linked articles never even existed. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A template of all redlinks? Good grief. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 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.