Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 27



Template:Power Grid Corp of China

 * 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) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)



Duplicative of Power grid corporations of China, no reason to keep to identical templates.  Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 22:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have nominated for speedy per criteria T3 --Cybercobra (talk) 00:43, 28 June 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:Z:\notes

 * 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) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)



Template not used & has no useful purpose. WOSlinker (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Not used or remotely useful. • Anakin (talk) 12:54, 28 June 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:Lists of countries

 * 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 and replace with appropriate template listed below. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)



Bloated and unwieldy; of questionable usability; can be superceded. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate, I've created the following templates from this template, that they may replace it: --Cybercobra (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion warnings have been spammed to many list articles that use this template so as to give adequate notice. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: How is it of "questionable usability"? It is perfectly fine as a WP template. --  李博杰    | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very large and contains many statistics completely unrelated to any given article it may be used on. Thus, it wastes space and is complicated to navigate, making it less useful to readers. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is large, but very usable with a categorized layout.  Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch  Talk/contrib 11:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you find that the list is too big and it gets in your way you can use the hide button and open it only when needed. Sbw01f (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the very definition of an arbitrary collection of information, and is far too busy for the primary purpose of navboxes (to quickly navigate to articles you want to go to from a given subject). The keeps are substance-free. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep' - Useful template, allowing people to browse all sorts of country articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too arbitrary. Garion96 (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is quite large, but also quite useful for comparing countries on a economic scale. Might be useful to spin-off parts there aren't that useful from a economic perspective, like the sports category.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting Lists of countries and replacing uses of it with the topical templates would actually seem to advance your goal more than keeping Lists of countries, since the topical templates actually are divided by topic. Otherwise, there is really no reason to emphasize one particular perspective in Lists of countries, which is not topic-specific, and de-emphasize others. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Eyefuck. Keepers should be able to point to more than wp:useful if this is to be kept. Endorse replacement with more specialised boxes, per nominator. Flowerparty ☀ 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * er, WP:useful refers to "encyclopedic" content, not templates. By the same token, what is the rationale to split it into specialized templates, or create this very template or similar ones in the first place?  Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch  Talk/contrib 11:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support deletion and replacement with the new templates. As far as I'm concerned, smaller is better when you are dealing with navboxes which have multiple categories of articles or data (with a few minor exceptions). -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For general articles on countries the combined list is better; for articles of specific aspects, the new divided ones seem a very good idea also. DGG (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is the line drawn? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Really not needed.Ghoongta (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The only template in the whole web that consists of single page with ranking order for multiple items. If removed WWW will lose a very useful statistical tool.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the new templates all link, in their footers, to the 3 list articles that pretty much contain all such rankings? --Cybercobra (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh boy, what a fun template!! :)  Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I like it as I find myself looking at sites I hadn't considered - it would be a shame if it were deleted! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Large, yes, but very useful. Anxietycello (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the template in question to be very useful. Having a template of different "Lists of countries" makes it easier, and relevant, to jump to different lists to compare statistics and so on. -GabaG (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The information would not be deleted; instead, the one big template would be replaced with the topical templates listed above. So, you could still "jump to different lists to compare statistics". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as "bloated and unwieldy" per nom. It makes much more sense that links at the bottom of an article should be about related topics, and I can think of no reason for having a link to Fishing industry by country in an article about listing figure skating championship medals. The presence of the three links (to Lists of countries, Lists by country, and List of international rankings) at the bottom of each topical template ensures that readers will still be able to navigate between topics. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep personally I find it VERY useful to browse various topics when I have nothing better to do. chandler 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How would what the nominator has proposed prevent you from browsing various topics? –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse replacement of bloated mega-list with smaller specialised boxes, per nom. It's too huge already, and would only expand to a further degree of ridiculousness in the future. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is a useful template, allowing people to browse all sorts of country articles. El Otro (talk) 10:49, 5 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:ReadingCSRTNotice

 * 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) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)



The same image is used in hundreds of biography articles of Guantanamo prisoners. The image itself is unsuitable for such an article. It can be perceived as showing the prisoner of war in the article. Docu (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC), updated 05:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not really concerned about the image itself but we should not be using templates in this manner. The entire article (including the caption) should be editable by everyone (excluding protections), not hidden away through templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely unnecessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an improper use of templates (see Template namespace) and transclusion. Do not subst because there is no need for the generic image to appear in tens of articles. The image is present in the article Combatant Status Review Tribunal, to which all of the biographies link. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, its use can be parsed into the more legitimate templates such as CSRT-Yes, without needing this template. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:16, 2 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.