Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 28



Template:Economy of the PRC table

 * 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

Economy of the People's Republic of China is the only article which uses the template. A better way is to place a Infobox Economy in the article and delete this redundant template. Quest for Truth (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No point in a single-use template for this. Either replace it with a more widely used template, or if that isn't acceptable for some reason, subst this template into the article. Either way, this template then can be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 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:Full House

 * 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

All of the articles linked in the template can be accessed directly from the main article, so this is fairly pointless. TTN (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough significantly-related articles (excluding cast articles, which are controversial for inclusion in tv show navboxes) to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 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:Italiclink

 * 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

I created this template in June as an auxiliary for Citation/core, but it relies on a suboptimal way of solving the problem. It is no longer used by Citation/core; see Template talk:Citation/core . Given its problems, the template is unlikely to be used by anybody else. Eubulides (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on the referenced discussion and the current lack of use, it appears this template is no longer needed. --RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 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:Selected genealogical relations with Barack Obama

 * 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

A template like this could be generated for just about anyone. This is a perfect example indiscriminate collection of information. — Jake   Wartenberg  02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's useless. DS (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - I've changed it to a redirect. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure that was a good thing to do. You've created a cross-namespace redirect from a template to an article, then a double redirect by moving the redirected page into the mainspace. Fortunately this template is mostly unused. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, it is not appropriate to use a template to create a combination image gallery and article text. (Look here to see what it looked like before it was redirected.) Second, as noted by Jake Wartenberg, this is the sort of thing that could be done for anyone, especially considering the tenuous relationships it includes (16th cousins!). Finally and thankfully, this is unused in any articles. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 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:Quantities of bits

 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Jafeluv (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose these be replaced with the new, combined Template:Info units (which would be placed at the bottom of articles, navbox-style). Cyber cobra (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The new template seems a little beastly to me. I think the smaller templates are easier to comprehend. — RockMFR 02:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is slightly more complicated, but it does show the relations between all the units quite nicely, IMO. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It also seems a bit arbitrary and unhelpful to separate the bit-based and byte-based units from each other, as they currently are. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Template quanties of bytes is already in use on several pages. Proposed template is too large. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I second RockMFR, old one is better --BozMo talk 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all 3. The new template is too ungainly to be used "navbox-style" in place of Template:Information units. It is also too large and confusing to be used in place of the other two, Template:Quantities of bits and Template:Quantities of bytes, which serve useful, specific functions. I agree with User:RockMFR and User:BozMo above. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. After long discussions this template was condensed to its bare essence. The proposed replacement is much too unwieldy and redundant. I would support deleting "quantities of bits" and redirect it to "quantities of bytes". &minus;
 * Redirecting makes no sense. The bit and byte quantities are not the same. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a few days ago the template:quantities of bytes was completely generic in prefixes only. You made it specific. I see no need to have separate templates for bit and bytes. A generic one is sufficient. But it should be very concise, like it used to be. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The older revision didn't actually link to any of the computer units, only the SI prefixes, that's the only way it was able to be concise; but by not linking, it's rather useless for navigation; it also didn't really match what its name implies it would be. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn It's clear this isn't going to happen, I'll work on trying to improve the existing templates instead. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 08:44, 29 September 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.