Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

July 11 edit

Template:SKE48 edit

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) 03:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SKE48 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template consists of 44 redlinks and only two working wikilinks. It is only being used in one of those two articles, so this is an ineffective navigational template. Aspects (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Muboshgu (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2009 (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:Imdb ex edit

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) 03:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdb ex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can honestly see no reason for this template. We can link internally to IMDB, but what use is an external link to the site's front page ever going to be? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason for it, very simple to create an external link to it. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Muboshgu (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2009 (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:Buyeo languages edit

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) 03:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buyeo languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is this template really needed? It has two entries, should such a template even be on WP? And the Buyeo origins of the Japonic languages are disputed. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:26, 11 July 2009 (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:Topic by country edit

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) 03:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Topic by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template (and it's subtemplates) is a resource hog. If a page is uncached, it will delay loading of the page for 48 seconds, and then in most cases, the parser will timeout before it even finishes. Such behaviour is simply not acceptable when we want to present pages to users. The design of the template is simply unsuited and cannot even be fixed in my opinion. It just tries to include too much information. As a matter of fact, for many usecases it will present mostly redlinks, so it's useless anyways, and people should write specific navboxes or write a List of, instead. Some statistics for the page Health care:

Served by srv215 in 48.297 secs.
Preprocessor node count: 380389/1000000
Post-expand include size: 457427/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 279516/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 5/500

Parser statistics: trace force trace —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assuming it's in fact unfixable. I just tried to pull it up and the page is probably the slowest I've ever seen in Wikipedia. I wouldn't inflict that on any article for the sake of a box at the bottom. The continent-based and region-based templates are fine. If a country is in more than one, two smaller navboxes (say both Asia and the Middle East) would still load faster than this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the purpose of it and it took forever on my fast connection. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2009 (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.