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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Developed Countries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yet another country navigation template. This one is completely redundant as the Developed Country criteria HDI and GDP are already listed (in exact numbers) in the country infobox template. Delete Arnoutf 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This one is interesting enough. Amoruso 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete—Doesn't sound quite right, and the messy layout tips the scales against this one. The patchwork of flags looks like my ass in a pair of Benetton jeans. —Michael Z. 2006-12-01 18:48 Z
• Delete with POV concerns. To quote the developed country article, "According to the United Nations definition there is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an unhelpful navigation guide, and per ZZuuzz. Jkelly 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)-
• Delete as per nomination.--Panarjedde 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesing template. Whoever concern about amount of flags could have a look at language-speaking nation series. That's where helping hand is really needed. But as far as I can tell, template is not protected - you can go and make all appropriate changes. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. John Smith's 21:38, 1 December 2006
• Keep As per above Lofty 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

• Delete Interesting, yes. Verifiable to the point where everyone can agree on it, no. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, would be better as a list. No country article is improved by adding these templates to it.-gadfium 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Euthymios 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --User:Plyriz 6:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Madhya Prade sh 07:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, template clutter. Does anybody ever navigate country articles by these templates? Kusma (討論) 07:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  Does anybody read wikipedia in a first place? For whom do we're working?

• -- tasc ^words_deeds 10:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zzuuzz. -- User:Docu
• Delete the list varies according to different sources. CrashMex 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Aldux 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are no universal criteria as to what constitutes a "developed country"; thus the template is biased and contentious. -- WGee 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sam Vimes -- Jeff3000 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very interesting hmm.. Sandy122 14:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sicilianmandolin 07:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV -- Agathoclea 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is it subjective but also useless. TSO1D 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. And WGee said it well as well... Williamborg (Bill) 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, very subjective, POV, no such organisation to declare a country is a "developed country". Biased, unverifiable and of no use. We don't use templates for such stuff. Terence Ong 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete dab (𒁳) 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No universal definition of the term => verification is impossible. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per many above, POV and imprecise Orderinchaos78 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although subjective, it is very useful for economic comparisons, etc, because one can simply scroll to the bottom and see a comparison group. Also, if one were to define certain criteria, I think that this template would be less objectionable. Personally, I approve.
• Delete – what constitutes a "developed country" is a subjective definition that differs between countries and contexts; this template will hence only lead to edit wars and controversy and, unlike the article Developed country, can only offer one point of view on what seems to be a much more complex definition. Ronline ✉ 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is one of the key points to identify the economy development of the countries. Ricky@36 10:45, 5 December, 2006 (HKT)
• Delete. Classic POV. Omphaloscope talk 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A great invitation for constant edit, inclusion/exclusion wars with a potential as great as any hot-ethnic template.. The problem is it is based on a vague definition, even though it is true that there is a "class" of developed countries, I just can't see how that would be relevant as a template in an article except to point fingers: "hey, we are developed, u r not!!". And besides, what is the Vatican doing in there? It is not even a country (except some very dubious clause in intl law), how could it be classified as "developed"? It is not a democracy if that's a criteria: there is a papal dictatorship (legally sepaking). I have never heard Vatican holding municipal elections or anything :) Baristarim 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete,will be even problematic as a category. C mon 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, an invitation for edit warring. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All this template shows is a POV of countries. It is impossible to tell if a country is poor or rich. There are VERY POOR areas in the USA and some very rich places in Mexico, South Africa, etc. Chris5897 (T@£k) 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We have always seen on the news and literature the concept of Developed Country and Developing Country. It is real, widely known, and largely used everywhere including the UN, the IMF, and the World Economic Forum. We can't act as the definition didn't exist. The discussion about what countries qualify or not is other issue, but the template is useful and NPOV. Pilim 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - I hate this kind of Western elitarism - we're rich, but don't call us "developed" Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless--dannycas 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Funny. Is there any developed Slavic country? I think all former communist states show small GDP and HDI because of difficulties of transition period and the crash of the communism.--Planemo 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - templatecruft (if that's a word). DB (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Tournament MOP Women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's not used and has been replaced by normal garden-variety succession boxes. Delete American Patriot 1776 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - since it's not being used and there is a replacement. - Daveahern 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - regular succession box is fine. --MECU≈talk 03:48, 4 December 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Tournament MOP Men (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's not used and has been replaced by normal garden-variety succession boxes.

• Delete --American Patriot 1776 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - since it's not being used and there is a replacement. - Daveahern 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete regular succession box is fine. --MECU≈talk 03:48, 4 December 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:CABEI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yet another country navigation template, of which too many already exist (and most country articles carry too many navigational templates). This one promotes a concept for which we only have a stub article, and which does not seem important enough to classify countries by it. Delete. --Kusma (討論) 15:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, country navigation templates are becoming a plague. Arnoutf 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, we must really put a stop to this proliferation.--Aldux 15:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, the topic doesn't seem to be important enough for a new country template. TSO1D 14:46, 3 December 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - suggest that the points raised here be used to improve the template. Also, it should be noted that the template was not appropriately tagged with {{tfd}}. Martinp23 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:All That (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is being used to include a complete set of cross references relating to the TV series All That to every single article that has any relationship to All That, rather than just letting these articles contain a link to the article on All That that users can follow if they're interested in knowing more about that program. --Largo Plazo 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Kill the spin-offs and related rows (and its use on those pages), and I think this has a good argument for existing. --humblefool® 17:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, looking again, I realize it doesn't actually link anywhere that would seem to be a series of articles. Yeah, Delete. --humblefool® 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I just deleted the useless related links, the rest (characters, episodes, musical guests) is perfectly appropriate for a template for a television show. -- Wikipedical 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No you didn't. It's still on the Savage Steve Holland page, it's still on the Good Burger page, and so on. If someone is reading about Savage Steve Holland and wants to know more about All That, he can perfectly well click a link for All That. For all the things that relate to Savage Steve Holland, should his article also contain links to everything that's related to those things, even if those things have nothing whatsoever to do with Savage Steve Holland? And imagine all of Wikipedia being inundated with this repetition. The whole point of hyperlinking, and Wikipedia, is that people who want more information can follow links. Don't pollute the space by copying information about everything every single place it can possibly be related. --Largo Plazo
    • It sounds to me as if you are not against this template in particular but the idea of a template in general. I am not going to defend the idea of a template here, but I think your reasoning against this one in particular is faulty. The content is all relevant, is not "redundant or misguided" (per WP:DELETE). Aside from your grievances about including it on certain pages, what are your reasons for deleting the template? -- Wikipedical 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not against templates at all. There are useful templates all over Wikipedia. This template is the only one of its kind I've come across, so I'm addressing this template in particular in this forum. I'm opposed to it for three reasons, and I'd be just as opposed if the same thing were accomplished using no template at all. (1) I'm opposed to the gratuitous addition of links to an article that have nothing to do with that article, only because they're related to something that is related to that article. I think that should be obvious. (2) If a link in a template like this is relevant and is already in the text of the article, well, that's the whole point of this being an encyclopedia instead of an endless set of listings of cross references. The links is already there, it's where it belongs, and it doesn't need to be repeated in a block at the bottom. (3) If a link in a template like this is relevant but isn't already in the text, then it should be added to the text. If there isn't a fitting place where it could go in the text, then it isn't relevant after all, so it shouldn't be on the page at all. --Largo Plazo 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the template were being used on the "All That" page, I don't see the harm of it. I'd say trim it to be exclusively on the pages listed in the top row of the template, and keep it. -- Shiori 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't any "harm" but why do Wikipedia pages need to be crowded with boxes containing the same links that are already either in their own content or in the content of the article that the template is associated with? It's as though the person creating the template was deathly afraid that people wouldn't flip to the main article. Well, if they don't, it's because they aren't interested. Any attempt to make them interested by thrusting the collateral links in their faces is in effect promotional, advertising even, and doesn't belong. --Largo Plazo 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this should not be a TfD discussion. Obviously an "All That" navigational box is warranted, end of story. (As a separate discussion, by all means discuss what it should contain, and where it should be used, and please god, what colours it should be - but do all that at the template talk page, not here.) Stevage 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't obvious that navigation boxes are warranted at all. What happens when an article that relates to 50 other things winds up loaded down with 50 navigation boxes for those things? Can you explain why this is better than letting people follow the links in the bodies of the articles? --Largo Plazo 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That does happen occasionally, but isn't a major problem - it's actually interesting to see the intersections of different groups of things. Paris is an example. It's better because, for a start, it's much quicker to "navigate" amongst these related things - if you want to read all the articles on "All That" characters, for example. And it stimulates the reader's interest, by making it really obvious to them that Wikipedia has other, related articles that are similar. Nav boxes are good. Argue against them somewhere else. Stevage 01:46, 5 December 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 12:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox College Preparatory School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant with all the other school infoboxes, even if was working. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and broken. The content exists at Calvert Hall College. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:53, 4 December 2006 (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 page.