Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12 edit

Template:Infobox Chinese Building 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 after replacement with {{Infobox religious building}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Chinese Building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Infobox building, infobox Buddhist temple etc. I see this infobox used in a number of articles on Buddhist temples. PLastikspork any chance Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery could be moved into a Template:Infobox Buddhist temple but in the design of the Tibetan Buddhist infobox? It would make sense to have an infobox for all Buddhist temples. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template specifically for my articles about Chinese temples because there was not an adequate pre-made template I could use. The template for Tibetan temples is completely unsuitable for Chinese temples, and I wish to continue using my own template.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—if another template can take simple additions to accommodate this one, then that's preferable. Why have two templates when one will do? Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Imzadi1979. Si Trew (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of you have noticed that this template is not just used for Buddhist Temples. Go look at Beiyue Temple. Clearly a Buddhist template would not do for that article because the temple is Daoist. Please keep this template and don't mess up all the articles I've created.Zeus1234 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Do you think we are stupid? We have Template:Infobox religious building for all religions. Technically that should be used for any article on a religious building. you just need to spent 30 seconds learning how to use it. As for Tibetan Buddhist monastery infobox not being suitable for articles on Buddhist temples, clearly you misunderstood what I said. the idea is to neutralise and allow it to be used under Template:Infobox Buddhist temple for any buddhist temples in China, Vietnam, Burma, wherever. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:02, 13 July 2010 (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:Infobox Brazilian Region 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 per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Brazilian Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Low usage template which is redundant to {{infobox region}}. Note that Infobox Brazilian State is very similar, and recently closed as delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (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:WP Translink banner 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Translink banner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banner for deleted project. WOSlinker (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and confusion with the several different Translinks that people might attempt to banner with this. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete—why keep this around if the project is gone? Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 13 July 2010 (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:Reference desk header 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 History merge and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference desk header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template had only one transclusion which was on Wikipedia:Reference desk. It has now been substituted on this page and so this template is no longer needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: in fact this template has a long history and Wikipedia:Reference desk has quite a short history. So maybe it would be better to move the template over the project page to retain the history. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history should solve the problem. Or you could desubst, and move this to a subpage, Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/template similar to how other projectspace headers are... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2010 (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:Wing 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 No consensus to delete, however there appears to be some support for deprecating these templates, and having a bot substitute them. There did not appear to be any strong opinion for or against merging them into {{RU position}}, although that could be an option. I would suggest continuing the discussion elsewhere, perhaps to see if there is enough consensus to have a bot orphan the templates, or to merge them into {{RU position}}. No prejudice against bringing these back to TFD in the future, especially if a bot orphans the lot. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Back row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rugbycentre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:First five-eighth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Flanker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fly-half (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Front row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hooker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Inside centre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Loosehead prop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Number 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Out half (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Outside centre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tighthead prop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stand-off (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Second row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Second five-eighth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Scrum-half (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Outside half (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fullback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Half-back (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trivial text substitution. Redirects and proper disambiguated links are a far better option than having over a dozen templates that link to only one page. This will de-populate category:rugby union position templates as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've created {{RU position}}, which takes each of these values as a first parameter and produces the same output (i.e. copy-pasted from each of the above templates). mirabile dictu, I've even made some documentation. That being said, it's just a large switch statement, and it might be better if these became subtemplates of that one, and replace the switch statement to a transclusion of the appropriate subtemplate. The downside of doing it that way is it would, I assume, hide where they are used via "what links here". Either way, these above are all redundant now and would (in my opinion) satisfy Speedy T3 were it not for their listing here. Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I imagine the intent was to create templates so they could start being used in other articles; not all of them link to one article since some positions have their own article. But this is just a guess as I have no particular interest in Rugby Union and so none in the intent of creating these. That being said, I did translate an RU club article from French Wikipedia recently, and this would have been handy for me there. If I remember which article it was I might go back and change that article to use this, but if I do please disregard that from any notion of the template being actively used (it's more of a test that I'll happily revert). Si "Every problem can be solved by another layer of indirection" Trew (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether this is of genuine utility. One would think that the point is consistency, but by the time you've gone and memorised the syntax needed to use any of these you might as well have just typed [[number 8 (rugby union)|]] and been done with it. What starts out as a cheap way of linking deep into an article (with {{wing}}, for instance) quickly becomes a mess and a waste of time when all the other positions are filled out. This really shouldn't be encouraged when we have a perfectly good system (disambiguation and the pipe trick) within the normal linking system. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
these templates were created to link to the positions within different articles. At the time, the links to the sections of each article were changing, with some sections receiving their own article. These templates made it easier to change the link without the need to change hundreds of articles at once. If a substitute exists and the creator of that substitute or the nominator of the templates want to go through hundreds of articles changing them all, then go for it and delete these templates, but don't delete them until you have corrected and changed all articles that use them first. --Bob (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Bob, don't go deleting these templates just because you don't understand it..i remember it took us a long time to come up with this ingenious idea to use templates like this ({{Rugbycentre}}) instead of trying to type "[[Rugby union positions#13. Outside centre & 12. Inside centre]]" ..so don't go around deleting this until you find an easy solution and a bot who can go around making those changes....--Stemoc (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to use [[centre (rugby union)|]], as everyone else on the entire project does. That the rugby union project didn't come up with this is unfortunate, but not a reason to keep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them, I would say. What problem/disadvantag are they exactly causing? And who is going to substitute them in every article they are used in? I can't imagine somebody would volunteer for this unless its done by a bot. Calistemon (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be done by a bot if required. As for the "damage" that it does, it stands to reason that shortcuts like {{wing}} would be better used for templates which are really necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It assumes that everyone is a rugby-headed snob. "flanker" is used nowhere except rugby? What about "wing"? or "lock" or "hooker" ? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If some other Wikipedia project would have a better, more worthy use for the template wing, we could surely move the rugby one to Rugbywing, like Rugbycentre for centre. That would only involve dealing with one position template instead of the lot. I'm still for keeping them. Calistemon (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral At first glance I was leaning towards the argument for deletion, as most of them are quite trivial. But I'm not convinced that they are doing harm, nor has a strong case been put forward for freeing up one of more of the names. WFC (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. Using templates where a simple piped link will do makes editing more difficult for anyone who isn't already familiar with the template scheme, and clutters up template space with templates that are at best unnecessary and at worst are hogging simple names that could have other uses. The only justification that has been given for these templates to exist is a difficulty with updating links that presumably dates to when they were created in 2007. The links can and should be substituted into the articles prior to deletion, but this is common practice for template deletion and shouldn't prevent the discussion from closing as "delete". --RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The templates were created so that if a section heading where, say Flanker, was now moved to its own article, one needs only to change the piped link within the template rather than change 500+ articles. Hence, easier. The templates were created at a time when piped links as a redirect did not link to sections of articles, but only to the lead paragraph of the article, ie the top of the page and the user had to scroll down to the relevant section. If this problem has been resolved and piped links in redirects now redirect directly to sections and subsections of articles, and not just to the lead/top paragraph of articles, then the piped link in a redirect would be fine by me. However, I reiterate my point made before, whatever the outcome, it should be that links within pages link directly to the correct subsections within the main article on rugby positions (or independent articles if that be the case) and that an easy way to change a link should be retained, either through a new main template or through redirects. --Bob (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; if another template suits the name better, its case can be argued when it is created, and not before. Si Trew (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just a matter of freeing up the names: we have several good reasons to use piped links in preference to text-substitution templates, not least because they are confusing and liable to break if casual users try to edit articles featuring them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, as unnecessary barrier to editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: isn't this sort of thing covered by the "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." rule from WP:TMP? - htonl (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and keep; I agree that all uses of these templates should be subst'd; otherwise, it is confusing to the next editor who comes along to work on an article and finds this mysterious template where an internal link should be. However, I see no harm in keeping these templates (with appropriate documentation instructing that they should be subst'd) as a convenience for editors not wanting to type out lengthy links. (They also need to be fixed using "safesubst:" so that they can be subst'd without leaving parser function codes in the wikitext.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really that much easier to type {{subst:wing}} than it is [[wing (rugby union)|]], though? What's easier for users to remember, the pipe trick or the names of over a dozen templates which do the same thing? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never remember the pipe trick, and the clue is in the question, it's a trick. Usually when I pipe, taking regard of WP:EGG and so forth, it's a considered decision not just hitting the tab key. And for the same reason, putting a template in an article instead of the thing it stands for is a considered decision. Some are easy to make – shall I use an infobox template or write the table myself longhand – some are obviously redundant e.g. {{McDonalds}} and some are near the mark, like these. I still say if they are near the mark, keep them if there is not a better use for them elsewhere. I know I am in a minority here, but I think the ability to change one link in a template instead of many in various articles is a better thing. It does, I agree, reduce transparency. It's a delicate tradeoff. I think the template I made {{RU position}} shows the compromise of that tradeoff, while not advocating it in itself, it shows the delicate balance I think. (That template can be deleted after this discussion if the result makes it redundant.) 81.102.142.236 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a pressing issue. If some are concerned about casual editors breaking these then there should be a number of examples that can be pointed to. Same goes for usage of the template name - Who or where has one of these names been sought after for a different usage? I am not advocating that these templates should be the default standard and preferred method however - the note by Htonl about WP:TMP above has some validity (and something that until now I was not fully aware of) - to the point that the guideline says "should not" not "must not" I think indicates that it is not a priority to delete this template and burden a robot for the task, but points more to best practice. A phasing out over time is the solution for this. The objection to deletion by most here is not that this is the best way to link to the article subsections etc, but making a change and deletion is just not a priority. Editors can gradually replace these as they do other edits, until such time as the template can quickly and efficiently be deprecated. SauliH (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A policy at WP:RU can be put up to clarify this point ( to use pipe links instead of templates.) SauliH (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2010 (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.

Category header ... 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 No consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category header socialists by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header socialism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cathead Conservatives by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cathead Conservative parties by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cathead Conservatism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header anarchism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header political movements in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header libertarians by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header libertarianism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header liberal parties by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header anarchist organizations by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header Islamism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. It is an exhortation for editors in a content category. It is also redundant since {{catdiffuse}} can be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - The entire "political movements" structure is based on them, and this would undo the whole thing. Much like WP:ships (Category:Cathead templates) You cannot manually change (and maintain) each one, that is literally over a hundred subcats. See on just how many categories each one is used. It places in 3 (currently) standard named parent categories, by country, and links to related pages/categories/lists. When the naming scheme/structure is updated or new lists/pages/parentcats are created, all of them would have to be modified manually as well. Much of the WP category system is a mess, but these make clean organization and maintenance of the standard scheme possible. - Skullers (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am baffled by the selectivity of the "See also the related" component of these templates. If the intent is to express a point of view about which elements of the parent categories are "related", or even important, and which are not, then delete with prejudice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I have edited out where unnecessary. The purpose (of the template) is to aid in navigation / maintenance, Eg parent <A> by <C>, <D> in <E>, in <E> by <F>, etc. This gets very complex, and when updated (it will definitely expand), such a large structure is impossible to maintain by hand. See the SHIPS (is that POV?) category templates. - Skullers (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, thanks. (It just struck me as odd that some pairings were presented as particularly "related" to each other when they actually have less in common with each other than with other movements/philosophies.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2010 (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:Blake's 7 character 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blake's 7 character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. It was only being used on about a dozen pages, so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2010 (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:Tomorrow People character 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tomorrow People character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. It was only being used on about six pages, so I replaced it with the standard infobox. Plastikspork (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2010 (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:Main page redesign proposal notice 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main page redesign proposal notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An old talk page notice from 2 years ago. Not useful now. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (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:Chantbased 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find this an odd template as it seems somewhat arbitrary. Beyond the fact that it's a lot of red-links, perhaps it should be converted into a list if there are reliable sources for this musical field. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments—redlinks, even in a template, aren't a bad thing. That's assuming, of course, that the links are on subjects where proper articles can be written. Others will have to opine on the arbitrariness of the links included, but it looks like a valid navbox template to me. Imzadi 1979 → 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a navbox in on actively edited pages, so I'd rather defer the decision to the editors of those pages. Si Trew (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I know there is a notice then placed on those pages, but it's not exactly prominent. Si Trew (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know many people who loves music similar to Enigma. The template may be useful for those who want to learn more about musical projects based on different chants. This is The Free Encyclopedia. James Michael 1 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the criteria for being in this chart? "I think it's similar"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like something, it doesn't mean that something needs to be removed. This is The Free Encyclopedia. I hope still free. James Michael 1 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (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.

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/archive box 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/archive box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content merged into archive box on talk page. Template is not needed anymore. Kslotte (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed any more at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_12&oldid=1085549126"