Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7 edit


Template:§§ 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) 04:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

seems to be broken since I had to do this to get the link to show in the references. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have corrected the error. This template will become extremely useful as German/Austrian/Swiss articles are added as it because it enables a smart link to German/Austrian/Swiss laws. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template was created nearly three years ago, never used, and apparently didn't work until today. I'm deeply sceptical that "this will be useful in future" holds water here. We should endeavour only to import from other wikis code which is immediately useful or it will sit here, rot and end up getting deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename clearly lots of things have subsections, there's no reason for this to take this opaque generic name. Perhaps Template:Germanic§§law 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The German Wikipedia uses de:Vorlage:§§ and two other similar templates de:Vorlage:§ and de:Vorlage:Art. a lot. Using them is recommended practice for referencing legal content (de:Wikipedia:Belege/Recht). So having these templates on the English Wikipedia makes translating and referencing German legal articles a lot easier. Maybe updating to the newest German version would help. --S.K. (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no evidence whatsoever that these have ever actually been used in transferring content over here. I am in general broadly sympathetic with cross-wiki transition tenmplates and have worked with Bermicourt to improve several of them in the past, but that doesn't mean we should simply copy across every template on de-WP blindly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your have a point. The reason I cross-wiki'd this template is that I felt it would become important over time as more articles were translated from de.wiki where it is quite extensively used. However most of the stuff I do is not of a legal nature, so that's probably why its usage hasn't grown. The main problem with deletion is that, if someone started bringing lots of articles over with legal references, they would have to recreate the template and re-translate the documentation. That won't be me! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't mean it should be called "§§", since this isn't the German Wikipedia, there are more prominent English topics with subsections. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Vorlage:§§/alt}}; no opinion about §§ atm. mabdul 13:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – it strikes me as rather impractical for people to type the name of that template on a regular basis. It Is Me Here t / c 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is no need to rename it; in fact that will cause problems. The template is unlikely to be created from scratch by an English-speaker. Its purpose is to enable references to legal documents and laws in Germany, Austria and Switzerland to be automatically handled when articles are transferred and translated from de.wiki. There are hundreds of these. If we change the name; they won't be recognised unless someone is savvy enough to know the en.wiki equivalent and manually change the name. As English wiki is much more fixated about the need for lots of references I would advise keeping it, ensuring it works properly and is kept up to date. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Germanic laws are not the first kind of subsection to be apparent in English Wikipedia, it should not use an opaque name that would normally mean many other things before ever meaning Germanic laws in English. Why should English Wikipedia follow rigidly what de.wiki does? People are renaming opaquely named English topics templates to more identifiable names, yet we need to keep this one at this name? Look at all the grammatical corrections (like adding spaces, expanding acronyms, etc) that come up as rename requests for templates on en.wiki. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I obviously did not make myself clear. The reason for retaining the name is not to rigidly follow German Wiki, which I would not advocate. It is to enable the automatic and correct display of legal references when code is transferred in from German Wiki sources. We could of course get round this by a template redirect if this is such an issue. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2012 (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:Expand 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 Closing, wasn't sure if dabs are acceptable in template space. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, this again.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure if we can have dabs in template space. Is there a precedent for this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's a place for a dab in the template space. It helps find expand templates. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (I am the creator) I don't see a problem with having disambiguation in template space, since we have redirects in templatespace. This template cannot be transcluded (there is a transclusion error on transclude) 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A useful disambiguation page that directs editors to various tags, which helps users to locate the most appropriate tags to use. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Northamerica1000 and the creator. mabdul 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh by the way: can an admin restore the talkpage or place at least the old TfDs template? mabdul 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only because of the thing that warns you if you transclude it; because of that warning, it's not likely to be used in a confusing manner. A disambiguation page in templatespace is helpful because of the many templates that someone might expect to find under this title. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (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:AFVs in the United States 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) 03:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFVs in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, can't really see the point of it to be honest. Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2012 (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:FK Lyn squad 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) 03:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Lyn squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fourth-tier team, almost no notable players. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I count two notable players. The team no longer plays at a level that warrants such a template. Arsenikk (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is actually atleast four notable players. But still... Mentoz86 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another unuseful squad template. (offtopic: is there a policy that only the actual squads should get a navtemplate? if not, why not creating one?) mabdul 13:07, 11 May 2012 (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:WAP assignment 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 keep separate for now, but feel free to continue to discuss merging the templates on the template talk page or elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WAP assignment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another user nominated this for merge with Template:Educational assignment using a article merge template. I'm nominating this on that user's behalf. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this seems to appear still on many article talk pages, unless there's a way to replace all of those with the educational assignment template. Pine(talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note the comments made at "Template talk:WAP assignment#Merge and standardize". — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, I'll reproduce my comment here: "No objection if the date functionality of {{Educational assignment}} is retained. Also, I suggest that {{WAP assignment}} be merged into {{Educational assignment}} because not all educational assignments are WAP assignments, so "educational assignment" is the broader term. A parameter can be added to turn on the reference to WAP when required." — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that Wikipedia talk:ambassadors and Wikipedia: Education noticeboard have been notified of this discussion so I'll post links in both places. Possibly people will be in favor of the merge, and possibly not. Pine(talk) 07:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, unless someone is prepared to very thoroughly work on merging these two, with their many many conditional statements.--Pharos (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2012 (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:UVK 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) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another user proposed a merge with Template:Country data Kosovo using an article merge tag. I'm nominating for merge on that user's behalf D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:12, 7 May 2012 (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:Mario franchise 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 Closure. Templates merged per discussion on relevant talk page. Izno (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another user placed an article merge tag to suggest merging this with Template:Mario series characters. I'm nominating this on that user's behalf D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahem - As you can see on the relevant talk page, the concensus currently leans heavily towards "Oppose". I'm not sure why a full TfD is needed? Salvidrim! 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did this because a TfD discussion is the proper way to merge templates and because my experience in working with merge tags is that it's almost not even worth checking for discussion because it usually isn't there. Anyway, if everyone opposes, it's likely a snow keep, right? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    *shrugs* I just think there's a good chance no further discussion will happen here as it has taken place on the relevant talk page for interested parties. Salvidrim! 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, it looks that the discussion just started yesterday, so let's give it the 7 days before deciding anything. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I'm just again wondering why you started a TfD in the first place when the discussion was healthily underway on the talk page of the merge target. I don't see any reason to fracture the debate. :) Salvidrim! 21:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly to get the merge tag off the template. That totally fouls up the merge categories, since it resulted in any article having anything to do with Mario appearing in the merge backlog. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    <noinclude> would have worked also. :) --Izno (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a snow close — This actually isn't the place to "properly merge" templates. It's just one of the outcomes usually considered at TfD. You might consider TfD as the most binding place to hold a discussion, but the only necessary thing about TfD is for actual full deletions. Other decisions about a template's content can be made elsewhere, or they can be brought here. The primary reasoning for a snow close is consensus which has largely built already. You can, alternatively, withdraw the nomination (as in, close it yourself). --Izno (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. From Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, "To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process", and from Template:Merge to, "If you want to propose merging a template, you must do so at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, using the specific templates available there", and of course, Template:Tfm, which exists for the exact reason of merges at Templates for Discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could apply a little common sense and have the discussion on the relevant template talk page, as is the case here. The template (Merge to) isn't policy (and should probably be reworded if it says "must"), and while TfD is, it does not specify whether TfD is necessary or not for a template merging, only that it can be used as a method for discussion. It's an important semantic distinction. TfD is just another avenue for discussion, and certainly not the required one. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've actually raised a comment on the items to be merged category talk page, which is probably one of the ways you noticed this particular problem. It might be the case that template:merge to et al need amendment to allow for template usage (see noinclude comment above), if indeed it is the case that templates are being badly tagged (as I noticed by poking around here and there /stalk). --Izno (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat off-topic comment about merge tags - One important reason to bring the discussion here instead of a merge tag is that merge tags tend to be black holes. Someone puts up a merge tag, 20 users immediately say they oppose it, but yet the merge tag lingers there for years (trust me, I've seen this a lot). The strictly-defined 7-day comment period avoids this problem. Also, template talk pages are generally not visited as much as article talk pages, so it makes everyone aware of the discussion who otherwise might not be. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    However, when the discussion is clearly not lacking in activity (as in this case), I believe some common sense must be used and the discussion should be left to unfold wherever it is the most relevant, which is to say the Template_talk page. Salvidrim! 22:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW WP:SOFIXIT. This is a perfect time for WP:BRD. If someone disagrees, they'll revert it. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close it as the discussion already started on the talk page. No need to discuss the same problem on two pages. mabdul 13:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - Leaving this !vote just in case my earlier comments weren't clear enough. Salvidrim! 14:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - To keep the discussion centralized in one place. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 11 May 2012 (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:Maldives Island 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) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maldives Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Maldives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another user has suggested merging this to Template:Infobox Maldives using an article merge tag. I'm nominating on that user's behalf. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both: {{Infobox settlement}} is good for both (already used by infobox maldives; expanding this tfd!) mabdul 13:17, 11 May 2012 (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:21 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) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redundant to {{Adele}}. Precedent with deletions of similar templates: Template:Talk That Talk and Template:Mylo Xyloto. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this has nothing to do with the age of majority, age of legal drinking, or the cardgame Blackjack. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to the Adele template and ambiguously named. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Definitely redundant! 22dragon22burn (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2012 (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:Geog medal top ref 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 userfy, clearly a single use template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geog medal top ref box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

suggest moving to userspace. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Looks like the user page where this is used is a draft article; this template is a TOC for that article. Totally nonstandard TOC using globe icons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:11, 7 May 2012 (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:S-line/BJS left/Hugezhuang 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; deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/BJS left/Hugezhuang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2012 (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:S-line/BJS right/Hugezhuang 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; deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/BJS right/Hugezhuang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2012 (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:Paywall 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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Against policy. Where a paywalled source is the best source , we use it. Most of the places this is apparently used are news articles that are not replaceable, and are available non-paywalled at libraries. The red in particular makes this especially inappropriate and hinders readability, DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete replicates the functionality of {{subscription required}} with no additional usefulness. We don't suggest people replace paper sources with free online sources, even if the paper sources are very expensive, so there's no reason to do this for online sources. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I noticed the recent addition of the red text to the template, and perceive the red text as distracting. Also, following the advice in the template of replacing a paywalled source with a free source has the potential to reduce the source quality in articles, particularly if people don't cross-check and compare information in the current source in an article and the potential replacement "free" source. After consideration, here are some options:
  1. Simply change the page's formatting to match that of the Subscription required template, which would be an easy solution. Apply page protection (if necessary) to prevent reverts to the previous versions, (if consensus in this discussion becomes as such). This would be useful because typing "{{Paywall}}" takes much less time for users to do compared to typing "{{Subscription required}}". (Try out comparing the two, the former is faster and easier to type). Retaining the Paywall template corresponds to user-friendliness in editing, due to the ease in which it's typed.
  2. Delete with a redirect to {{Subscription required}}, so that pages currently using the Paywall template are replaced with the Subscription required template, rather than red links.
I am leaning toward option #1, due to the ease of just typing {{Paywall}}, although option #2 would essentially produce the same result when users type "{{Paywall}}". Of course, the option that is the most congruent with a smooth transition in relation to how the Wiki software functions and server load is of importance. Would option #2 increase the load on the Wiki software/servers? If there would be no load increase, or a negligible increase, then option #2 seems to be in order. Currently, from a rough count approximately 125 pages link to the template, which isn't a high number, so perhaps load isn't a highly relevant variable in this case.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{subscription required}} as originally created.--ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect As noted at WP:PAYWALL, there is no requirement for free access. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect: the words "Consider replacing this link with a free reliable source" are simply subject to abuse. Sources are sources, books and articles take money to write, nothing in the world is free, not even wikipedia (which relies on donations). Sometimes I run across non-paywall versions of an article on google news archives (say, an AP story that appears in many papers) and I'll replace the current link to a Chicago Tribune or other paywalled version of the same AP article. But you can't always do that, so let's not screw up our article format with that admonition.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{subscription required}}, agree with most of those above. Jenks24 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: This is going somewhere! 22dragon22burn (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I was going to suggest simply removing the red warning, but this template appears to have been created from {{Subscription required}} for the sole purpose of having that warning. Nothing wrong with the name "Template:Paywall", so deletion wouldn't help. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (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/2012_May_7&oldid=1136430451"