Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27

edit

Template:Ophiuchus (band)

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) 04:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ophiuchus (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for this template Christopher Connor (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't like it is not a valid reason. You can do better than that. Sw2nd (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfect example of Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox. It doesn't link to enough articles to be useful. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough primary links. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (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:RDC

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) 04:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost completely unused template; appears on a user page, a user talk page, a template talk page and a single article. The template certainly shouldn't be at "RDC" because RDC can also refer to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, and I reckon this can be substituted without issue. Launchballer 18:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more I'm not. Another comment; if this gets deleted, I'd like to move Template:Rda to Template:RDC. (Basically from 'request deleted article' to 'request deleted content'.)--Launchballer 18:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not strike my comments, and there's no need to notify you when I mention you at a discussion that you initiated. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2013 (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:Periodic table (text only)

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 request, and no reason to userfy it if the author wants it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table (text only) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template was used in one article page, as a single topic. That page was deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (text only)). Unfortunately an editor declined a subsequent speedy deletion for this template [1]. I can only repeat the arguments used for the article deletion, what I just did by linking to that AfD. DePiep (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not to be too lazy, I'll repeat here my argument for deleting the one-template-only-article:
[Wrapper for a single template only.] Then as it states, it is "designed for printing" the information (in black and white). IMO, we do not create separate pages targeted for print. Printing is in the toolbox (wiki page, lefthand menu). When the page is gone, its template is up for deletion too for this reason. -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re Jackmcbarn, Nyttend, Michaelzeng7. The AfD in this stated & concluded that we don't need variants that are made up solely for printing. Wiki pages are print prepared through other options. I explicitly repeat that we should throw this one out for being a print-version. Then, about the TfD process, "not too hasty", and "usefull in the future": well, exactly that is what this TfD is doing, discuss it now, whilenot deleted (standard XfD procedure). Can someone please point to any usefullness today? When reasons would arise in the future, we can deal with then in that future (note that in the future, there could be delete-reasons just as well). Today we cannot discuss or honour those unknown reasonings. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2013 (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 Tamils

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) 04:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Tamils (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This shouldn't be a separate template. It's an infobox usage. —SpacemanSpiff 14:58, 27 August 2013 (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 soap character 2

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 merge with no loss of information. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox soap character 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox soap character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox soap character 2 with Template:Infobox soap character.
No need for two templates; see recent discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest related discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_18#Template:Infobox_soap_character_2. It explains the circumstances Template:Infobox soap character 2 was created. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2010 TfD concluded "The result of the discussion was Keep for now, with the hope that this can be merged with Template:Infobox soap character in the near future. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any major problem in merging them, as long as everyone using the templates is happy, and as long as nothing is lost. The main difference between the two is that dates of birth and death are in Infobox soap character 2. There have been many changes since the last TFD, which made Infobox soap character a bit more like Infobox soap character 2, but I think birth and death dates is the main reason why they haven't been merged. This should be addressed. Infobox soap character is used for American shows and Infobox soap character 2 for British and Australian ones (and not just in soaps, for example Victor Meldrew). There are some other differences - animal breeds (for pets like Wellard and Willy (EastEnders), civil partners (such as Syed Masood), half-siblings, and other relatives (often someone more distantly related than a cousin is important, e.g. Alfie Moon and his second cousin once removed Michael Moon (EastEnders). Family members are separated by sex in Infobox soap character 2, but I'm not too bothered if they're combined (though it means a LOT of editing of articles to do so). –anemoneprojectors– 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems like a reasonable merge. I have no objection. --Elonka 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I prefer the gender-neutral Infobox soap character, there isn't any need to separate brothers from sisters etc. Spouse is all-encompassing too, which eliminates several useless parameters meaning the same thing. 2.24.47.157 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem with a merge, but I have always hated that specific parameters are excluded from the original infobox, that I actually appreciate in the infobox 2, for example the date of birth parameter. As for gender, I prefer parameters that are gender specific like they are in the infobox 2 template. However, not many people agree with me on that.--Nk3play2 my buzz 21:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I support it. Though, I'd rather Infobox 2 be gotten rid of completely. I think Infobox 1 is much better and sleeker to use for soap characters. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel much the same as AP and wouldn't want to lose anything from Infobox 2. I prefer the family members to be separated by sex as it means less clutter in the ibox. From regularly working on British and Australian soaps, I know that we had to deal with a big problem of users explaining who each family member was with bracketed notes. E.g. Parents: Mrs Smith (mother), Mr Smith (father); Siblings: Mary (sister), Paul (brother), Joe (brother). I found it harder to read/navigate the ibox with all the clutter in the way. - JuneGloom Talk 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We had a consensus in the past against gender. Gender is always obvious and if it is not then it should be clear in the leading paragraph. Anyway, I think Infobox 1 is much better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, now that I've thought about it. The templates are really too similar so there's no need for both. I actually think the birth and death dates can go, especially since episodes are shown on different dates in different countries, and are also available on YouTube and such places. The family section will require the most work, so I would suggest completely merging them, so that, for example, all three fields for parents are present (parents, mother, father), so that no information is lost, and then when individual articles are edited, some parameters can be removed. So fields that would be added to ibox(1) from ibox2 are... "appeared" (for a single date), "only" (for a single season, etc), "breed", "home"* (because some articles use "home" and some use "residence", though they're the same), "owner", "husband"*, "wife"*, "civilpartner", "father"*, "mother"*, "adoptivefather"*, "adoptivemother"*, "stepfather"*, "stepmother"*, "brothers"*, "sisters"*, "halfbrothers", "halfsisters", "sons"*, "daughters"*, "adoptivesons"*, "adoptivedaughters"*, "stepsons"*, "stepdaughters"*, "grandsons"*, "granddaughters"*, "grandfathers"*, "grandmothers"*, "uncles"*, "aunts"*, "nephews"*, "nieces"*, "relatives". Those I marked with * could be removed in future (though perhaps not, see comment above; if not then it could be the opposite change, i.e. "parents" removed in favour of "father" and "mother"). Also note that ibox2 uses {{infobox}}, which should probably be used after the merge. –anemoneprojectors– 09:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont merge - See above comments and previous discussion in 2010. There is not a consensus for one preferred template, nor is there consensus for what should be included in that template. Which is why there are two of them in the first place - in part due to certain projects/soaps having their preferred info included. So far discussion is identical to the previous in 2010. The closing comment of 'hope we can merge in near future' depends on the situation actually changing. As that has yet to happen, merging them would be premature. There is not a downside to having two - other than having to pick which one to use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do not merge. Infobox 2 has better more details with all the specifics, it is essential. "husband"*, "wife"*, "civilpartner", "father"*, "mother"*, "adoptivefather"*, "adoptivemother"*, "stepfather"*, "stepmother"*, "brothers"*, "sisters"*, "halfbrothers", "halfsisters", "sons"*, "daughters"*, "adoptivesons"*, "adoptivedaughters"*, "stepsons"*, "stepdaughters"*, "grandsons"*, "granddaughters"*, "grandfathers"*, "grandmothers"*, "uncles"*, "aunts"*, "nephews"*, "nieces"*, "relatives" all of them are needed, it make its more orgarnize, Box1 has too much clutter.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As long as the merged box will primarily look like box1, the much easier to use/read box. Separating family member parameters by gender adds a million redundant, unneeded parameters that only add clutter. I'd also be on board with getting rid of box2 completely.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge Really? I understand you want to make it smoother reading, but having no gender groupings would make the infoboxes look so cluttered - the Siblings parameter would get increasingly confusing in having to differentiate siblings from half-siblings etc. and also removing DOB and DOD - they are important parts of characters and most British soaps don't SORAS in the way American soaps do. Alex250P (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've merged the two templates at Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. This means no information is lost from any pages (other than birth and death dates, I deleted those). I don't believe anyone has suggested that any information (other than birth and death dates) should be lost. That's what a merge means. It's not a straightforward redirect or deletion, so I don't really understand the oppose votes. Birth and death dates are completely meaningless (especially when episodes are broadcast on different dates in different countries), and actually Ian Beale's (character from a British soap) age was increased at one point. –anemoneprojectors– 08:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the "mother", "father" parameter is really uneccesary and causes clutter, in my opinion. It's part of the reason Infobox 1 is better. You don't need to cause more to read. The infobox is meant to provide an over-view of information. If they want to know who is the mother and who is the father, which they shouldn't NEED to, then it can be found within the article. Infobox 2 is far too complicated and overly detailed. And birth date / death date could be pointless, too. Since soap characters don't age due to SORAS, etc. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also reimporting the gender field while there was a consensus against it, it's not the best. Anyway, we can merge and then decide what to keep but using a second infobox to bypass consensus is unfair. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the only thing I, personally, do not quite like about Infobox 1 is that the "classification" parameter comes after "book appearances" and "spin-off appearances". Should the character have had book appearances and/or spin-off appearances, the reader would have to scroll down to see the character's classification after that. Again, this is just my opinion. And I also don't see the problem with having two infoboxes per the discussion in 2010; different users/groups may prefer one infobox over the other. They only have a few minor differences, so I don't really see the need to merge. Creativity97 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE, only if the template takes after Infobox 2.--Nk3play2 my buzz 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mind a merge (Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox is fine), though I don't think it's necessary. I don't think birth dates/death should be removed. If the show has addressed a character's age or birth date then it should be fine to address on Wikipedia regardless of rapid aging (but only if it is addressed on-screen, not just judging by the airdate; for example birth certificates or the date actually being stated) ..that's just my unpopular opinion. I agree with Alex250P. — Arre 09:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make clear: The discussions is whether to use a single infobox for all soap characters. Which parameters are going to be used is not part of this discussion. So arguments that say to merge only if some specific parameters are kept are invalid. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it is time to draw this one to a close now. Obviously editors want to use one infobox. Once the transition is made - we can then discuss what parameters are needed.Rain the 1 10:49, 14 September 2013 (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 TaiLamTunnelENG

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) 04:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TaiLamTunnelENG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox tunnel and Template:Infobox road; not used anywhere except the (inactive) creator's sandbox. Jc86035 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2013 (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:Countries and territories of South Asia

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) 19:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of South Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}}. — Lfdder (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2013 (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:Random Gender

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) 04:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Random Gender (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No point having this template when only one item has an article Christopher Connor (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (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:Countries bordering the Baltic Sea

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) 03:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Baltic Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

More country article navbox clutter. — Lfdder (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2013 (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:Countries of North Africa

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, but merging with {{Countries and territories of North Africa}} seems uncontroversial. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries of North Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Africa}}. — Lfdder (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2013 (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:Countries and territories of Central Asia

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) 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of Central Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}}. — Lfdder (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (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:States and territories of East Asia

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) 19:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:States and territories of East Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}}. — Lfdder (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep East Asia =/= Asia, there's no distinction in the Asia template. This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries, like a nav template should be, instead of too large like the Asia template. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. Further, geographically, there's no clear reason why an Asia template should exist separately from a Europe template, so the larger template up from South Asia should be {{Countries of Eurasia}} Further, this is a culturally distinct region, so it makes sense to use this navigation template over the Asia one. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • East Asia =/= Asia You don't say? This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries Both templates are adequately small. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. What 'Asia-wide pages'? It only links to country articles. Further, this is a culturally distinct region, so it makes sense to use this navigation template over the Asia one. Makes no difference for navboxes; the content still is a duplication. — Lfdder (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it does, it depends entirely on how you use the templates, and whether your defined replacement is an actual replacement or not. It doesn't actually define East Asia, so it isn't a proper replacement. And it also matters if your Asia template should actually exist or not (and I don't think it should, it should be a Eurasia template if it were to exist) I wouldn't say it's adequately small, since there are many countries in Asia, and your selected replacement is inordinately jumbled. It does not navigate East Asia, since East Asia is not defined in it. Your Asia template should only be used in Asia-wide pages, and those nations that exist in multiple regions. There are a few countries that do do that. Asia wide pages exist, even if they may ore may not currently use the Asia template, most of them are list articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why does it need to define East Asia? — Lfdder (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why wouldn't it need to define East Asia? You say it is redundant, to be redundant, it must be able to define East Asia. It cannot be redundant if you can't show what's in East Asia, since you could take a template for all the countries of the entire world listed and call everything redundant to it, but it does not provide navigation because it doesn't show the same things. This shows what is East Asia. The Asia template shows no such thing. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yet another person that has so few content-edits in the topic and nevertheless want marshal the domain. Pldx1 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into {{Countries of Asia}}. I have a prototype here which I hope to move someplace more public where it can garner comments. I have avoided the nebulous definitions by generally following the UN-developed statistical scheme described at Geography of Asia#Regions. YBG (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) prototype now out of my sandbox. YBG (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to a more inclusive navbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all regional country templates (including North Africa, Central Asia, South Asia and Western Asia). Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}}. Many of the regional country templates overlap, needlessly cluttering articles on countries with multiple navigation templates.--Typing General (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2013 (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:Countries of Western Asia

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) 19:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries of Western Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}}. — Lfdder (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2013 (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/2013_August_27&oldid=1140133203"