Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16 edit

Template:Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles 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).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination and everybody else is in favour of keeping the template. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per reason #2 (it is redundant to a better-designed template, {{The Troubles}}. It is not as well organized, and it is too large to function well as a sidebar, so it is generally collapsed and often placed at the bottom of the page just above the other navbar. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{The Troubles}} includes a chronology of the Troubles which lists a number of issues also highlighted by the {{Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles}}, but it is not redundant since the campaignbox deals only with the security issues, not the political ones. Point #2 doesn't apply here. If "too large" or "not well organized" is not a reason to delete.--Darius (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is kept, something should be added to clarify its purpose. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's standard for armed conflicts to have a campaignbox. Its purpose is to list all the (para)military engagements and attacks that took place during the conflict, in chronological order – and that's what it does. As this one's a bit long, it's usually collapsed by default. But most campaignboxes are usually collapsed by default, and there's many that are longer than this one (see {{Campaignbox Vietnam War}} for example). Generally, the campaignbox should sit under the infobox, like in this article.
    Meanwhile, the purpose of {{The Troubles}} template is to bring together all the main issues, political events and participants in the conflict and peace process.
    In short, the two templates have different purposes and scopes: one is the campaignbox, and one is an overview of the Troubles as a whole.
    --Asarlaí 23:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. I am convinced by the above arguments. However, I would recommend making the title of the campaignbox more explicit to make the distinction clear. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:52, 17 September 2015 (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).

Template:Histon F.C. 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 03:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no wikilinks, so has no useful aid to navigation JMHamo (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; template serves no purpose without any wikilinked players. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 18:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Navbox with no navigational links? Is that a nonavbox? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a navbox, just a box! Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2015 (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).

Template:Qadsia SC 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful aid to navigation. Gives the impression that there are a number of related articles when in fact there are not. The history and Qadsia Records links go directly to an article on general Kuwaiti football club records, the Seasons link goes directly to the Kuwaiti Premier League article, whilst the rivalry links go only to the clubs in question, none of which actually discuss any rivalry. This is inherently unhelpful and confusing for any reader. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 16 September 2015 (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).

Template:X (Ed Sheeran album) track listing 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 04:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous consensus that album track templates are redundant when the same is present in the artist navbox. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 09:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 80-90% of the album's songs are linked in the artist's navbox. Also, per previous concensus. --Efe (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2015 (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).

Template:Toodyaypedia - Robyn Taylor 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created template designed to put on articles to give attribution. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Sponsored content and User talk:Gnangarra#Template:Toodyaypedia - Robyn Taylor for more background. It's clear to me that such templates are not appropriate in article space. Whether or not they should be permitted on the talk page is another matter. Again I would suggest not, otherwise talk pages could become clogged if lots of editors wanted to post such a notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some form of attribution should be provided per WP:PLAG: it may be acceptable to include the text directly into a Wikipedia article, provided that the license is compatible with the CC BY-SA and the terms of the license are met... Most compatible licenses require that author attribution be given, and even if the license does not, the material must be attributed to avoid plagiarism and If a significant proportion of the text is legally copied or closely paraphrased from another source, then attribution for compatibly-licensed and public-domain text is generally provided either through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page. A notice which is more like {{cc-notice}} would be appropriate, but we would need to know the licence/terms the text was released under, including the exact attribution requirement (if specified). - Evad37 [talk] 08:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a lawyer, but attribution of all edits to Wikipedia is given via the page history. Ms Taylor can provide more information on her user page is she wishes. Underneath the edit window it says "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution". More details are available at wmf:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content in part (b) Attribution. I don't think the situation is any different for Ms Taylor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • an email has already been sent to OTRS which lays out the terms of using the content, Lotterywest is a Government agency that provides grants to community organisations to enable projects to take place... The Shire of Toodyay through it Museum are the people who received the grant and organised the Historian to do the draft articles. This is not paid editing as every article content is independent of the Author and Lotterwest there are no conditions on what material will or wont be included in the articles... At no time does the creation of these article result in any gain to anyone except Wikipedia and sum of all knowledge, all subjects meet the requirements of WP:GNG. The majority of funds from the grant are towards the production of the QR plaques with the remainder being directed to providing tourist materials to promote the project, explain how it works and to provide maps. Gnangarra 09:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't deal in sponsored content. If the licenses of that content require us to add more than author credits in the page history, the equivalent of what we would accept if the author added it to Wikipedia themselves, then we should not make use of that content. The situation here is different from the one WP:PLAG is intended for because we don't re-use already-available freely-licensed content but deal with specially-written content that isn't published elsewhere but was created to be put on Wikipedia. Regarding paid editing, I strongly disagree with Gnangarra's reading. Robyn Taylor is unquestionably compensated for creating this content. If she were to edit Wikipedia directly, the Terms of Use would require her to disclose her affiliation, as for Wikipedians in residence. The "paid editing" angle, however, is irrelevant to this template's fate. Huon (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For goodness sake. The authors of most open access articles are paid, too. That doesn't mean that we can't reuse them in Wikipedia, with attribution. Since Robyn Taylor is no editing Wikipedia, how an she be paid to edit Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there's an objection to acknowledging a funder, remove the acknowledgement; deletion is not cleanup. Attribution templates are hardly an outrage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted the template and request this discussion be deleted as the respon from Houn implies that the person providing the content is acting in appropriately and I rather close down the the wikitown town project than has such insults being made. Gnangarra 10:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra: That is unfortunate because this discussion has only just started and promised to be quite useful to air different views about this situation. (I don't know of any precedent.) Would you be open to allowing the discussion to continue (possibly undeleting to allow others to comment), as consensus may form, for example, to allow the template on talk pages of articles. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: I would and think its a worth while discussion but not before two issues are cleared up one is Houn denigration of a person who gave of her time freely to support the project is removed, and secondly Houn breach of OTRS privacy on my talk is also removed and all of the discussions here, an, my talk page are combined into one location under a different name Gnangarra 10:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any "denigration" and suspect you may be exaggerating there. You could pursue the privacy issue with Houn but I don't see why the issues can't be discussed simultaneously? And I whole-heartedly agree that all discussions should be merged! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
where he says the person in unquestionably being compensated is an unfair and unreasonable pressumption we all do this as volunteers Gnangarra 10:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not denigration. It was also my understand that she was being paid to write this content, as you acknowledged it had been written with the aid of a grant from Lotterywest. I'm going to restore this template now for the duration of this discussion so that others can express an informed opinion, and then try to close down some of the fragmented discussion elsewhere. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "written by Dr Robyn Taylor PhD MPHA for the Shire of Toodyay as part of an enabling grant from Lotterywest" does not mean that Dr Taylor was compensated for writing that content, I apologize for making that claim which was based on my best understanding of this very template, but then I'd really like to know how the Shire and Lotterywest are relevant to attribution. What exactly does "for the Shire of Toodyay as part of an enabling grant" mean, if not that some of that grant money went towards paying Dr Taylor for writing the content? Huon (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Talk:Raffaele_Martelli still exists. Maybe the contents can be useful to someone, I don't care what happens to my comments on that page. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have expressed my opinion over at User_talk:Gnangarra#Template_Toodyaypedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm all for getting new content on Wikipedia and in this case (feel free to correct me) it seems that although the author is getting paid to write the content, there is no inherent conflict of interest. I think the template should be deleted, but here is how it could work (getting slightly off topic I know):
    • Sort out the copyright status of the work. It obviously needs to be released under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL under the terms of use.
    • Ideally Ms Taylor should register an account and make a statement on her user page about how she is being paid and by whom.
    • She could then post the content from her own account, or you could post it with an edit summary which says you are posting it on behalf of User:Robyn_Taylor. Then we have the attribution and the disclosure angles covered.
  • What's the problem with this method? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the perfect solution (if Ms Taylor is the copyrightowner). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Query From what I can gather, the only article that this template has been added to was the now-deleted Raffaele Martelli. Were there others? It also appears that the Martelli material was expressly written to be uploaded onto Wikipedia as part of the Toodyaypedia project and has not been previously published. I can find nothing online that matches any of the text. Gnangarra, as the article's creator, can you confirm my interpretation of what's going on? If the material has not been previously published, there are no licensing problems and technically no attribution issues. However, if the uploaders who create these articles wish to attribute the original author, I see nothing wrong with a small, discreet attribution template, minus the image and similar in size and appearance to Template:1902 Britannica.The current template is pretty blatant advertising for the Toodyaypedia project (shades of the Gibraltarpedia brouhaha) and very unencyclopedic. It does not belong in article space in its present form—we don't advertise WikiProjects, (including GLAM and Gibraltarpedia) on articles. However, it might be suitable for talk pages. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template was added to two separate articles: Raffaele Martelli and Annie Stack. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huon, since you handled the OTRS ticket, what were the exact restrictions/conditions placed on the publication of Robin Taylor's material here? If they aren't compatible with CC BY-SA or require a form of attribution which is not compatible with that used on Wikipedia, then we can't use it. Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That email is private and Huon has no authority to publish it..... lack the of AGF and failure to remove the person name from this discussion preculdes from any further participation in this discussion Gnangarra 13:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huon does not have to publish the email or release the name of the sender. He can confirm in general terms if the current template's wording and placement is a condition under which permission was granted to use the material and that the material was released under CC BY-SA. If those things cannot be confirmed, then we cannot use the material or the template. Apart from the CC BY-SA issue, we cannot decide if the attribution conditions are contrary to Wikipedia policy if we don't know the conditions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an odd situation. The template was created by Gnangarra and used in two articles, one of which (Raffaele Martelli) was created by Gnangarra, and the other a proxy of Gnangarra, both of which were then deleted by Gnangarra. Gnangarra also claims to have deleted the template, but I can find no record of that. However, it seems that Gnangarra has no further use for the template, and if that is true it could be speedily deleted. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RockMagnetist: Gnangarra did delete the template, and MSGJ restored it. If you go to the History tab for the template and click on the link "View logs for this page" (under the title) then you end up at the logs. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I don't see the point of restoring it. Sounds like WP:G7 to me. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again) per nom and Huon. Individual templates like this are inappropriate (and redundant) in article or talk space. Miniapolis 22:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: that's not how we do attribution. Imagine if at least 0.1% of contributors to a popular page would want this kind of attribution... Also, I see a share of promotion here. Max Semenik (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia has no adverts, and there should not be a backdoor that allows pages (articles or talk) to promote sponsors. If an editor or organization does not want to contribute in the way that everyone else does, they are not suitable for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unused template and G7 in addition to the serious inappropriateness in its present form. If attribution to this particular author might ever become useful, it can be recreated as a small one-line plain text template, minus the qualifications of the author and minus promotion of the Toodyaypedia project and its commercial sponsor. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's clearly an advertisement instead of an attribution template. If it were an attribution template, it should look like {{EB1911}} or {{FOLDOC}} ; and not {{ambox}} ; -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have deleted the template via G7 as requested by its author on my talk page. I don't want to close the nomination, but it seems that consensus is clear enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 18 September 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox Wikipedia campus ambassador 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after merging classes= into {{infobox user}} and |status=Campus Ambassador added. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{infobox user}}, with |status=Campus Ambassador. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Delete This one is used quite a bit on user pages, but based on the random sample of users, it's not clear that they needed the (slight) additional functionality. There is a regional bias in the use, and I suspect that many of the users simply copied what someone else was doing, not understanding that there may have been a better template available. Also, despite the fact that each use of the template has a notice regarding this discussion, none of the users of the template have (so far) voiced any concerns about the potential deletion. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with |classes=. Alakzi (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been one of those days, so maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand this; {{infobox user}} doesn't have |classes= - is there another template in this family? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox Cheerleading 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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 18. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary wrapper of {{Infobox sports team}}. Used on only ten articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep wrapper - This is a perfect example why we have wrappers: the majority of the parameters of the underlying base template, Template:Infobox sports team, are not appropriate for the particular use for cheerleading squads. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • With just ten transclusions, it is a perfect example of a redundant wrapper that consumes more effort than it saves. Any parameters that are "not appropriate" are optional and can be omitted from the articles concerned; as demonstrated in this replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Wrappers can be useful, but when there's only 10 transclusions, it's not worth the maintenance. ~ RobTalk 04:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dirtlawyer1's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (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).

Template:PlanetMath 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Anybody with the know-how to add archive links would, I am sure, be welcome to do so. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is widely used but no longer works as the site is down, and has been down for a long time. See Talk:PlanetMath. Unless it is likely to come back up soon this should be deleted, which will remove all the dead links that it now generates. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the talk page shows the website is up and down and up and down repeatedly. Is it now permanently down? (What is a "long time"?) The article PlanetMath makes no mention of it being dead. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep as the website homepage seems to be accessible, though the database backend appears to be broken, not serving up a proper page. The evidence on the talk page shows the webshite to be problematic, being up and down repeatedly. As it does not seem to be permanently dead, it may just come back up soon. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website is currently up (as of the time of my timestamp), so obviously it wasn't permanently down, so this would be a keep -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator neglected to surround the TfD with <noinclude>, so the deletion discussion template was spammed over all the articles that use this template. I have fixed it, but for future reference: don't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was deliberate on my part. Templates are often the work of few people, so they are on few watch lists, while few editors participate in TfD discussions. That means this discussion would probably not be noticed by those who have used the template who might be interested. Having a notice in articles using it addresses that. If the template is used inline, or is used many times in an article, then a notice might be problematic, but otherwise it should be there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My general feeling is that a lot of these links are of pretty low value, but running a template deletion that will automatically delete all of the links made by a template, without any attempt at a survey of what those links were used for or whether they are worth saving (by finding archived copies or whatever), seems like the wrong way to go. I note that there are actually at least four PlanetMath templates: {{PlanetMath}}, {{PlanetMath reference}}, {{PlanetMath attribution}}, and {{PlanetMath instructions}}, and we absolutely cannot get rid of {{PlanetMath attribution}} because that would violate the licensing conditions under which text from PlanetMath was copied into Wikipedia. So regardless of the outcome of this TfD, we're still going to need links to PlanetMath. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't these templates be converted to link to the Internet Archive's backups of those pages, if they exist? -- Impsswoon (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add functionality to include an archived version. ~ RobTalk 04:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site is currently up. It's true that it has a tendency to go down (on one occasion for several weeks, if I remember correctly), but this isn't a reason to delete the template. --Zundark (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_16&oldid=1141875809"