Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13 edit

Template:Redirect category shell 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary duplicate of Template:Redirect template, i.e. it does exactly the same but in a more verbose and less editor friendly way - rather than know one template to use it you need to know half a dozen. Unclear what purpose this serves when the existing long standing templates work fine. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not a duplicate template, in fact, it is just the opposite. Suggest to nom to withdraw because: The very first sentence in the documentation of {{Redirect template}} is "This is a meta template for standardising redirect category (rcat) templates." On the other hand, (and I remember once making this exact same argument for the {{This is a redirect}} template) the {{Redirect category shell}} is not a meta template, and is in fact the reverse, since it holds rcat templates within it in order to standardize redirect categorization. I created this template in answer to several discussions over the years culminating in the most recent at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter. This template is designed to be even better than This is a redirect to the process of redirect categorization. It is indeed that for which the consensus of discussion participants has asked!  Rules of enpagement Paine  20:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Paine's comment. Everything you use in {{This is a redirect}} is actually a template in the form {{R foobar}}. There are numerous shortcuts to make life easier. {{Redirect category shell}} makes it easier to use rcat parameters, because instead of remembering |pX= and |nX= for first and second parameter, you can just use the individual rcats normally and place them in a wrapper, this way you still have the advantage of automatically sensing protection levels and the fancy blue box. (Personally I still prefer {{This is a redirect}} as more concise, but personal preferences are irrelevant here.) nyuszika7h (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as an editor involved in the creation discussion. At the time, I had thought creating a new, separate, template for the new parameter format would be better than changing the existing template, with the understanding that we could better evaluate the difficulties in merging to another template after we have it working separately. (If it is feasible to merge, I may support that now, but this isn't a merge discussion, so I haven't really considered it at this time.) This template was requested to solve clear problems, as can be seen at the discussion, and though, like the above user, I may not use this template very much, it is simpler for many others, who appreciate it. —PC-XT+ 22:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per nom. When {{multiple issues}} was converted from a |issue=date syntax to the current syntax of transcluding subtemplates, no unnecessary extra template was created. Instead, the main template was updated to support both formats for a while. The same should be done with {{this is a redirect}} rather than forking a duplicate template. Pppery (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to develop what the consensus seemed to want, and it would have been doable with an extra parameter that I was going to name |rcat=, but editors preferred a different setting: They preferred that the |1= parameter be used for simplicity. In the This is a redirect template, there are seven unnamed parameters, and the first parameter is used either empty to populate the Misc. redirects category or filled with a single rcat. I could not find a way to accommodate the existing 290,000+ usage on redirects of that template with a single unnamed parameter that would do what editors wanted, that is, a single parameter for one or more rcats, all in that single parameter. The only way to do that was as was suggested by another editor: To design a new, simpler template that would still be able to categorize redirects, still automatically sense protection levels, still be able to help inexperienced users and do all that in ways that other editors wanted. There may be a way to merge them, but I haven't figured out how to do that without breaking hundreds of thousands of redirects. I do intend to keep working on that, but if it's deleted then it just means that many editors who awaited this solution are back to square one.  Rules of enpagement Paine  02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, we don't seem to have a consensus on whether {{This is a redirect}} or {{Redirect category shell}} is the more "editor-friendly" syntax. Supporting two syntaxes was possible in {{Multiple issues}} because the old syntax did not support any unnamed parameters, thus leaving the new syntax free to use unnamed parameters. In this case, the older syntax uses up to seven unnamed parameters, which means the new syntax can only use named parameters to avoid syntax conflicts. Paine suggested |rcat= above, but I think |templates= would be more intuitive. There's a problem here in that editors are already used to seeing this syntax style used in {{Multiple issues}} with an unnamed parameter, and we would be inconsistently introducing a new template using the same syntax style, but requiring a named parameter. Comparing an example usage of the two syntaxes:
{{This is a redirect}} uses the WP:EXPENSIVE parser function call {{#ifexist: to convert each of its unnamed parameters to templates, e.g. {{#ifexist:Template:R {{{7}}} and then when it exists {{R {{{7}}}
Granted, this is probably an acceptable "expense" as redirect pages are otherwise relatively efficient. I also observe that {{this is a redirect|from xxzzy}} isn't an {{error}}, so I'm not sure what the point is in checking if the template exists, as its getting transcluded anyway.
We can convert from one syntax to the other by adding or removing the characters {{R }}, i.e. {{R from move}}. "You need to know half a dozen" "from move" codes either way.
The source code of {{This is a redirect}} isn't particularly short or simple, but shows that it's relatively easy to convert |1=from move to |1={{R from move}}
It would benefit from a conversion to Lua, which could use a loop to process each of the seven unnamed parameters, and could easily support eight or nine (or ninety-nine) unnamed params.)
Conversion in the other direction, from |1={{R from move}} back to |1=from move is not so simple, because the MediaWiki system will have already "substituted" the template before your template sees it. I have a trick that does it for {{Orphan}}, but in this case I don't think we want to go there. I don't think merging these templates is worth the effort, even if we could agree to make {{Redirect category shell}} use a named parameter. We just need to decide whether having two incompatible templates to accomplish the same task is acceptable, and if not, which of them should be nuked. I'm ambivalent about that. wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wbm1058, you appear to have a good handle on this. The essential idea is that, while both the This is a redirect and Redirect category shell templates do the same things, they do them is very different ways. And those differences are the result of several different discussions and a consensus for the need for change. The ultimate challenge will not be to merge the two templates – the challenge will be to deprecate the This is a redirect template, which is to be replaced by the Redirect category shell. Then the problems brought about by the former will be resolved by the latter.  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:31, 25 August 2016 (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:Sonyclassics title 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template created in 2009. Only 8 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, about half were dead links so I replaced them with standard citation templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after changes by Frietjes —PC-XT+ 16:31, 14 August 2016 (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:PASTMAP 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created 2007. Only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I can see this template fulfills the same function for Scotland as does {{NHLE}} for England, which provides a link to the official reference for the listing of a historically important building or object, as decided by governmental (local or national) organizations. Scotland's historic building articles are in a poor state as regards referencing or even mentioning their listed status. Nevertheless some mechanism should exist to enable this.   Oosoom Talk  08:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:10, 13 August 2016 (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:Accessdate 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 relisted on 2016 August 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:14, 28 August 2016 (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:Accessed 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 T3 by Hyacinth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template that requires the user to type {{Accessed|~~~~~}} instead of Accessed: ~~~~~ - which is fewer keystrokes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst all uses and delete per nom. Has minimal usage and no real value. PC78 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete — I have actually been doing this, already, when working on references, or replacing it with a cite template. I don't know of a reason to use this instead of plain text —PC-XT+ 22:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hyacinth (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2016 (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:Catscan2 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 as a TfM WP:IAR / WP:NOTBUREAU close, (non-admin closure) Evad37 [talk] 00:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only five non-article uses outside of archive pages, and apparently non-functional. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template still serves a purpose in making it much easier to link to PetScan queries. Formatting links with this template means that if the tool changes location or format, the queries can be updated just by updating this template (like I did just a few days ago!). Additionally, the template doesn't violate any of the WP:TG guidelines, nor does it meet any of WP:TFD#REASONS (current low-usage is not unused, and not an indication of potential future uses), so I don't see any reason to delete, or benefit from deleting, this now functional template. - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a similar template {{Catscan}}, so I'm changing my !vote to merge that template into {{PetScan}} (which will result in about 35 transclusions) - Evad37 [talk] 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, but reopen as a merge discussion. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, merging is probably best, but also best to properly tag both templates, as Frietjes says —PC-XT+ 16:26, 14 August 2016 (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:Wolf-Williams Racing 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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary template begun by an editor known to the F1 project who persists in attempting to create pages etc. for Wolf-Williams, despite consensus to the contrary. This team is not a separate entity to Frank Williams Racing Cars; it is not treated as such by the sport's governing body and is covered by the FWRC Wiki page. This has been communicated to the creator of the page on several occasions, but to no avail. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not seeing a reason for deletion in your comment. If it's part of that team, why are the links in the template proposed for deletion not in the navbox for FWRC, which is {{Frank Williams Racing Cars}}? --Izno (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which links you mean exactly, as a number of them are included in both templates. In terms of personnel, those who were involved, for a very short time, with the temporarily re-named team (W-W) would not necessarily be considered notable by F1 Proj. convention in the context of FWRC. However, there are one or two drivers who could be included at FWRC, but the majority at the W-W template do not have a strong case for inclusion. Just by way of background the history of FWRC around this time was rather complicated with multiple driver, sponsor etc. changes. A driver who took part in just one practice session (Kuwashima) for W-W, for example, has no basis for inclusion in either template. The convention is to include, at the most, drivers who at least achieved a points finish. No driver did so for W-W, so would not be included at FWRC. Eagleash (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the cars used by Wolf-Williams were not actually constructed by that team. They were in fact an old design 'bought-in' and were constructed the previous season by a defunct team. The template should therefore, not have been created as it is WikiProject convention to only have them for teams officially recognised as constructors. Eagleash (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:58, 13 August 2016 (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:SAPhon 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created June 2015. Only two transclusions, with no other links to the target site on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a citation template that simplifies citing what looks like a frequently used reference resource. Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Only two transclusions, with no other links to the target site on Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how have I missed that. Now, can't we think about scale for a bit. To my knowledge, this template hasn't been publicised anywhere, and it's not that we have some guide for writing about the phonologies of South American languages where this could be included. Not that we see people writing about the phonologies of South American languages very often. Two transclusions for a year is just about the frequency I'd imagine for such a topic. Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably what I'm saying now would come across as ignorant (this is my first ever encounter with TfD), but how on Earth is transclusion count relevant for determining whether we keep templates like this? For niche ones, the difference between 2 and 32 transclusions is the difference between an editor who creates a little useful template only to use them on the article they're currently writing, and the editor who goes on a crusade to introduce their template to all articles that might need it. Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to TfD, Uanfala. In general, templates shouldn't be created until they can be used on multiple articles, as their purpose is to collect reused code into one place for easier maintenance. Many templates are created prematurely, then deleted (or userfied) until there is enough use for them, at which point they can be restored, as long as the only reason for deletion is lack of use. Templates of almost any kind with fewer than 3 transclusions tend to be discussed here. With citation and external link templates, the bar may be set higher, mainly, I think, due to concerns that they should be more editable. There is still a drive to standardize these links with templates and other means, but the benefits are tempered by added template costs, such as maintenance. Most tools handle hardcoded links better than templated ones, for instance. —PC-XT+ 00:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my reply above, if enough of the articles for these languages or related articles can use this template, then keep, otherwise, substitute and delete (or if more usage may be found later, delete or userfy for now until then.) Also, if this is to be used as a citation template, perhaps we should make this wrap a cite template if kept or substituted? —PC-XT+ 02:21, 14 August 2016 (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).

MTR Light Rail navboxes 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced by {{MTR Light Rail routes}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:43, 13 August 2016 (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:Delete when empty 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant to Template:Db-c1 MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Template:Db-c1 as this template automatically adds {{Db-c1}} to any empty category. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't seem at all redundant to me, in fact the template has a very clear and specific purpose. Nom fails to make a clear case. PC78 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as not reliably redundant. The main difference is that, as I understand it, {{db-c1}} is supposed to be removed if the category is not empty. We could add a parameter to the CSD template for uncontroversial deletion after only 4 days with a different message if the category is empty, but otherwise I'm not sure that all tagging under C1 is uncontroversial enough to allow early tagging. By the way, another minor difference that is relatively moot for this discussion, but should probably be fixed, is that the "uncontroversial" one apparently waits 3 days less, but really not when it adds the CSD category (via the CSD template.) We could add the category, and perhaps {{db-g6}}, along with {{db-c1}}, if the shorter number of days is correct? If this kind of tagging, itself, is inferior to another process that finds and deletes empty categories, I could see this as redundant to that process and will change my !vote, though {{db-c1}} by itself should not be used for this purpose. —PC-XT+ 03:19, 14 August 2016 (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:APOD 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created in 2012; single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Keep A WP search for APOD returns 358 hits. This template can, presumably (missing documentation), be used to standardize these references. Perhaps it is in disuse (or always was) partly because of the missing documentation? Deferring to its creator, Headbomb.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, this search shows over 600 potential uses. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if documented and added to more articles —PC-XT+ 03:22, 14 August 2016 (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:Sansha 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 rename. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has one proper link, to Sansha. The rest are red links, non-link text or three redirects which hide the actual article titles and, as indicated, are not formal divisions of the territory. Overall far too messy and contentious for a navigation box. Sansha covers the Chinese territory properly so does not need this. Added to other articles it seems like POV pushing of the Chinese names for the islands and does not provide useful navigation. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. I repurposed it to include the pages transcluding it. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment then it should be renamed: Sansha is the name of the prefecture level city for the islands, but is a recent Chinese invention, not used by anyone else or recognised as a way of grouping them by anyone else. I would suggest move and rename it to Template:South China Sea, as the generally recognised and neutral name for the geographic area.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:39, 14 August 2016 (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:EqCoor 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 13 August 2016 (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:Atlantic 10 Conference women's lacrosse navbox 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No articles for a lacrosse team, no use for this template. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:31, 13 August 2016 (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/2016_August_13&oldid=1074850207"