Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26 edit

Template:Whisperback 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 to Template:Talkback. Functionality should be preserved, along the lines of SMcCandlish. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Whisperback with Template:Talkback.

Functionally equivalent, we don't need two versions of this. Talkback appears to be preferred by a ratio of ~35:1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, but actually merge (i.e., preserve functionality, perhaps with a |small=yes parameter, and replace or substitute extant uses). They are not functionally equivalent; this one was specifically designed to be compact and unobtrusive. In retrospect, that would have been better done with a parameter. As it is, though, both of these templates verge on obsolete since introduction of the ping feature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete with second best option being Merge. These templates are very similar functionally and would benefit from merging. It is much easier as an editor to be able to know the actual name of a template instead of finding lots and lots of alternate names that are used on different pages, hence my preference to replace and delete instead of merging.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's self-contradictory, and I think it resolves for practical purposes to something like "merge then redirect to Template:Talkback". If they "would benefit from merging" then there is not a rationale for deletion. And neither TfD nor RfD accept "easier as an editor to be able to know the actual name of a [page] instead of finding [redirects] that are used on different pages" as a rationale for deleting redirects. No one is rendered not "able" to know the actual name of the page; all they have to do is follow the redirects, which exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or replace/delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Ratio is a poor rationale for deletion. If enough people use it, it should be kept. I'm also not a fan of templates being continually merged into other templates. pbp 00:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ratio is not given as a rationale for deletion; not least since deletion is not proposed. The rationale for merging is "functionally equivalent, we don't need two versions of this"; the ratio simply suggests the preferred target for the merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and preserve functionality per SMcCandlish. And we should probably look at {{talkbacktiny}} too. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2020 (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:Shooting at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Shooting at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2020 (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:Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2020 (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:Diving at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Diving at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2020 (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:Archery at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Archery at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2020 (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:Autocat 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to be a failed proposal as, despite its creation being widely advertised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 184#New template: autocat and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Template:Autocat, it only ever had four uses, all of which were added by it's creator and then reverted by BrownHairedGirl one week later, rendering it unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:19, 26 October 2020 (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:German Wiki 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. Consensus that this should not be used on articles. Technically, moving to userspace per creator's request, as courtesy & to save having an admin copy it into a sandbox. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have articles written in German here. Also unused. --Trialpears (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2020 (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:Archive top red 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 Wrapperify. Worth nothing that all except {{Archive top purple}} already were wrappers before this proposal. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting or merging the above colour-forms into Template:Archive top.

It's highly unlikely that we need different coloured versions of this template (consider readers with colour-blindness), but if we do, we should have one template with a |colour= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deletion would break over 500 uses of those templates. Also, the different colors are used to denote different outcomes (and color-blind users can just read the explanation of the outcome). pbp 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No uses would be "broken", they would simply be replaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like unnecessarily making extra work. pbp 00:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is someone saying you will have to do it? No? then that's not a concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're making work for SOMEBODY. Also, you've badgered everybody who's voted Keep (currently the consensus) pbp 15:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The other color variants are often used to denote specific outcomes - I've seen red used to denote when discussion failed, for instance. They don't hurt anything, they are occassionally useful, and any sort of action is liable to break over 500 transclusions. I can't see what messing with this would accomplish. Hog Farm Bacon 16:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an accessibility fail; colour should not be used to impart information in this manner. Besides which, most people would not understand such intent, since no key is provided. And in most cases the scheme you describe is not used: a total of 584 transclusions (especially vs. over 18K for the main template) does not support the claim "often". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
      • What's an accessibility fail would be if colors were the only way to impart that information. But they're not; because there's text generated by the template that says what's going on. And while 584 isn't 18,000; it's not zero either. pbp 19:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm assuming that this is meant ot be a sort of traffic-light system. However we shouldn't be using different coloured boxes for this purpose. If there is a genuine requirement for different colours, then this is best done through a parameter, not by replicating the main template. Why not "Archive top purple" ad infinitum. Nigej (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have a few points I would like to make.
    It's easy to talk about colour-blind individuals in the abstract, but as the re-designer of {{Archive top yellow}} I did ensure this was less of a barrier for folks than one would've thought. When designing things with colors, I use a website called Color Hexa which provides an inexact sample of how colour-blind users would see a given color.
    I also don't feel the transclusion count tells a whole-enough story. Excluding deletion archival templates, the nominated archive top colour templates are all within the top ten most transcluded archive discussion templates. However, these numbers can be very wacky since discussion templates are often substituted. Further still, the archive top colour templates were generally made by Purplebackpack back in 2013 while {{Archive top}} has a history that goes back double as much! Can anyone reasonably be surprised that such a template has more transclusions?
    The nomination statement also disregards the fact that Archive top is pretty much one of the default used templates. If an editor makes a decision to transclude one of the other colour templates, it's usually a conscience decision on their part. We should not be overriding their decision to transclude or substitute this template in the manner they so choose in order to maintain the integrity of previously closed discussions.
Extended transclusion statistics
Those are my thoughts on this matter. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear why we can't have a "colour=parameter" in the main one, rather than having more and more copies of it with minor variations. Nigej (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej and Pigsonthewing: In general, users don't always transclude these templates directly; Sometimes people use {{atopy}} or another similar shortcut. Then you have the pretty glaring fact that some users spell it "colour" while others would rather die than spell it "color". Many users, myself included, would probably resent the choice being made for us after the fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another non issue. Variants of paramter names can be and regularly are handled in template ccde. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Mabbett: Okay, maybe I didn't understand your proposal. After you delete {{Atopy}} are you going to use |color= or |colour= to replace this transclusion? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Then what if, instead of deleting all the colour templates, we replace all their content with a wrapper around {{Archive top}} per I and Sdkb below? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDragonFire300: That would be fine with me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, a template can accept more than one template parameter, so you can have something like {{{color|{{{colour|purple}}}}}}, which will default to purple but accept either spelling. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts with the yellow template. I'm not clear though, how this help people with red/green colourblindness - the commonest form - to distinguish between red and green versions of the template.
I agree - and would never disregard - that "Archive top is pretty much one of the default used templates" - and it is admirably suited to the job. So why do we need the others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. thanks also for including {{Afc top}} in your list of templates; note that it was created by the merger of various single-colour templates,analogous to those in this nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A solution in search of a problem. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redundant templates are very much a problem, as consensus in TfD discussions has repeatedly found. No argument as to why separate templates - or indeed colour variations at all - are needed has been advanced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're not redundant though, they're unique. You're not arguing that they're redundant, you're arguing that they should be merged and supplanted with a parameter that allows for color changes. There's simply no need to delete these templates which have hundreds of transclusions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are redundant, because {{Archive top}} can handle every use-case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, it can handle every use case (archive in blue) but some editors did not want that result (archive in other colour). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Green-background archives are a use-case; yellow-background archives are a use-case, and so on. {{Archive top}} can handle them all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why cause a big hassle when this is a minor disorganization? Natureium (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wrapperify: What's so wrong with having only one main {{Archive top}} template, then having each of the discussed alternate coloured templates pointing to {{Archive top}} with a colour parameter? So, for example, on {{Archive top red}}, have the source code be some variant of {{Archive top|colour=#ff0000}} (or what the actual colour's hex code is). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed !vote to Wrapperify, in response to Sdkb's !vote below. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapperify, as suggested by TheDragonFire300 above. Having the separate colors available clearly has reasonable usage; for instance, I employed it when WP:SIDEBAR20 was closed, and it made the page much easier to skim. However, the coding could be improved through wrappification to better conform to the Don't repeat yourself principle. There actually already exists a parameter for changing the background color, |bg=; it's just undocumented. So all that needs to be done is to remove most of the code for these other templates, replacing it with an invocation of the main {{Archive top}} template with the color preset. If this is done correctly (to preserve the ability to use parameters, I'd suggest Module:Template wrapper), it will result in no changes whatsoever to their functionality, but will have the benefit of syncing them, making maintenance easier. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a heads up @Sdkb: I fixed a typo in your !vote; I presume you didn't mean artive top. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep dunno why this was nominated for deletion. I don't see the rational. I'm also open to wrapperifying. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While these templates have reasonable usage I am open to wrapperifying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: There seems to currently be consensus to keep these templates, but also concerns that the code in these extra coloured templates would be repeating themselves unnecessarily, complicating maintenance. How many Keep voters would be open to wrappification, as the two !votes above this are? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapperify (or keep) per above. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapperify per above. Having the color parameter being part of the main archive templates is a Good Idea, and having the specific colors refer back to it in this way is also a Good Idea. --Jayron32 15:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Personally, I get kind of confused when I see the different colors of templates. Who needs them? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not convinced that merging this has any usefulness apart from being the "clean" way to do things but that's really irrelevant in the scheme of literally anything else. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapperify per Sdkb. Don't merge, mainly for the sake of article histories. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or merge then wrapperify. All the functionality should be in a single template, but we also don't need to break the intended color coding in archived discussions. If someone wanted to use AWB or a bot to replace all the old ones with calls to the merged template with a color parameter, then just merge. If no one's willing to do that, then wrapperify the color variants with just calls the main template and a color parameter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with merge here is that all permalinks (frequently used for closed discussions) would look broken. Or, if just redirecting rather than deleting, the colour would be lost. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion supposes, incorrectly, that existing uses could not be replaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In permalinks? Replacements will not change page histories. This usually doesn't matter, but closed discussions are a frequent use for permas. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but then - as we're told above - the colour is only supplemental to the text describing the outcome. it's not needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Questioon The DiscussionCloser script uses these color templates and is decently widespread. Would wrapperfying allow it to operate unchanged, or would script changes be needed?
    To editor DannyS712: Courtesy ping for awareness of discussion either way. -2pou (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapperify/merge. Reducing code duplication is a Good Thing, and this is a perfect case for it. Several of the responses above argue against deletion, which is clearly not a credible outcome at this point. Those !votes generally appear compatible with a wrapper/merge outcome that preserves current functionality, and I suspect many or all of those !votes wouldn't have been cast if the nomination statement had been "Propose merging" rather than "Propose deleting or merging". Alsee (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Is see no reason for different colors. The reason mentioned above, that different colors could signal different outcome, is not a sufficient reason, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrapperify using the bg= parameter per Sdkb to reduce code duplication and make maintenance easier. My !vote would be Merge if we could do so without breaking page histories per ProcrastinatingReader. In the case of a merge, I would suggest using color|colour= for the existing red/green/yellow, while leaving bg= for every other HTML color/hex code. The Only Zac (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I just checked and it looks like {{Archive top red}}, {{Archive top green}}, and {{Archive top yellow}} were already wrapperfied by Newslinger on 30 December 2019 here, here, and here. So are all the wrapperify !votes actually keep !votes, or am I missing something? The Only Zac (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Only Zac: I was the one to suggest wrappification in the first place without looking too closely at the source code, and Sdkb was the first to !vote for it. However, it isn't a proper wrappification with Module:Template wrapper, so there's that. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:27, 5 November 2020 (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:IPNAselectedart 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article template for a deleted portal. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2020 (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:Apple Inc. SA 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 G8 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article nomination template for a deleted portal. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2020 (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:USMCportal 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article template for a deleted portal. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2020 (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:Transcription factor and coregulator deficiencies 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. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This giant template does not, I think, provide useful navigational value. It should be converted to a list. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how having it is harmful. I find it a useful synopsis. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 29 October 2020 (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:Borat 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 redirect to Template:Sacha Baron Cohen. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical to {{Sacha Baron Cohen}}, minus a couple of links (e.g. Tutar Sagdiyev). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:23, 26 October 2020 (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/2020_October_26&oldid=1145970974"