Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4 edit

Template:Matthew Bright edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matthew Bright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template for an inactive director of only four films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with the nomination for {{John Polson}} below, I think four links is the bare minimum for navboxes, and while all four articles are in good standing I can see a precedent for a navbox for the sake of quick navigation across the director's works. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with TheMovieBuff, four is good enough for a template.--Yankees10 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable director, multiple films. Template provides an unobtrusive way to navigate his career. Removing it lessens the articles, which we should be working to expand. Dekkappai (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep four is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (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:John Polson edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Polson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely notable director of only four films, of also little notability. Excessive and unnecessary template for what is actually only two notable films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep four films is enough to have a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no, not really. Userfy so can be recreated in the future if director's notability improves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While two rows is silly, four items is the bare minimum to warrant a navbox and while the articles are still there there's a reasonable shout for having a director navbox. I see one of the four links is currently proposed for deletion, however, which may influence the outcome here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the four links are PROD-ed. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with TheMovieBuff, four is good enough for a template.--Yankees10 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above-- useful, unobtrusive navigation tool for a notable director's career. Dekkappai (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep four films is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (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:Galánta (Galanta) District (2nd nomination) 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 as redundant and per arguments raised in the Mureş County TFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Galanta District. roamata (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. This template just duplicate the Template:Galanta District template and push names in an non official language.

2. The Hungarian names are specified inside the articles and there is no need to specify them once again in the template.

3. The official Slovakian names are indicated just as an alternative. --roamata (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. This case is similar with the case of template Mureş County. --roamata (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ad. 1 The duplicate of Template:Galanta District would be a template containing Slovakian names and not Hungarian ones. ad 2 As The Hungarian names are specified in the articles, so this template is a navigation tool to articles which have in common that the settlements in question has an alternativ Huntgarian name, as well. ad 3 The template does not alter the articles, it is in line with WP:naming rules. More than that, the template is a 'list template' as defined by relevant wikipedia guidelines. This means that it is an exonyms list in the form of a template. I have never heared that exonym lists are forbidden. I think that it is mistake to confuse aricles with lists and templates. This whole discussion - like the other one on Maros (Mures) County template is a desperate and quite petty effort by different nationalists from certain successor states of Austria-Hungary to impose on Wikipedia their nation states' anachronistic restrictions on the use of minority languages. This template does not contrevene WP: naming conventions. If you prefer I will add Hungarian names to the Slovakian template if redundancy is really your problem. It seems that tolerance on Wiki is on the downtrend and nationalistic agenda in disguise of wikilegal blabla prevails.--Rokarudi 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ridiculous. I've only found this discussion now by looking at the talk page of one of the editors that already !voted here. Claiming that I'm "vote stacking" when I had not even !voted, and when my comments are generally in favor of bilingual templates (see discussion at Maros county), seriously undermines your credibility. Pcap ping 13:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't understand this note: I just respected Wikipedia procedures in these cases, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion for this, it is recommended that after nominating a template for deletion, user who may be interested in the subject should be noticed about the deletion proposal (the third step of the nomination). --roamata (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, but I see no notifications on the talkpage of wikiproject Hungary or Slovakia, and interestingly the persons notified by User:Iaaasi voted for deletion...--B@xter9 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this and this count as notification. As a courtesy, I notified both projects as soon as this TFD was listed. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but it was not Iaaasi who notified them.--B@xter9 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
roamata is the initiator of this discussion, not me, why should i have notified anyone?(Iaaasi (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
DeleteI want to mention that there is a precedent. I talk about another bilingual template, with the same
author (Rokarudi). The circumstances are exactly the same, the only difference being that we talk about a Slovakian district instead of a Romanian county
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County
As it can be observed, then the deletion was the adopted solution so it would be normal to judge in the same way now
Iaaasi (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case mentioned above, the decision was tthe following: "Consensus of responders is that this template should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives."--Rokarudi 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and in this case of the Galanta District, the official Slovakian names are presented just as a second alternative inside brackets, while the Hungarian names are presented as official names, replacing the Slovakian ones.--roamata (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the here discussed template just duplicate the already - much older - existing one Template:Galanta District (available since May 2006) and it make no sens. There is no sense in having two templates with exact the same content (only that the new created emphasize the Hungarian names and diminish the official Slovakian names). To me this seems some kind strange. --roamata (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: "There is no sense in having two templates with exact the same content" It is not the same, but I agree: the existing one can bee updated with the Hungarian names too.--B@xter9 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this template is fully redundant to the pre-existing template, and the Mureş precedent also supports getting rid of this one and perhaps including Hungarian names in the old template. There's no need for two to do the same thing that one does adequately. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: 38.6% of the population of Galanta district are Hungarians. The possibility of a bilingual template should be admitted. The proper way how to do it must be chosen. The nationalistic agenda for suppressing Hungarian names has nothing to do with wikipedia rules on deletion. It's pointless to try to impose on wikipedia eastern-european chauvinist agenda on promoting the superiority of dominant languages over minority languages. The problem is much better settled in Western-Europe like in South-Tirol or the Basque Land because every settlement is named according to local use. Even the French retained the German names for the settlements of Alsace. Hungarian editors accept that article naming should follows official use, but this can not mean that Hungarian toponyms be discriminated and put out of sight even if they are notable in specific territory.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no alternative template in German for Alsace. There aren't presented German alternative names between paratheses not even in the article (for example for Magny there isn't mentioned the German name Manningen : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magny,_Haut-Rhin]] (Iaaasi (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, but change the order like: "Dolná Streda (Alsószerdahely)" and not "Alsószerdahely (Dolná Streda)--B@xter9 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the same situation as what was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 26#Template:Maros (Mureş) County. The previously established navigation template already links the articles based on the article names. This one links them via alternative-language redirects. If the alternative language names are desirable for navigation, then introduce them into the established template rather than creating a redundant template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate and official names are Slovak. Same as Mures template.--Yopie (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have enough of Romanian, Czech-Slovak and Serb nationalistic POV pushing already. And Yopie will be reported for wikihounding and trolling. Since he keeps targeting my edits harassing me by following me to articles in which he had obviously no interest beforehand at all. And it is also pretty obvious that he stumbled upon this discussion (Mures/Galanta templates) by following me around.--Nmate (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yopie got an invitation from roamata to take part at this discussion, he did not follow anybody: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yopie#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:Gal.C3.A1nta_.28Galanta.29_District(Iaaasi (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - a clear-cut WP:POVFORK. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for creating/updating a single bilingual template if warranted (I did not check if that is the case here). For all practical purposes I don't see when you'd want to transclude the template with the names in one language, but not in the other. So, there's no point in having two templates. The precedent with Maros county should be followed for the sake of consistency and avoiding template bloat. Pcap ping 13:23, 14 February 2010 (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:Broken 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unnecessary (see the documentation). Every articlespace transclusion was a broken (heh) reference to {{broken link}}, which this previous redirected to. Recommend changing it back into a redirect to that template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the "documentation" was updated about a year ago, but the template has existed for a while. The real documentation exists on the talk page. It was never transfered to the doc subpage. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the real documentation seems like a reasonable use, and as for the doc subpage, it seems like an out of process attempt to deprecate the template. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the documentation provided is pretty accurate, and tends to resolve things much more quickly. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems to be a useful way for editors, especially new editors, to flag a problem that needs fixing. There seems to be no other way to flag that kind of problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not particularly useful way of doing it, unless someone's willing to patrol the category. If someone does notice breakage and notes it on the page or on talk, someone on RC will probably ick it up. Or, as the doc says, eople can go to the Pump. If they don't know about the pump, they're not really more likely to know about templates, let alone the existence of this one in particular. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2010 (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:About3 (2nd nomination) 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{about}}.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Most of the uses can clearly be replaced by {{about}}, but this actually needs to be done before the template can be deleted. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can use bots for that. That is standard practice and is done often. @70.29.210.242: oh I guess you are right.174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a bot can be used, all I was saying was that it should be done before deletion, because as 70... pointed out, the template could be used to do things that {{about}} couldn't. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But even if it is not superceded by {{about}}, the template is completely useless.174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed all occurances of this template to {{about}} in articlespace. It is safe to delete the template now.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Delete. — sligocki (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That {{this}} does not allow compositing. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We would just have an endless number of composited templates.174.3.98.236 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2010 (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:OotMStandard 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 T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very old, unused template (in fact, it doesn't look like it was ever used). No substantial edits since 2006. Robofish (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2010 (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:British Comedy Guide edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Comedy Guide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template (and the related one below) were created only a few days ago, and appear to be in use to add links to the "British Comedy Guide" site. Given that there does not appear to be a consensus anywhere that the site should be linked from all related articles, the templates would appear to be unnecessary. (Is the site sufficiently notable that it warrants having its own template linking to it from every British series article on Wikipedia? One would think that the article British Comedy Guide is sufficient recognition.) Ckatzchatspy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding for clarity)We have to ask if this site meets the requirements for use as a reference, or a primary resource; does or does it not warrant the use of a special "prioritized" template, along with use on dozens/hundreds of pages? --Ckatzchatspy 00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we really don't have to ask any such thing, at least not in this forum. If the people who are most familiar with the topic, and who are most likely to be the primary editors of the topic, are comfortable using it as a reference source, then that's good enough. If the reference link would be valid on its own — and the onus would be on you to prove that there's an issue, not on anybody else to prove that there isn't — then it's perfectly valid to use a template to try to ensure that its use is consistently formatted and presented. Ergo, I don't see the problem here. If you think there's an issue with the site's basic reliability, this isn't the venue. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, it is a perfectly valid question. The template(s) were created just over a week ago, and have since been used to generically add new BCG links to numerous articles. (Some uses replaced direct URLs with the template, but more of them appear to be first-time links.) Therefore, it is relevant to ask if the site adds sufficient value to Wikipedia to warrant using a template to add links to a large number of articles, which is the only use for the template. --Ckatzchatspy 08:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think in almost all cases the guide provided by comedy.co.uk gives more information than is included on Wikipedia (at the very minimum it provides pictures) so for that reason I'd suggest that, yes, actually the site does add sufficient value to Wikipedia to warrent adding links to a large number of articles - do you think it doesn't then Ckatz? (disclaimer: I'm not the one actually adding these links using the template, but I think it's great someone is. disclosure: I am a registered member of the BCG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.141.237 (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a regular user of comedy.co.uk - they're guides often go beyond what is on offer on the Wikipedia guide - e.g. episode-by-episode cast, and pictures of the series etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.141.237 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it that a template is a good idea, although it would not be the end of the world if it went, so long as the original link was left. ISD (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Recognition" of the site, as such, isn't really the point — the point is that it's a reference site being linked to as a reference, using the very same link-template format that exists for numerous other reference sites that we frequently link to. {{myspace}}, for example, exists because we sometimes need to link to myspace as an external link for a subject — it's not about providing advertising to myspace. Unless there's an actual reason to treat this differently than templates such as {{myspace}}, {{CanParlbio}}, {{last.fm}}, {{FMQ}}, etc., keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the British Comedy Guide is a big reference website that is regularly worth linking to as an additional resource and this template makes that easier to do, and encourages it to be done in a consistent way Mark UK (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not worthy of a template 131.107.0.71 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - are you seriously suggesting Britain's biggest comedy reference website, already used as a reliable reference in 100s of Wikipedia articles isn't noteworthy or used enough for a template? 149.254.49.7 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep as it is a respected website that contains a depth of information that can't be reached by Wikipedia articles and thus provides a definite value to Wikipedia. TomBeasley (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to echo what TomBeasley has said above, couldn't have put it better myself: keep 86.134.198.174 (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I've just come across this discussion via an ugly deletion warning message that's breaking up an otherwise nice list of links on a Wikipedia page. The link to The British Comedy Guides are almost always useful extras so I can't see why Ckatz and the author who came via 131.107.0.71 would want to make it harder for people to add links to this website. Plus, excuse my ignorance, but doesn't a template force people to format the links correctly? - that's got to be worth keeping if people are going to keep linking to this website regardless of whether there's a template or not?!? 81.157.40.149 (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too found this discussion due to the ugly deletion message above the template, ruining the presentation of a page's link title. I think that the lack of opposition to its continued inclusion in articles means that a consensus has probably been reached now. TomBeasley (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2010 (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:British Comedy Guide (Sitcom) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep, with no prejudice against renomination at any time if the associated website is phased out or moved, as some comments suggested may be planned. RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Comedy Guide (Sitcom) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is the site sufficiently notable that it warrants adding a template linking to it from every British series article on Wikipedia? One would think that the article is sufficient recognition. Ckatzchatspy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding for clarity)We have to ask if this site meets the requirements for use as a reference, or a primary resource; does or does it not warrant the use of a special "prioritized" template, along with use on dozens/hundreds of pages? --Ckatzchatspy 00:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we really don't have to ask any such thing, at least not in this forum. If the people who are most familiar with the topic, and who are most likely to be the primary editors of the topic, are comfortable using it as a reference source, then that's good enough. If the reference link would be valid on its own — and the onus would be on you to prove that there's an issue, not on anybody else to prove that there isn't — then it's perfectly valid to use a template to try to ensure that its use is consistently formatted and presented. Ergo, I don't see the problem here. If you think there's an issue with the site's basic reliability, this isn't the venue. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recognition" of the site, as such, isn't really the point — the point is that it's a reference site being linked to as a reference, using the very same link-template format that exists for numerous other reference sites that we frequently link to. {{myspace}}, for example, exists because we sometimes need to link to myspace as an external link for a subject — it's not about providing advertising to myspace. Unless there's an actual reason to treat this differently than templates such as {{myspace}}, {{CanParlbio}}, {{last.fm}}, {{FMQ}}, etc., keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion. I edit a number of list pages involving film and television. Until now I had been blissfully unaware of the existence of this template.
    Varlaam (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen discussions before regarding the fate of members of this class of template. As far as I'm concerned, it's a totally innocuous one-liner. It's not obtrusive. So if it's of value to someone somewhere, I don't see it as an unnecessary burden. Varlaam (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one of these I ever found objectionable was the Star Trek one, because whoever retrofitted that one everywhere felt that a 3-minute guest appearance on Star Trek in 1966 was some sort of crowning achievement, and so Star Trek automatically got listed as everybody's first external link in every single case. Varlaam (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: The British Comedy Guide appears to be phasing out its sitcom.co.uk domain and moving all its guides over to comedy.co.uk thus this template will soon be redundant? 81.157.40.149 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a valid template from a useful source. IMHO, it's better to have a consistent format for this reference than umpteen editorially interpreted variations. As noted above, it may need updating at some point, but that's no reason to delete, at least not at the moment. Bob talk 23:13, 18 February 2010 (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:USCongress-short 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) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCongress-short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used for one article and not really useful elsewhere. —Markles 14:37, 4 February 2010 (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:Dominican Republic songwriters 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) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominican Republic songwriters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm sure this can be done, but this is not the way to do it. Drmies (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (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:Cat Stevens Alt 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat Stevens Alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template, which is redundant to {{Cat Stevens}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused and redundant to better template. Robofish (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2010 (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:Buddhism and Christianity 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buddhism and Christianity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template, with mostly redlinks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused, and the links that aren't red are mostly not very relevant. Robofish (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2010 (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:TCM 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 Speedy delete by Tbsdy lives per T2 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

See WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Template exists as a disclaimer and to express an unnecessary bias against traditional Chinese medicine. Be skeptical, yes, and provide any counter-evidence you know of in the article, yes, and make nice navboxes to link between TCM topics, yes, but don't tag the articles with something that looks like an error message based on their content.. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added {{db-t2}} to and removed {{Tfd}} from the template under WP:CSD#T2. Samwb123Please read 03:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the {{db-t2}} tag inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> to prevent it from showing all articles with transclusions under CAT:SD, and re-added the {{tfd}} tag, as this TFD is still open. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (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/2010_February_4&oldid=1083313550"