Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 26

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

June 26 edit

Template:Automatic Loveletter 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cuegloss edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete it. Discussion about whether to refactor it or simplify it or turn it into a substituted template can be continued on the talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why would we have this instead of wikilinks for the terms themselves? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, seems better to create cheap redirects for terms like cushion (cue sports), rather than use this template. seems to be a simple frontend for {{glossary link}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The fact that it's a much-used frontend for a complicated meta-template is a rational for keeping, not deleting it. A large percentage of WP templates are of this sort, and {{Glossary link}}'s own documentation specifically says it is to be used this way, using {{Cuegloss}} as the canonical example of how to use that meta-template properly! Please reconsider and revise. You can't possibly mean to seriously suggest that a frontend template should be deleted because it uses a metatemplate as its backend, when both templates are documented as working that way on purpose. Your "cheap redirects" case has also been dispensed with by Fuhghettaboutit, below. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    no need for a complicated template here, you simply use a redirect rather than a template. it's far less expensive than using a template with some non-standard underline text in article space. the 'hand dabbing' can actually be done fairly easily using automation. you simply create a list of all the terms, and create a redirect for 'term (cue sports)' which redirects to an anchor in the cue sports glossary. problem solved. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is currently in use across about 500 articles, and is used multiple times in many of those articles, so its total usage is in the thousands. It provides an easily made link in other articles to entries in the glossary of cue sports terms. Billiards has a massive specialized language and so articles in the area are full of terms that need linking in the easy way this template provides. See for example Masako Katsura, where I used this template 13 times, and doing so was far more economical that it would have been otherwise. That is, it is far easier to use iterations of {{cuegloss|balkline}} than it is to use [[Glossary of cue sports terms#balkline|balkline]]. Note that if this discussion were to result in delete, all of its thousands of uses must be hand dabbed before that takes place. By the way, you broke the glossary and all of the article that use this template, including the featured article I linked, when you failed to enclose the TfD template in noinclude tags (which I've fixed).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glossary has by my hasty count 645 main entries, and probably about 500 more through anchors for alternate names and spellings. Okay, so we create 1,000 plus cheap redirects. No problem. Except we can't. Not just a few – a large quantity of the glossary's entries have existing articles for the common use of the same term (entirely unrelated to their meaning in billiards), already (properly) redirect to an existing article, or are too common to redirect there. These are some entries from the beginning of the glossary's entries on "S": Safe, Safety, Sandbag, Saver, Score, Scratch, Screw, Session, Set, Sewer, Shaft, Shape, Shark, Sharp... I'm only a quarter of the way through the esses and we have 14 words that would not work as redirects. Let's try that list again, made into links, to see which are already taken: Safe, Safety, Sandbag, Saver, Score, Scratch, Screw, Session, Set, Sewer, Shaft, Shape, Shark, Sharp – oops, all of them redirect to, or are the main title for, articles on unrelated concepts.

    Note also that the form of linking through this template is slightly different than a regular link, displaying the dotted underline, which I believe uses the description list definition HTML element of <dd>...</dd>, which would not be replicated through just having a redirect to link through, even were it not impossible to use redirects for the majority, as shown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious, perhaps speedy, keep:
    1. What Fuhghettaboutit said, above – The proposed solution isn't even feasible.
    2. Templates exist to make things easier. Typing {{cuegloss|cushion}} is many times easier on human editors (consider that a typically cue sports article may have numerous glossary links of this sort) than typing [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Cushion|cushion]], and vastly easier on both human editors and the system than creating redirects like [[Cushion (billiards)]], to things like #REDIRECT [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Cushion|cushion]] {{R to subtopic}} and then manually doing [[Cushion (billiards)|cushion]] links in articles.
    3. Editor convenience is also certainly a good enough rationale to retain a "shortcut template" or "frontend" like this that pre-feeds the {{glossary link}} meta-template with a parameter and value for which glossary is being used; {{glossary link}} was intended to be used this way, otherwise all uses must begin with something like {{glossary link|glossary=Glossary of cue sports terms|...}}, repetitive typing of which might be enough to give people carpal tunnel syndrome. Probably half the templates on the system are precisely this kind of frontend solution. E.g. {{WPBio|...}} is a frontend solution to a complicated {{WPBannerMeta|PROJECT=Biography|...}} call, while {{Clarify|...}} is a shortcut way to do {{Fix|text=citation needed|...}}, and so on.
    4. A link to a article like [[Balkline]], an article about the game and its variants, would not serve a useful purpose as a replacement for a case of {{cuegloss|balkline}}, which links to a glossary article entry that has multiple definitions, only one of which is the game covered by the article. The nominator could have figured this out by spending 15 seconds to look.
    5. A terse "I don't understand why we have this, so delete it" position, with no defensible rational basis, amounts to WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT simultaneously, and constitutes a frivolous drive-by nomination without even minimal homework or judgement.
    6. Something "has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used...by others." If a template has been around without incident or objection for over six and half years, used with almost absolute consistency by multiple wikiprojects across an entire overarching topic area like this, and is well documented not just on its own page but on that of the meta-template it uses, then nominating it for deletion is very probably a poor idea.
    No valid rationale for deletion has been presented, so this should be speedily kept. Well, really, the nominator should just withdraw the nomination. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey, guys, templates I've made have been nominated here, as well, (and a meta template I use.) The D in TfD stands for Discussion, not necessarily deletion. We're all trying to improve the encyclopedia, so let's talk this out. I often deal with similar problems, myself, so I'd like to know more. My understanding is that there is a meta template used to create templates that link to a particular glossary page's sections in a specific way. There is a problem with too many transclusions, usually on the glossary page, itself, requiring that the template be substituted. There appears to be a consensus among some editors using these templates, and I would like to hear the reasoning behind it, so we can all be on the same page, so to speak. Here are the possible solutions I see, with a few quick notes to get things going:
Special case templates, like these
Pros: sets up things regular wikilinks don't, can be subst, if not transcluded
Cons: requires more processing, transclusion limit means template may effectively degrade to below solutions in some articles due to substitution
Notes: Usually, I would make the glossary page's custom template a subpage of that glossary. This would make the wikicode longer, but it's better organization. Alternatively, a subpage of the meta template would work. I think it should be a subpage because it's specialized.
Redirects
Pros: less processing needed, sometimes easier to use, rarely harder
Cons: may lead to more dabs as terms are often words with other meanings, need to be individually created
Just using page title#section links
Pros: always works, as long as section titles aren't edited, no problems with templates or need for redirects
Cons: longer, harder to use, and more confusing
Hybrid approach, using all of the above
Pros: More options to choose from
Cons: Less uniform, possibly more confusing
I'd like to hear more replies and thoughts of these solutions before I !vote. Currently, I prefer to use redirects where available, and section links as a backup, but the template looks interesting. I'm not sure I like the dotted underline when it doesn't pop up a definition, though... -PC-XT+ 03:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to subpage of glossary or meta template, or userfy - I find it hard to see merit in this template. The software doesn't support the dfn tag in this context. Redirects are preferable in various areas, such as disambiguation pages we will probably end up using, anyway, where vertical bars are discouraged. (WP:MOSDAB) The fact it's used doesn't mean it's the best method. A bot could probably replace {{cuegloss|_term_}} with [[_term_ (cuesports)|]], generating a list of needed redirect pages, which it could automatically create. If full support for the dfn tag could be realized, I'd say keep. Unfortunately, it just doesn't look complete without that. -PC-XT+ 22:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I understand how this wasn't clear, but the dfn tag is a rationale for keeping, not deletion. I was listing how it was hard, in my opinion, to find reasons to keep this template that stuck. I'm glad it got a response, though it's still a gray area for me. I've looked at whether this template would be better without using the meta, and whether the meta should have this particular front end, as brought up by Betty Logan, below, but I don't see enough to say keep, yet, though I am willing to reconsider my vote. I did make one big mistake: I actually meant to include a move option in my vote, as in my note in my list, above. I edited it in, now. If it was just me making the decision, I would actually like to somehow keep/move it, just in case I found a use for it, but haven't found enough reason to be comfortable supporting a straight keep. -PC-XT+ 22:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fuhghettaboutit. The template has a clear purpose and is very useful in easily linking to the glossary. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to believe that, after years of deployment and maintenance, this template is simply more complicated than it's worth. That cue sports are the only domain in which such a system has been adopted suggests either that cue sports are uniquely jargon-heavy or that it's simply not something that other parts of the project have deemed necessary. In more direct terms, it seems very likely that the vast majority of the existing transclusions are simply unnecessary overlinking, and that even where a link is a good idea this template's additional functionality is unnecessary. My preferred solution here would be for this to be stripped back to a bare link-creator template, and then for it to be made subst-only. That means that editors active in cue sports articles are still able to easily link to related articles where necessary, without introducing a lot of mostly unnecessary markup into both the wikitext and page output. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as a matter of fact, billiards is uniquely jargon-heavy among all sports I know. "Being in balk and on two with his cue ball in the Parker's box, the player opted for a piqué form of masse stroke to work the well known and highly difficult nursing technique involving doubling the rail near the crotch to score through repeated tickies." I would never actually write that in an article but I assure you it's a perfectly cromulent sentence. Anyway, I cannot follow the logic throughout your post. Maybe you can explain better? You say "after years of deployment and maintenance, this template is simply more complicated than it's worth." Not that it seems complicated at all, but a template that works seamlessly for six years through the software for its intended function, without any maintenance needed whatever is "not worth it" for what reason now? How do the premises support the conclusion? Likewise with the that idea that the negative evidence that other projects haven't yet emulated it implies people noticed it, considered, and rejected doing likewise for an analogous situation. This seem some antipodal species of WP:WAX. And concluding "it seems very likely that the vast majority of the existing transclusions are simply unnecessary overlinking" is specious but also pure speculation, and I do take offense considering how much of the billiard content on Wikipedia has been written by me. I invite you to look at the featured article and eight good articles I've written in this area to test your unsupported conjecture. Ultimately, I am the one who uses this template probably more than any other person on Wikipedia, and my writing would be inconvenienced without it. Deleting it will certainly have no benefit for our readers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would your writing be inconvenienced, other than to have to type {{subst:cuegloss|baulk}} rather than just {{cuegloss|baulk}}? I genuinely didn't mean any offence (your work, and that of everyone else involved in our high-quality cue sports coverage, is very much appreciated), but that doesn't mean that the argument can't be made that said articles go a little overboard in internally linking terms with which readers of domain-specific articles are by necessity already going to be familiar. "Being in balk and on two with his cue ball in the Parker's box, the player opted for a piqué form of masse stroke to work the well known and highly difficult nursing technique involving doubling the rail near the crotch to score through repeated tickies" is indeed a parseable sentence, but as you've already said we'd never employ so much jargon in a sentence here anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the argument for deleting {{Cuegloss}} is that redirects are inherently cheaper and less complicated, then why isn't {{Glossary link}} up for deletion? The real question to me seems to be whether we need a front-end on Glossary link i.e. {{Cuegloss|century break}} over {{Glossary link|glossary=Glossary of cue sports terms|century break}}. The first is easier to remember and write out and is extensively deployed across the cue sport articles, so to support the deletion of the front-end I will need convincing that the cost outweighs the convenience. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cuegloss2 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, there seemed to be a general misunderstanding of the difference between this template and {{glossary link internal}}. Given that this template is (now) unused, and demonstrated as redundant, I see no serious objections to its deletion. The performance comparisons presented debunk any deletion objections based on the relative complexity. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuegloss2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason to make a template that is intended to only be used on one page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, appears to be redundant to {{Glossary link internal}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's not. Please see Template:Glossary link internal#Transclusion limits, and revise. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    easy to fix by reducing the complexity of that template, so are you asking me to revise the false statement in the documentation? a better solution is to simply use standard anchors and anchor links. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the false statement from the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep: This is a great example of a knee-jerk TfD based on insufficient, if any, research at all into why the template exists. Koavf/Justin is incorrect; there is a very specific technical reason this template exists, long documented at Template:Glossary link internal#Transclusion limits in detail that refers to this specific Cluegloss2 template! Replacing this template with calls to {{Glossary link internal}} will break things, instantly and on many pages. PS: Koavf/Justin actually did break things instantly on many pages (thousands of cases on over 500 articles) by not noinclude'ing the TfD tags in the template code of Cuegloss and Cuegloss2; this is typically done for inline templates that appear in article prose, so that our readers are not bludgeoned in the eyeballs with weird internal WP editing notices about templates for discussion. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My comment above, for cuegloss, is meant to apply here, too. Also, one more question for internal glossary templates: Wouldn't it work to just use the meta internal template, rather than making a new one? The only parameter needed would be term, as the rest is extracted from the page it's transcluded on, correct? That is, if cuegloss2 were simply redirected to glossary link internal, would it break anything? If not, maybe just one gloss2 template would work, possibly with redirects for convenience. -PC-XT+ 03:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - here is the performance difference between {{cuegloss2}} and {{glossary link internal}}
cuegloss2 glossary link internal 
Preprocessor visited node count: 124706/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 157527/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 1600628/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 806389/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 26/40
Expensive parser function count: 22/500
Lua time usage: 0.231s
Lua memory usage: 2.16 MB

Preprocessor visited node count: 110474/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 157468/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 1399882/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 747664/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 26/40
Expensive parser function count: 22/500
Lua time usage: 0.224s
Lua memory usage: 2.19 MB
so, it seems like we can dispense with the knee jerking and conclude that we don't need cluegloss2. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expect any needed changes can be made to the one template, instead of a fork. I really don't see how this will break anything, thus no need for a fork. Feel free to provide an example, though. -PC-XT+ 04:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't get it. {{Glossary link internal}} is intended as a metatemplate, to be used inside of other templates. So the argument seems to be let's not use it as a metatemplate inside cuegloss2, but just use the metatemplate directly (which would also imply we should change the documentation at Glossary link internal entirely). But doesn't that mean that at the glossary, instead of using {{cuegloss2|entry}}, we would use instead (a few hundred times) {{glossary link|glossary=Glossary of cue sports terms|term=term|text=text}}? If that's the result then it's offensively un-parsimonious.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm asking. Does it need to be {{glossary link|glossary=Glossary of cue sports terms|term=term|text=text}} or would it be simply {{glossary link|term=term}} for the majority of the cases? If other parameters are needed, such as in non-glossary articles that have multiple uses of this term, would it be better to have an option to disable the dfn tag in cuegloss or use a different method? If I see it would be better to keep this template if cuegloss is kept, I'll amend my vote that way. -PC-XT+ 22:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually, it's just {{glossary link internal|term}}, which could be made shorter with a redirect (read the documentation for {{glossary link internal}}). this template is now unused and redundant after this edit. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox historic subdivision 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox National Natural Landmark 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, after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox National Natural Landmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox park}}. Only 53 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can come up with some examples not covered by other infoboxes. —hike395 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing the parks with the park box, the caves with the cave box, and the generic landforms with a landform box. it doesn't look like there anything else? Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Isle of Man TT course 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox historic area 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 or probably redirect to {{Infobox historic site}} after replacement.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox historic area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} various infoboxes (see below). Only 29 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full list is:

Please check my suggested replacements and amend/ add others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any major differences with {{Infobox historic site}}? We could merge this into that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox cape 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Mass Area Code 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) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mass Area Code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}; only 5 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • interesting, it looks like {{infobox area code}} is a redirect to something that I would classify as being more closely related to {{geographic location}}. seems the convention is to not use infoboxes in these articles. so, delete the infoboxes in these articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UEFA Champions League Performance by clubs 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 4. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_26&oldid=1090407737"